Films and television shows that are based on true stories are as old as the mediums themselves, and the legal questions they raise, including defamation, privacy, and intellectual property infringement, are hardly novel either. However, a recent trend of cases has cast light on these issues in the film and television context, serving as a reminder to writers and producers of the careful consideration that must be paid to the legal consequences of adapting a person’s life on screen.  

English law does not recognise the right to the story of a person’s life per se, so anyone can write a book or a film about an individual without their consent if the information is lawfully obtained, does not purport to be an authorised biography, and does not infringe existing intellectual property rights (such as the copyright in an existing work on the same subject). However, if facts are misrepresented, defamation issues and privacy considerations may arise.

Recent cases involving films and television series based on true stories, such as The Lost King in the UK, and Baby Reindeer in the US, explored these issues, and show how cases of this nature are gaining momentum as the volume of content creation continues to rise. 

The Lost King

The Lost King retells how the remains of Richard III were found in 2012 in a car park in Leicester. It is a dramatisation of events told from the perspective of Philippa Langley, an amateur historian shown as the driving force behind the discovery. Richard Taylor, who was at the time deputy registrar of the University of Leicester, is characterised as a roadblock to Ms Langley’s success.

Mr Taylor brought a libel claim in September 2023 against production companies Pathe Productions and Baby Cow Productions, and screenplay co-author Steve Coogan, arguing that he was misrepresented in the film.

At the preliminary issue trial on 29 February 2024, HHJ Lewis determined that the natural and ordinary meaning of the film for the purposes of the claim was as follows:

• “Mr Taylor knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public concerning the search for, and discovery of, Richard III’s remains. He did so by presenting a false account of the University’s role in the project, and marginalising Ms Langley’s role, despite her major contribution to the find.
• Mr Taylor’s conduct towards Ms Langley in respect of the project was smug, unduly dismissive and patronising.”

HHJ Lewis held that the first statement was a fact, and the second was an opinion, but both were defamatory at common law. The claimant argued that both were untrue. 

To reach his decision on meaning, HHJ Lewis separated the ‘dramatisation’ of events from documentaries or works of fiction, and stated that when considering these dramatisations the most important aspect is its overall impression on the viewer. Tone of voice and emphasis should be considered over a verbatim record of the transcript, as the viewer will watch only once: “Whilst an individual scene may not in itself cross the threshold of seriousness, taken together the Film makes a powerful comment about the claimant and the way he conducted himself when undertaking a senior professional role for a university”. 

The case was set to advance to trial, but settled on 27 October 2025. The Defendants agreed to pay Mr Taylor’s legal costs and “substantial damages”, and to add a disclaimer at the start of the film to state his portrayal was fictional and that he had acted with integrity. As part of this, a statement was made in open court that Mr Taylor was depicted in the film in a way that was untrue, which caused serious harm to his professional and personal reputations and enormous distress and embarrassment to him.

US context

Libel cases stemming from fictional representations of true stories are happening on a larger scale in the US, involving multimillion-dollar claims for damages (significantly larger than anything that could be sought in England and Wales). For example, claims relating to the portrayal of characters in television shows Inventing Anna and The Queen’s Gambit, both of which were subsequently settled. 

Most recently, the show Baby Reindeer was the subject of a lawsuit regarding the character of alleged stalker Martha. The claimant, Fiona Harvey identified herself as the inspiration behind Martha and is seeking $170 million in damages. The claims relating to negligence, right to publicity and punitive damages were dismissed in September 2024 but claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress were substantially considered in 2025 and have been halted for an appeal.

Despite the claim being brought in a different territory, the Baby Reindeer case shares certain themes with The Lost King case. Whereas The Lost King and many other films come with a disclaimer ‘based on a true story’, the heart of the Baby Reindeer dispute is that its original “disclaimer” reads ‘This is a true story’ (emphasis added). Since its release, writer Richard Gadd has emphasised that the series is not a verbatim account of events but rather a dramatic work which is ‘emotionally true’.

