Post by MCDemuth on Mar 26, 2018 20:13:58 GMT -5
Olivia de Havilland's 'Feud' lawsuit against FX Networks thrown out
(Reuters) - FX Networks, a unit of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, on Monday prevailed in a lawsuit brought by Oscar-winning actress Olivia de Havilland over her depiction in a miniseries about the feud between Hollywood screen legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.
A state appeals court in California dismissed de Havilland's claims that the docudrama “Feud: Bette and Joan” falsely portrayed her as a gossip and a hypocrite, damaging her reputation.
The court said allowing de Havilland's case to proceed would interfere with the rights of authors and filmmakers to make creative works that dramatize historical events.
"Books, films, plays, and television shows often portray real people," the court said. "Whether a person portrayed in one of these expressive works is a world-renowned film star, ‘a living legend,’ or a person no one knows, she or he does not own history."
Suzelle Smith, a lawyer for de Havilland, said in a statement the decision "does not properly balance the First Amendment with other important rights" and she would appeal.
Murphy said the ruling "gives all creators the breathing room necessary to continue to tell important historical stories inspired by true events."
lite.aol.com/entertainment/story/0002/20180327/KBN1H231J_2
(Reuters) - FX Networks, a unit of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, on Monday prevailed in a lawsuit brought by Oscar-winning actress Olivia de Havilland over her depiction in a miniseries about the feud between Hollywood screen legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.
A state appeals court in California dismissed de Havilland's claims that the docudrama “Feud: Bette and Joan” falsely portrayed her as a gossip and a hypocrite, damaging her reputation.
The court said allowing de Havilland's case to proceed would interfere with the rights of authors and filmmakers to make creative works that dramatize historical events.
"Books, films, plays, and television shows often portray real people," the court said. "Whether a person portrayed in one of these expressive works is a world-renowned film star, ‘a living legend,’ or a person no one knows, she or he does not own history."
Suzelle Smith, a lawyer for de Havilland, said in a statement the decision "does not properly balance the First Amendment with other important rights" and she would appeal.
Murphy said the ruling "gives all creators the breathing room necessary to continue to tell important historical stories inspired by true events."
lite.aol.com/entertainment/story/0002/20180327/KBN1H231J_2
So, I guess entertainment, is more important than the truth, now...
I find this to be a very disappointing verdict, for all historical figures, living and dead...
Miss Ginger Rogers was a very good person, and one of the very best celebrities...
To know that any movie, can trash her good image for the sake of entertainment, and not be held accountable, is just sickening...
While, I know some people will believe these portrayals to be 100% real, unfortunately... I really do hope that most people will remember that this kind of media is just for entertainment purposes, and will take it all with a large amount of salt.
And... Hopefully, most movie makers will still try to keep history as accurate as possible...