If I were to write a book, how can I mention specific people or events legally?

I do not want to violate copyright or privacy protection laws. What would need to be done?

a reply to: Theocracy4America

Well, then don't plagiarize other's material, and change the names, and make it fiction.

OR, start doing your research and documenting it. You don't really have to worry about privacy protection if you're stating facts.

However, if you're talking about classified material or events, well, that's a whole other story.

For individuals, you could have them sign a release. I’m sure there are examples on the internet.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

You can use public quotes properly credited to source they came from...yet...if those quotes weren't factually stated or opinionated...the person you're referring to...can sue you (prob wouldn't).

Worst case you'd get a Cease and Desist order to remove all your work

Published Author
Biography
2 novels
1 Childrens

a reply to: Theocracy4America

Copyright only comes into play when you use someone else's work.
You need permission to quote others.

Taking a bit from one of trumps speaches is fine.
Taking a bit from one of his books needs permission.

As for privacy, you can use any public knowledge without any issues.

If it's true, you can say anything about a person. Libel and slander only apply if what you said or printed is false. Copyright refers to the expression of an idea, the exact words someone else writes down. You can't copyright an idea, or a title to a book. You could, for example, write an unauthorized biography of a person, using publicly available sources, and that person could not stop you.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Can I say (in better form and with better Grammer and spelling) :

According to USA Today, a Satanic Statue was allowed to be placed at yet another state capital, this time in Illinois. This time it was a devilish arm with a serpant wrapped around it, and holding an apple with a pack indicating "Knowledge is the Greatest Gift". *1 This is clearly referencing the story of Adam and Eve.

*1. www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: schuyler

Awesome. That's pretty much was I was getting at.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Then I could edit my work to comply.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

YMMV - but in MOST countries - you need ZERO permission to write a book about any real person or event

google how many " unathorised biographies " there are

originally posted by: Theocracy4America
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Can I say (in better form and with better Grammer and spelling) :

You are good to go on that paragraph. It's a paraphrase, and you're referencing your source. Presumably now you have something original to say about that.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

Fair Use

What Is Fair Use? In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

Defamation Law

"Defamation of character" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages.

Defamation and Public Officials.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Thank you. Is there a point where truthful statements can be considered libel if it is negative? Can they sue for pointing out wrongs?

a reply to: schuyler

Good, and yes, that's just sort of an example.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

As I understand it, it depends on your target. Don't go by what I think though, I'm not qualified.

Elected officials and media celebrities like talking heads on the news who give opinions I believe are pretty much fair game. Private individuals, you had better have proof.

I'd imagine a lot of it is common sense. Is it true because you think it is, or do you have actual verifiable proof.

Opinion is protected I beleive. "In my opinion" as a preamble probably protects a person.

a reply to: Theocracy4America

Yes, you can, and should be diligent and accurate in giving proper credit.

originally posted by: Theocracy4America
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Can I say (in better form and with better Grammer and spelling) :

According to USA Today, a Satanic Statue was allowed to be placed at yet another state capital, this time in Illinois. This time it was a devilish arm with a serpant wrapped around it, and holding an apple with a pack indicating "Knowledge is the Greatest Gift". *1 This is clearly referencing the story of Adam and Eve.

*1. www.usatoday.com...

Here would be my observation. The only risky area of your statement is the fact that you capitalized "Satanic Statue". Unless the statue is actually named "Satanic Statue" by the artist, or some other public figure has commissioned it as such, then referring to it in a formal way like this is likely not accurate and therefore at risk.

If your same statement didn't have the word capitalized then it becomes your opinion that the statue is satanic. If you wanted to reduce the risk even further you would say... "what appears to be a satanic statue", ...and this would remove all doubt as to whether it is an opinion or not.

a reply to: Blaine91555

It depends...

There are a number of factors. First, is the statement subjective or specific?

If I say..."John Doe is an idiot"...then that's probably okay.

On the other hand, if I say..."John Doe raped Jane Doe on June 3rd at 8:30pm behind the 7-11 and William Doe witnessed the whole thing."...then you damn sure better have proof of that statement.

Doesn't really matter if John Doe is a public figure or not.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you say "In my opinion John Do raped Jane Doe"? I think there is some gray area there.

a reply to: Blaine91555

With the whole me-too nonsense, you have to explain what rape is in your opinion I guess.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Something like that might actually make it into court, but would ultimately be thrown out. It's conjecture and speculation. Unless the person is an expert (witness), or someone who actually witnessed the event, it's all just conjecture. What a person "thinks" happened is not relevant.

In a civil court, something like this might get some traction (sadly), IF the plaintiff could prove they were materially injured by it. Oh sure, they could go down the emotional suffering path, but any competent counsel will just diffuse that with the argument that's what his client believed (right or wrong), and he meant no harm / injury by saying it. And then there's the whole fake news / internet thing.

If the defendant stood nothing to gain from it, then there was no motive for harm. However, if the defendant got paid for the statement (like say, on a TV program), then all bets are off.