Identification was also a much more contested issue in the Baby Reindeer case. Although Ms Harvey was not mentioned by name in Baby Reindeer – whereas Richard Taylor was identified by name in The Lost King – she was of a comparable career, background, age, manner and tone of voice to Martha, and was identified indirectly by viewers from a tweet shown in the show that was identical to one of hers. 

Key issues in the UK

Defamation

Under English law, a person can bring a defamation claim if they are identifiable in a publication which tends to lower them in the estimations of right-thinking people generally, and have suffered resulting serious harm to their reputation as a result of the publication. In many defamation claims, there will be questions about whether what has been published is a statement of fact or opinion, and the defences available include truth, honest opinion and public interest.

Therefore, if a filmmaker can show that the film or programme was true or represented their honest opinion, they will have a defence to an action for defamation. For truth, a defendant doesn’t need to prove that every word published was true, but they must prove its essential substance (the defamatory “sting”) is true (per section 2(1) Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013)). 

The honest opinion defence is potentially available if three conditions are met: (1) the statement was an opinion; (2) the statement indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; and (3) an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of either (i) any fact that existed at the time the statement was published, or (ii) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement.

Public interest can also be raised as a defence, under section 4 DA 2013, if the statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest. However, usually this is a defence used for journalism. In this context it may be harder to argue public interest, if dramatisations use a degree of artistic licence, and this defence does not seem to have been raised in film or television cases so far.

Misuse of private information

In order to bring a claim for misuse of private information, individuals must first show they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and then that their right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR outweighs the programme producer’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The balancing of these competing rights largely depends on whether disclosing the relevant information is in the public interest, and is affected (to an extent) by whether or not an individual is in the public eye and to what extent they have publicised their own private information. Unlike a defamation claim, an interim injunction can be sought in privacy claims to prevent publication.

Intellectual property

From an intellectual property perspective, although the concept of someone’s life story cannot be protected by copyright, any memoirs, music or photographs (which are often central to biopics) are capable of being protected as literary, musical or artistic works (depending on when they were published). Therefore, permission must be granted for use (including adaptation) of such works for or in a film.

Pistol, a TV series adapted from a memoir about the Sex Pistols written by its guitarist Steve Jones, and which included the band’s music, would have had licences of the rights to the literary work and musical works respectively. Interestingly, the former Sex Pistols lead singer John Lydon (Johnny Rotten) lost a High Court battle to prevent the music from being used in the series because a contract between the band members allowed the band to make decisions about use of its music on a “majority rule basis”.

In the United States, where name and likeness rights are enshrined in the law of many states, it is not uncommon for film producers to argue that their film was an adaptation of one specific literary work to rather than a person’s life story to defend themselves against criticism for not separately obtaining consent from the relevant person. For example, the series Pam & Tommy was made without Pamela Anderson’s permission, and was instead based on a 2014 Rolling Stone article, where it was argued that the ‘basic plot beats are all straight from the article’.

Concluding remarks

Overall, The Lost King case suggests that if an individual is defamed they have recourse in court. However, cases in the UK are limited in contrast to the US. While these particular cases are libel claims, misuse of privacy and especially copyright are relevant in a film context too, in light of public appetite for watching adaptations of books on-screen.

A film’s overall impression on viewers, the identification of characters and inclusion of disclaimers are key legal considerations. Appropriate disclaimers go to the heart of whether something is defamatory, and also have the potential to affect whether or not viewers perceive a story as fact. This is shown in The Lost King, and by being the central concern in Baby Reindeer, and is emphasised by recent shows such as The Hack using particularly specific wording: “This is the story of the biggest newspaper scandal in recent British history. Some names have been changed. Some scenes and characters may have been created for the purposes of dramatization.” 

More leeway may be given when a film or television show is presented as a fictional dramatisation, rather than being based on a true story, such as with The Crown not using a disclaimer in its first four seasons and including imagined content of behind closed-doors conversations. A disclaimer was added for its fifth season following backlash, however: “Inspired by real events, this fictional dramatisation tells the story of Queen Elizabeth II and the political and personal events that shaped her reign”. 

Authors: Rebecca Hamilton, Quinn Liang & Tom Moore