Defamation in films depicting a true story

Films (including television series) based on true stories or real public figures have become increasingly common. From Elvis Presley in the 2022 ‘Elvis’ to J. Robert Oppenheimer in the 2023 ‘Oppenheimer’, filmmakers often draw on real events for content. However, legal issues may arise when these portrayals present real individuals in a negative or villainous light, harming their reputation. In such circumstances, filmmakers may expose themselves to potential defamation claims.

This article explores the legal implications of portraying real-life individuals in film, considers several well-known biographical films that have given rise to defamation claims, and outlines what steps can be taken to mitigate the risks of a defamation claim.

What is defamation and who can be sued in the context of films?

Both concern the publication of defamatory material that has caused or is likely to cause ‘serious harm’, and adversely affects a person’s / company’s reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

The distinction between the two is that libel concerns more permanent forms of publication such as print, social media posts / videos or broadcasting. Slander concerns more temporary forms such as spoken words or gestures. Since films are recorded and permanent, notwithstanding the dialogue in a film, they are covered by libel.

The person bringing a defamation claim must be the actual person who has been defamed and they must show that: (1) the defamatory remark(s) / portrayal is about them; (2) they are identified in, or identifiable from, the remark(s) / the portrayal; and (3) the words were circulated to a third party or parties.

Because defamation is a strict liability tort (which means a defendant can be liable for publishing false and harmful statements, regardless of their intent or if they have a genuine (but mistaken) belief that what is said / portrayed is true), everyone involved in the publication of the defamatory remark(s) / portrayal is theoretically liable to be sued.

This can be from the scriptwriter, through to the actors themselves, right down to the cinemas / streaming platforms involved in their release. However, in reality the likely targets are the producers or sometimes the distributors of the film. Usually, actors will have indemnities covering them i.e. a contractual entitlement that they are reimbursed for the cost of any defamation claim made against them.

The Lost King (2022 – UK)

The Lost King is a 2022 British biopic based on the 2013 book ‘The King’s Grave: The Search for Richard III’. This film depicts the story of Philippa Langley who initiated the search for the remains of King Richard III beneath a car park in Leicester, and portrays her treatment by the University of Leicester in claiming the credit for the discovery.

In February 2024, Richard Taylor (the deputy registrar from the University of Leicester) initiated legal action against the producers. He claimed that the film depicted him as acting in a “dismissive, patronising and misogynistic” manner towards Ms Langley. Furthermore, it was alleged that the producers had misrepresented the facts by portraying Mr Taylor as failing to acknowledge Ms Langley’s contribution and taking all the credit for himself and the University.

Mr Taylor’s legal representatives stated that this portrayal of him ‘had caused serious harm to his professional and personal reputations and caused enormous distress and embarrassment to him’.

The judge was satisfied that the portrayal of Mr Taylor was defamatory. The judge noted that “at no point was he represented as positive or even neutral”. The judge confirmed that whilst an individual scene may not cross the threshold for defamation, the entire film taken together “makes a powerful comment about the claimant and the way that he conducted himself”.

The case was later settled in October 2025, with the producers agreeing to pay Mr Taylor substantial damages as well as his legal costs. Furthermore, the film now includes an on-screen disclaimer at the beginning stating that the character Richard Taylor is fictional and clarifying that the real Richard Taylor “acted with integrity during the events portrayed”.

Baby Reindeer (2024 – US)

Baby Reindeer tells the ‘true story’ of a comedian that is stalked by a Scottish woman named Martha. After the release of the Netflix series, Fiona Harvey was identified by the public as the inspiration for Martha. Ms Harvey launched a defamation claim against Netflix for $170 million in a California court.

Ms Harvey claims that the Netflix show falsely depicted her as a convicted criminal who spent time in prison for stalking, calling them “brutal lies”.

A US judge ruled that Ms Harvey’s case could proceed, noting that the series has been expressly presented as a “true story”. The judge also observed that Netflix had made no effort to conceal or protect Ms Harvey’s identify or to fact-check her depiction.

Netflix has appealed this decision, arguing that Ms Harvey “does not allege a provably false statement of fact was made about her”. Given that the series claims Ms Harvey sent 41,000 messages to the protagonist, this will likely need to be evidenced in Court. Furthermore, Netflix stated that her reputation has already been tarnished by previous incidents of stalking. These US proceedings remain ongoing.

