# Changes Because of Negative Writing



## S1E9A8N5 (Jun 4, 2010)

When you are writing about an Administration (or any mainstream business or Corporation), should one change the name if what you're writing is negative about that Administration etc?

For example.  The FDA are the bad guys in my story.  They're going to be judge, jury, and executioners if you oppose their beliefs.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

Are you afraid the FDA or FBI or CIA will sue you for badmouthing them?

They've seen worse, believe me.  Since you are in the position to change things, you are talking about fiction. It's not a problem.  Think about how many evil government agents you've seen in films and literature.

Some people say things like "some government agency so secret they didn't have inititals" or some such in order to get vague...but that's so they can be unrealistic, not escape lawsuits or assassins or whatever.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Jun 4, 2010)

lin said:


> Are you afraid the FDA or FBI or CIA will sue you for badmouthing them?
> 
> They've seen worse, believe me.  Since you are in the position to change things, you are talking about fiction. It's not a problem.  Think about how many evil government agents you've seen in films and literature.
> 
> Some people say things like "some government agency so secret they didn't have inititals" or some such in order to get vague...but that's so they can be unrealistic, not escape lawsuits or assassins or whatever.


Alright.  Thanks Lin.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

I mostly agree with Lin. Administrations (or government departments) have been written about so much that there's very little you could put down that will anger them in any way. You also mentioned mainstream businesses or corporations and although not pertinent to your story (from what you have said) I believe this is worth mentioning. 

Branches of the government or law enforcement services do not have to worry about there reputations. We are not in a situation where people will stop using the police force, for example, because one book portrays them as all corrupt alcoholics. If you are mentioning a real individual (a member of the government perhaps) you might want to think about renaming them so as not to be defamatory. The same is true for corporate institutions. Both individuals and corporations will, ultimately, trade on there reputations. People will buy products based solely on there opinions of the companies. It is entirely possible that McDonnalds would sue if they were mentioned in a book in a way that could hurt there company. They probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were mentioned in passing:

_"He pulled in to the McDonalds drive through."_

You might be standing on a little shaky ground if you used the following, however:

_"He pulled in to the McDonalds drive through. The food was appalling but he had to curb his appetite or risk falling in to a coma."_

Even though the line is opinion, you could be said to be condoning the view that McDonald's food is appalling. Of course, that could be argued but isn't my place to comment about. Especially since I have eaten more than my fair share of them in the past. Finally you would have complete libel:

_"He ate the McDonalds, knowing they were responsible for the deaths of thirty-six thousand migrant workers each year"_

... which of course they aren't!

It might be great for the story but that _could_ end up getting you sued. Speaking of which, obviously all of the above examples are for illustration only and are in no way meant to defame McDonalds, a company which I frequent fairly regularly. Other fast food giants are available.

Was any of that useful? Probably not, I'm rather tired and I'm not sure I'm making much sense anymore. Anyway, it's there just in case someone feels they need clarification.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 5, 2010)

I wouldn't be concerned. I'm more worried about the people in my life who are going to recognize themselves in my novel, should it see the light of day. I think I might prefer that the FDA or CIA or whoever have it in for me.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 5, 2010)

Then there are the people who think they recognise themselves. I have spent a lot of time saying "It's only a story, I made it up" and hearing people say "But ... " trying to prove to me it was about them, idiots.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

> "He ate the McDonalds, knowing they were responsible for the deaths of thirty-six thousand migrant workers each year"



Still not suit-bait.  It's a character in a work of fiction.


----------



## seigfried007 (Jun 5, 2010)

To sue, a company has to prove tangible loss expressly because of the piece. McDonald's can't sue unless you hurt their sales by a pretty good margin or have it set up as a work of non-fiction exposing an untrue crime (like using migrant workers as meat patties).


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

This sort of thing crops up on writer sites a lot. 
There is a sort of accelerated concern for dangers of writing, fed by people who like to one up things.
So you end up reading that agents get together and blacklist writers who submitt simultaneously, that publisher search diligently to see if part of a work has been posted on the internet so they can spike the submission, that you can get sued for virtually anything.

In point of fact... it's an extremely negligible concern.  And one more of Unk Lin's List of Stuff Writers Should Totally Ignore.

Here's one quick test.  Have you ever heard of a writer being successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?

Here's the clincher:  if you don't publish your story, it's not an issue.   If you do get it published, the publisher will determine the degree of legal liability they might face.


