s01e01 — The Eyes

@MrVivor: Well, if you're sure, then there's nothing to argue about)

And yet, while she was making a dash, time was up. But no one cares. We caught up with the suspense before the good ending.

@IBelkin: Nonsense.

@IBelkin: another delusion. And they sue and really win.

@Kookaburra: Will there be proofs and examples, or am I the only one who feels this way and feels comfortable in my fictional world? Dead people cannot be protected from defamation in almost any legal system (although for this context it is only important how things are done in the United States). As an example: Olivia de Havilland vs. FX (2018). Live—action actress Olivia de Havilland has filed a lawsuit against FX for her portrayal in the TV series "Feud," a work of fiction about the historical feud between two Hollywood stars. The California Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment protects the creators of the series. There is at least some chance only with real people, certainly not in the genre of fiction. And even here there are examples of the opposite, like the one I cited above. The case of dead people in fiction would never have been considered, it would never have reached court.

@IBelkin: again, nonsense with an incorrect example. Olivia de Havilland appealed in court against the illegality of using her image in the series. Her lawsuit was based on this.
Please, here is a specific example - the relatives of the deceased Jeffrey Bowers filed a lawsuit against the creators of the film "Philadelphia" for the illegality of using his biography. The claim was settled out of court.
The issue is not the portrayal of a certain person and his biography on the screen in a work of fiction, but the distortion of the biography. This applies to defamation lawsuits. Such lawsuits are both won and settled.
Look for Nona Gaprindashvili's lawsuit against the creators of the Queen's Move series, which she won.
Look for the story of the 2020 David Bowie movie Stardust. There are no songs of his in the film because his relatives filed a lawsuit and did not allow his songs to be used in the film. Yes, a lot of lawsuits. If you don't know, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Live on in your fictional world of the Fifth Amendment and alleged freedom of speech.

@IBelkin: Another high-profile example is Rachel Williams' lawsuit against Netflix and the creators of the series Inventing Anna about misrepresenting her biography and using her real name. And of course she won.

@IBelkin: and anyway, maybe I missed something like that in the credits "this series belongs to the genres of alternative history and all coincidences with real characters are accidental"?
Was there such a thing or similar? If not, then it is generally possible to sue the creators for distorting the biography of any historical person in this series.

@Kookaburra: Well, let's go... In the case of Bowie, this is not slander or defamation, but the lack of copyright immediately passes by, it does not correspond at all to what is being discussed. In the case of Nona Gaprindashvili, a living person defended herself, won, then during the Netflix appeal signed a settlement agreement with her, the victory is hers (there is an initial decision in her favor before the Netflix appeal), (I remember this case perfectly, and the woman has an extremely interesting outstanding biography), however, this does not contradict what I wrote Previously, this was not something that could be defended in court in a work of fiction. With the Bowers family, in general, the family just wanted money for using the story that she told the producers of the picture. There is no court decision. There is a pre-trial settlement. They were pushing for the illegal use of the biography Copyright Misappropriation (as you write about yourself) Unfair Enrichment Copyright Misappropriation, not defamation/defamation. Yes, there was even a False Light Invasion of Privacy, a distortion of the real story. But, I repeat, there is no court decision, and the pre—trial settlement is related precisely to the Right of Publicity - this is not about defamation/defamation, but about the illegal use of the name and history of a living or recently deceased person. The "corpse" in this case did not have time to cool down, and they had a chance precisely because of this combination of factors. (How can this be applied to this series?) And then the filmmakers recognized the very fact of using a real biography as the basis of their work, not in any way a distortion of biography or slander / defamation. In the case of real people, I can give you some examples myself, Bindrim v. Mitchell (1977), a psychologist won compensation for portraying himself in a disparaging light in a book, the character was recognizable, and he was able to prove that anyone who knew him could associate him with the character in the book. The key point was that he was ALIVE. He conducted nude group therapy, a well-known "character". Or the case of Linda Fairsteen against Netflix is a very recent example, but even here it all ended in an agreement, not a court decision, and Netflix added a disclaimer and gave money to charity. By the way, this woman is a former prosecutor for a second and alive, and even she managed to sue for exactly $0 for herself. And not the fifth, but the First Amendment, which protects the authors of artistic works. I still don't understand how you propose to sue someone for this series? If you have more relevant examples/use cases, I'm listening with my ears open. I haven't heard about Bowers, it was interesting to read, but it doesn't change the essence at all. In short, as you like to write nonsense, your examples regarding the situation with this series.