Inventing Anna (2022 – US)

Rachel DeLoache Williams, a former friend of Anna Sorokin, sued Netflix over her portrayal on the series ‘Inventing Anna’. Ms Williams alleged that the series depicted her as “a greedy, snobbish, disloyal, dishonest, cowardly, manipulative and opportunistic person”.

Her legal team highlighted that Netflix used her real name and personal details, despite assigning fictional names to several other real life individuals in the series, failing to provide Ms Williams with the same protections.

In an attempt to dismiss the claim, Netflix argued that its portrayal of Ms Willaims fell within the scope of “literacy licence” and was, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. The judge rejected this argument. A Netflix spokesperson has since confirmed that the defamation lawsuit has been settled.

Straight Outta Compton (2015 – US)

Jerry Heller, the former manager of the rap group, N.W.A, sued for $110 million following the release of ‘Straight Outta Compton’. Mr Heller argued that the film portrayed him as a “predatory” and corrupt manager. He also claimed the film falsely depicted him as being responsible for the eventual breakup of the group.

A judge later dismissed the majority of the claims, ruling that many of the events portrayed in the film were based on documented historical facts, and the case was ultimately concluded in 2018 following Mr Heller’s death.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 – US)

Former stockbroker Andrew Greene, filed a $25 million defamation claim against Paramount Pictures. He alleged that the character “Rugrat” was clearly based on him and falsely portrayed him as a “criminal, a drug user and a degenerate”. He claims that the film permanently damaged his reputation.

The case was ultimately dismissed in 2020. The judge ruled that “Rugrat” was created as a ‘composite character’ inspired by three different individuals and was therefore not intended to represent Mr Greene directly. The producers asserted that they had taken significant steps to ensure that nobody was defamed by the film, and included a disclaimer at the end of the film stating that the characters were fictionalised.

What steps can be taken to mitigate the risks of a defamation claim in film?

There has been a notable increase in defamation claims in recent years relating to films and television series based on true events. These examples highlight the importance of ensuring that real life characters are depicted accurately. Otherwise, portraying an individual in a negative or misleading light can expose anyone involved in the production of a film and television series (but mainly producers) to defamation claims.

There are steps that can be taken by those involved in the production of a film or television series to protect themselves and mitigate the risks of a defamation claim being brought against them, some of which are as follows:

1. Fact verify. It is important that the accuracy of a remark(s) / portrayal are sufficiently fact-checked where characters are based on real people. Just because something has been reported as fact in the past, does not necessarily mean it is true so independent fact checks should be carried out. You need to be satisfied you can prove that the remark(s) / portrayal of the person is true because even genuine (mistaken) belief is no defence to a defamation claim. However, one (absolute) defence is truth. Additionally, it is important that this fact verifying process is well-documented in case a defamation claim is intimated, as that evidence would become invaluable.
2. If the remark(s) / portrayal is not true, make sure it’s not defamatory. As mentioned above, one of the conditions for defamation is that the remark(s) / portrayal would diminish or undermine the person’s reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society, thereby likely to cause ‘serious harm’. If it doesn’t do this, then even if the remark(s) / portrayal is untrue, it’s not defamatory.
3. Involve the person in question. Producers can simply involve the individual who is the subject of the biopic in the filmmaking process and/or secure their consent of their remark(s) / portrayal in the film. As outlined above, the only person who can bring a defamation claim is the person who makes the remark(s) / portrayal is about, therefore obtaining their prior consent eliminates the risk of a defamation claim.
4. Make a film or remark(s) / portrayal of a real public figure who is dead. You can only defame people who are alive, and family members are not able to bring a claim on behalf of a deceased relative. If the film or television series is going to be distributed internationally, it is still important to consider if you need to check the defamation laws in other countries, but this would be one way to lessen the risk of a defamation claim in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
5. Disclaimer. You could take a commercial approach to risk by including a disclaimer. It is worth weighing up the risk of a defamation claim being brought against the benefit of keeping a remark(s) / portrayal of a person in the script or final edit of a film. If the benefits outweigh the risks, including a disclaimer for completeness may assist with mitigating the risk.
6. Indemnity. If you are an actor, cinema or someone else involved in the production of the film or television series, you should protect yourself, where possible, by ensuring you have been given an indemnity against any potential defamation claims.

If you have any questions about reputation management, defamation or privacy law then please do get in touch with Rico at rico.dexiades@ts-p.co.uk.