Dr. Landy/Love & Mercy

[DennysDrums83]

After watching "Love & Mercy", I began to wonder about something.  The movie didn't exactly show Dr. Landy in a positive light.  I'm sure the filmmakers had to have permission from someone in Landy's family to have his name and likeness in the movie, right?  My fear would be a lawsuit if they made the film with Landy's character and didn't have permission granted from someone.  Can anyone shed any light on how this was done?  Did someone give them permission or did they just take a chance?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

[DennysDrums83]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

Thanks. With it being public record, that does make sense.  I was always under the impression that you did have to give permission for something like that.

[nakostopoulos]

To be blunt, it helped that Landy died in 2006. Once you've shuffled off this mortal coil, no need to worry about life rights.

Now, there is always the possibility that the living family of a deceased person could sue for defamation (as in, curiously, the case of the Arabian sheikh Auda Abu Tayi's family suing the producers of "Lawrence of Arabia"); but in the case of Landy, regardless of what you thought of the tone of the portrayal (a bit too hammy for my taste, but a small quibble), the filmmakers were careful to research the basic facts.

Evan Landy may think his father wasn't a monster, but he'd probably have a very hard time with convincing a judge that: Brian was not severely and improperly overmedicated, and that Landy did not make himself the benefactor of BW's will.

Point: if it's not libelous, there's no case.

[John Malone]

To be blunt, it helped that Landy died in 2006. Once you've shuffled off this mortal coil, no need to worry about life rights.

Now, there is always the possibility that the living family of a deceased person could sue for defamation (as in, curiously, the case of the Arabian sheikh Auda Abu Tayi's family suing the producers of "Lawrence of Arabia"); but in the case of Landy, regardless of what you thought of the tone of the portrayal (a bit too hammy for my taste, but a small quibble), the filmmakers were careful to research the basic facts.

Evan Landy may think his father wasn't a monster, but he'd probably have a very hard time with convincing a judge that: Brian was not severely and improperly overmedicated, and that Landy did not make himself the benefactor of BW's will.

Point: if it's not libelous, there's no case.

A dead person cannot be libeled or slandered.

This also explains why Evan and the others had inconsequential roles, mostly unnamed. And, Alexandra is nowhere to be found.

[DennysDrums83]

Thanks for the feedback.  Like I stated, I wasn't sure how that worked.  It definitely makes sense now.

To be blunt, it helped that Landy died in 2006. Once you've shuffled off this mortal coil, no need to worry about life rights.

Now, there is always the possibility that the living family of a deceased person could sue for defamation (as in, curiously, the case of the Arabian sheikh Auda Abu Tayi's family suing the producers of "Lawrence of Arabia"); but in the case of Landy, regardless of what you thought of the tone of the portrayal (a bit too hammy for my taste, but a small quibble), the filmmakers were careful to research the basic facts.

Evan Landy may think his father wasn't a monster, but he'd probably have a very hard time with convincing a judge that: Brian was not severely and improperly overmedicated, and that Landy did not make himself the benefactor of BW's will.

Point: if it's not libelous, there's no case.

A dead person cannot be libeled or slandered.

This also explains why Evan and the others had inconsequential roles, mostly unnamed. And, Alexandra is nowhere to be found.

[marcusb]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

If this is the case, why in the movie "The Buddy Holly Story" could they not depict the real Crickets? I thought I had read that they had sold their rights or something for another movie already but I always wondered about this.

[DennysDrums83]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

If this is the case, why in the movie "The Buddy Holly Story" could they not depict the real Crickets? I thought I had read that they had sold their rights or something for another movie already but I always wondered about this.

Jerry Allison and Joe B. Mauldin had signed their names away for an aborted film called "Not Fade Away".  The filmmakers changed their names to Jesse and Ray Bob to avoid legal action.  Jerry Allison even referred to "The Buddy Holly Story" as a "horrible movie", saying he didn't see anything that was right.  I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan and it's a good fictional account of his life.  Sadly, if you base everything you know about Buddy on the film, then you really don't know anything about Buddy Holly. 

[marcusb]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

If this is the case, why in the movie "The Buddy Holly Story" could they not depict the real Crickets? I thought I had read that they had sold their rights or something for another movie already but I always wondered about this.

Jerry Allison and Joe B. Mauldin had signed their names away for an aborted film called "Not Fade Away".  The filmmakers changed their names to Jesse and Ray Bob to avoid legal action.  Jerry Allison even referred to "The Buddy Holly Story" as a "horrible movie", saying he didn't see anything that was right.  I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan and it's a good fictional account of his life.  Sadly, if you base everything you know about Buddy on the film, then you really don't know anything about Buddy Holly. 

I know it's not a factual telling of Buddy Holly but my question is why they couldn't use their names if they didn't need permission.

[DennysDrums83]

Landy's actions with regard to Brian are public record, thus his family could hardly have a problem with how he's (accurately) presented... and no, you don't need anyone's permission to portray them in a movie, or a book.

If this is the case, why in the movie "The Buddy Holly Story" could they not depict the real Crickets? I thought I had read that they had sold their rights or something for another movie already but I always wondered about this.

Jerry Allison and Joe B. Mauldin had signed their names away for an aborted film called "Not Fade Away".  The filmmakers changed their names to Jesse and Ray Bob to avoid legal action.  Jerry Allison even referred to "The Buddy Holly Story" as a "horrible movie", saying he didn't see anything that was right.  I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan and it's a good fictional account of his life.  Sadly, if you base everything you know about Buddy on the film, then you really don't know anything about Buddy Holly.  

I know it's not a factual telling of Buddy Holly but my question is why they couldn't use their names if they didn't need permission.

I knew what you were asking.  The filmmakers were also afraid that they may face legal action from Allison and Mauldin for the simple fact that the movie wasn't factual.  That's why I included the information about the movie not really being true.  They had given permission to Twentieth Century Fox for the "Not Fade Away" project.  It was actually supposed to be a fictional account of what happened on tours.  They weren't going to pass it off as "true" like with "The Buddy Holly Story".  Jerry Allison said that no one involved in "The Buddy Holly Story" knew the truth.  They weren't consulted, for whatever reasons.  From what I've read over the years, the primary source for the film was Maria Elena, Buddy's widow, who had known him for less than a year before he was killed.  So if the filmmakers were afraid of legal action from The Crickets, they obviously knew the film was fiction.  I do think that there was a law suit at one time, shortly after the movie came out.  Other than a mention of it in a Rolling Stone article in 1978, there isn't much information out there about it, which makes we wonder if the matter was settled out of court.

[petsite]

I have read more than one interview with Brian and Bill P. that they felt more at ease pursing this movie BECAUSE Landy had passed away. Several people said if he were still around and healthy, lord knows what he might have done.