----------



## thewordsmith (Jun 5, 2010)

seigfried007 said:


> To sue, a company has to prove tangible loss expressly because of the piece. McDonald's can't sue unless you hurt their sales by a pretty good margin or have it set up as a work of non-fiction exposing an untrue crime (like using migrant workers as meat patties).



Close, but ...
There is an old adage in the legal world... "Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean they are right."
In that light, were you to say something grossly negative about a well-known (or even less well-known) entity, they _can_ sue you and they have a variety of causes from which to choose. The simplest of which would be slander and/or libel. Even in a work of fiction, you have to tread lightly to avoid stepping on toes. Furthermore, an entity such as McDonald's (since we're using that company) Doesn't have to prove that you have put their company in a bad light in order to sue you. Now, in all likelihood, a court would tell them to go home, wipe their collective snotty noses and get over it. But you would still be put in the position of having to defend yourself along with the incumbent legal costs. So, in a case where you are dealing with hamburger joints, you might want to steer clear of mentioning Mickey D's by name if they are going to be grinding people up and turning them into McYuckies.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Again, can you cite a single instance of this?


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

Some pertinent links:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/736460--actor-sues-anonymous-wikipedia-writer-for-libel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...bel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/fiction.html
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/11/libel-in-fiction.html


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Well,  no they aren't pertinent at all.  The first two refer to instances of publishing purported fact in information sources.  
The third is some wool-gather about ethics, not law.
The last is actually about libel in fiction, and it was dismissed as frivolous.

I repeat the question:  Have you ever heard of a writer being successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

Sorry Lin, but they are all pertinent in some way:

The first story, even though not about fiction, does illustrate that you can sue literally anyone, even if you don't know who they are.
Story two serves to outline some of the problems in the British system, passages like the one below:



> A study by Oxford University found that English libel cases cost over  one    hundred times more than those on mainland Europe. This is even more  shocking    when you bear in mind that defendants can still be £100,000 out of  pocket    even if they win because there are always legal costs that cannot be    recouped from the other side. And, of course, nobody ever recovers the  lost    time.


Which is an important point to make. Don't think that this is irrelevant if you're not in another country. Although our libel laws are tough, they are not a million miles behind those in the US.

From the third story, not just "wool-gather about ethics":



> Harper’s Magazine recently has been serializing John Robert                    Lennon’s Happyland, a zany satire about Happy Masters,                     the founder of a doll company who uses her fortune to  finance                    the renovation of Aurora, New York, home of an  all-female Wells                    College. The problem was that a woman named Pleasant  Rowland,                    the founder of the American Girl line of dolls, sold  the line                    to Mattel for $700 million and formed a foundation to  oversee                    renovations in Aurora, New York, and Wells College,  her alma                    mater. Happyland was originally scheduled for  publication by                    Norton, but in an August 27 New York Times article  Lennon claimed                    that when he “handed in the final draft in mid-January                     2005, ‘I wasn’t in touch with my editor anymore, I                    was in touch with a lawyer . . . They were asking me  to remove                    any reference to dolls or a doll company. I basically  refused.’”                    And Norton backed out, as did Lennon’s British  publisher,                    Granta. Was it that Pleasant Rowland cannot be  considered a                    public figure, or that thirty years after the  appearance of                    The Public Burning we are a far more litigious society  in which                    uncomplimentary resemblances in print are sure to  invite a subpoena?


And in the last story; the "The Red Hat Club" case was not dismissed as frivolous:



> A Georgia jury has ruled that Haywood Smith, author of the bestselling novel "The Red Hat Club," libeled a former friend who had served as inspiration for a character portrayed as a sexually promiscuous alcoholic. The jury awarded $100,000 in damages to the plaintiff, Vicki Stewart.





> I repeat the question:  Have you ever heard of a writer being  successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?


I put it to you that it doesn't matter whether someone has been  _successfully sued_ or not if you can be left out of pocket just from the trying of the case.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

No apologies necessary.
They are NOT pertinent to the matter.
The fact that you can file a lawsuit has nothing to do with what I said..   Cite me one single case of somebody being successfully sued for mentions in fiction.

And no, you don't have to be out of pocket.  I've been sued three times for various bullshit.  I walked into court on my own, told them the story and they laughed it out of court and I walked.

This is just not something anybody needs to worry about.