@Kookaburra: In the case of Rachel Williams, there is again a LIVING person here and there is NO court decision. Another settlement agreement. Key claim: Netflix used her real name, address, university, and employer, while other characters were given fictitious names. And even here there are no apologies, no refutations, the series is in place. The bottom line: she didn't win the trial.

@Kookaburra: I read your answers all at once, I answer each one under them accordingly. In every episode, whether it's the original series or this spin-off, there's a full-screen disclaimer at the end of the credits, which in this case is a good defense in itself. Here is his translation: "This series is an alternative story. Although some characters are inspired by real people, the characters and events depicted on screen are fictional, and any resemblance to any person's name, character, or story is purely dramatic and is not intended to reflect any real character, entity, name, or story." They are not fools to sit in Apple's legal department and receive their salaries for a reason. This disclaimer protects the creators from lawsuits as much as possible, because it explicitly states that this is an alternative story and all the characters are fictional. And regarding your examples, even if we interpret the settlement agreement as a victory for one of the parties, how convenient it is that all the time in the same direction.Even then, only Baz Aldrin and Tereshkova have a theoretical chance, and then only because they have a PULSE. Still completely at a loss, how does this relate to the hypothetical Raskova case that you started with?

@Kookaburra: Ahahah 🤣 thank you, I laughed, what a reasoned position! Have you thought about speaking at any debates? People usually sleep at night, try it, maybe it will help you. If it would take you all night (judging by this comparison) to find a couple of examples, I sincerely feel sorry for you. Don't judge people by yourself, you'll make mistakes too often. It took 2 minutes to search for examples on Google and another 15 minutes to see their essence (I remembered some of them, but I needed to clarify the details). Since I check the information first and only then start using it, I advise you to try it sometime too. Learn to work with information, a useful life skill. The point is not whether it is possible to sue, but what will come of it, I did not dispute the very possibility of trying, but whether the case will go to trial or a court decision and in whose favor is a separate question. You are the one who claims that you can sue and win, but you have ONE example of a court decision, I knew about it long before your comments, however, I did not dispute the possibility of both bringing the case to court and winning it if there is a living plaintiff. See above. You are trying to attribute victory to one of the parties in the event of a settlement agreement, although you have no idea about the progress of the case at the time of the agreement, or what lawyers advised their clients from both sides, and for which of the parties in each case the risks (both the cost of continuing the case and the likelihood of losing) in the case of The continuation of the case would be above the essence of this agreement. If for you the conclusion of an agreement with an unclear result (because they are not public), (and you did not provide public information indicating the victory of the plaintiffs) is identical to victory in court, then you need an explanatory dictionary. Simply put, you have no idea in whose favor the decision would have been made, or what either side received under these agreements, but you persist in attributing the victory to one of the parties. And you're trying to make this an argument in your favor. And you still haven't tried to explain how even these cases can be hypothetically transferred to this series. Especially considering the full-screen disclaimer, which Apple's lawyers apparently added out of stupidity. This is called "ass wagging."

@IBelkin: how many words to justify, how many emotions. And again it all came down to ass wagging. I didn't even read it.

@Kookaburra: The excellent response highlights the whole point of ALL your comments. There is a shell (words), but inside there is emptiness (without meaning and essence). Without even reading what it's about, you give the "answer" bravo. Abyrvalg.

@IBelkin: You're on fire.

@Kookaburra: I'm amused by your ignorance. ​"What Paul says about Peter tells us more about Paul than about Peter" Benedict Spinoza. Glad to meet you, Pavel.

@IBelkin: Still can't calm down? Is the fifth point still burning? Cool your petechka in a basin.
Indeed, your comments say a lot about you.

@Kookaburra: I'm just trudging along. 8 minutes, you can do better. Can you do it in 6 minutes this time ? Projection is in the terminal stage...

@IBelkin: 🤡