I don't understand where there's this whole internet cottage industry of trying to get young writers filpped out about things that are non-existent or totally inapplicable.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

BTW... I could just as easily say that if you can be sued for anything, and feel like that needs to be avoided, then you should publish anything.  In fact, probably shouldn't open your mouth or come out of the house.

This is what's known as perspective.  As opposed to what is known as _reductio ad absurdum_


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Ah, you're correct about the Red Had trial.  It got up to Georgian Supreme court and won after early reversals.

So, yeah.  I guess if you take a person and paint an untrue but recognizable picture of them in a novel you can lose.

Not quite the same as FBI or MacDonalds or whatever.


And that makes the fourth of the citations pertinent, of course.

I continue to feel that it's not something to worry about.  Any more than getting struck by lightning if you drive a Hyundai.
Which has also happened.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 6, 2010)

> No apologies necessary.
> They are NOT pertinent to the matter.


Well, that is your opinion. It is my opinion that they are. I suggest that anyone else reading the thread can make up there own mind based on the previous discussion.



> And no, you don't have to be out of pocket.  I've been sued three times  for various bullshit.  I walked into court on my own, told them the  story and they laughed it out of court and I walked.


Have you ever been sued for Libel?



> So, yeah.  I guess if you take a person and paint an untrue but  recognizable picture of them in a novel you can lose.
> 
> Not quite the same as FBI or MacDonalds or whatever.


Actually, it is the same. There is no separate law that covers corporate institutions or government bodies. If they can prove defamation they now have a case as well as case law to support them.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 6, 2010)

I'd be mighty surprised if there were any cases where a government agency sued a private citizen for libel. Does that happen? There are countless works of fiction where the FBI, CIA, IRS etc. are painted in a not very good light -- so it seems unlikely to me.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 6, 2010)

I think Lin is right, I wish I could remember the name but I read a futuristic novel a while back where corporations had taken over from governments, the heroine wore a barbie sim code tattooed on her cheek, people tried to get their kids into Mattel school because Macdonald school was crap and took the name of the company they worked for, the villan was John Nike. If you can get away with that ...
 I must try and find out what it was, it was an excellent book and deserves the credit, Max someone was the author I belive and it was published by Littlebrown, scurries off to dig.


----------



## darknite_johanne (Jun 6, 2010)

and there's this moive by milla jovovich and bruce willis where macdonald girls are portrayed looking like a whore. so I think that ain't bad.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 6, 2010)

> Have you ever been sued for Libel?


 
Yeah, as a matter of fact, defamation of character.    Also theft of ideas--a blatant "nuisance lawsuit" to head off a competitor.
Both were literally laughed out of court.  By literally, I mean the judge was laughing.
OK

And yeah, there is a difference between individuals and MacDucks or the CIA.   Big ones.   That's why these things don't happen.   Some friend spat getting lucky is one thing. 

Again...this is a very alarmist view, of little impact to writers.



> I suggest that anyone else reading the thread can make up there own mind


 
Actually, I kind of always assume that.  Don't you?


Oh, by the way.  I have been remiss here.


I was wrong about my comments on your link to the Red Hat case.  I apologize for contradicting you when I was in error.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Jun 6, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> I must try and find out what it was, it was an excellent book and deserves the credit, Max someone was the author I belive and it was published by Littlebrown, scurries off to dig.


Hope you find it.  I'm always looking for futuristic (utopia, dystopia, post apocalyptic etc.) novels.  Sounds like it could be interesting.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 6, 2010)

I've wondered about this sort of thing because I like to write about the company I work for. We're a pay-day loan/pawnbroking company. Pretty wide spread. I believe Canada and the UK also have Cash Converters, though I know we're not in the US.

Given the right amount of success I could defame them to the point of hurting their business, maybe. Although most of the clientele probably don't read haha.

I'm not going to worry about it until I have something substantial to go forward with, I just wonder. I know they can sue me. I guess I'd just have to be aware of what I can do on my end to ensure they have no real grounds.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 6, 2010)

In that case, I would certainly have a fictitious company of a different profile.  This is actually for artistic freedom, as much as anything.  You usually end up moving things around to suit the story, anyway.  This is what's commonly done by most writers, I would say.  
But whereas it makes sense to invent a company that's kind of like Brinks, but not completely, it doesn't make much sense to invent a something that's kind of like the FBI, but not quite.

And, again... the ultimate decision goes to the publisher (and their counsel) so we don't have to worry our pretty heads.


----------

