Someone wants $20,000 for a story I published

all_names_gone

This is a strange one indeed and looking for any advice that might help.

I write stories about the Irish Mob, without getting into it its mainly about Prohibition mobsters, so I wrote a story about the partner of a famous mobster and now the family are demanding $20,000 from me for using her name etc.

All of the information I used came from public information, books and google searches from other websites, so there is nothing I have written that isnt out there already.

I am a bit worried about it because I am an amateur writer who does this as a hobby. I attach all of the sources to every story so people can read more. I do also have contact with some authors who have written books on the subject and am using their information, they say this is just an attempt by the family to cash in.

Can anyone with a legal background give a bit of advice as how to proceed as my initial response is a two word sentence, although some authors have given a nicely worded response to send, which I will along with all of the links to any information that is out there

Effects

Sounds like some scum bags trying to shake you down.

You don't owe them anything, but you could consult some legal advice.

all_names_gone

And just to say I wouldnt have written anything unless I have researched and researched again and checked. I have written over a hundred stories but this is the first time this has happened. And I stress I wouldnt have written anything unless it was public information

I live and write from Ireland, after a search I have found the family member to live in Canada.

The Specialist

all_names_gone wrote: »

This is a strange one indeed and looking for any advice that might help.

I write stories about the Irish Mob, without getting into it its mainly about Prohibition mobsters, so I wrote a story about the partner of a famous mobster and now the family are demanding $20,000 from me for using her name etc.

All of the information I used came from public information, books and google searches from other websites, so there is nothing I have written that isnt out there already.

I am a bit worried about it because I am an amateur writer who does this as a hobby. I attach all of the sources to every story so people can read more. I do also have contact with some authors who have written books on the subject and am using their information, they say this is just an attempt by the family to cash in.

Can anyone with a legal background give a bit of advice as how to proceed as my initial response is a two word sentence, although some authors have given a nicely worded response to send, which I will along with all of the links to any information that is out there

Dear mobster family,

Please highlight what section of my article is not already publicly accessible information. Otherwise **** off.

Sincerely yours,

All names gone

nuac

Mod
Sorry, we cannot give legal advice here under forum rules.
Leaving open for general discussion subject to forum rules

Peregrinus

all_names_gone wrote: »

. . . I write stories about the Irish Mob, without getting into it its mainly about Prohibition mobsters, so I wrote a story about the partner of a famous mobster and now the family are demanding $20,000 from me for using her name etc.

Two questions:

1. If it's her family who are demanding money rather than herself, I take it the lady in question is no longer with us?

2. They're demanding money "for her name etc." What's the "etc."?

all_names_gone

Peregrinus wrote: »

Two questions:

1. If it's her family who are demanding money rather than herself, I take it the lady in question is no longer with us?

2. They're demanding money "for her name etc." What's the "etc."?

Yes its a story about the 1930's, the website is like a Wikipedia of Irish Mob stories of the characters from the 1800's to Prohibition Era and beyond, just a history project hobby thing of mine, I make no money or anything of the like, its just a hobby.

I guess demanding for using her name and telling the story, her image etc but its all public information, front page newspaper, tv interview, in good chunk of a book about this mobster.

If I can post the link I would, if its allowed in the forum rules?

all_names_gone

This is what we are talking about here, the story is made up of sources like this. This happened in 1931, its not like I have made anything up in any of this

Peregrinus

Neither her name nor the historical facts of her story belong to her living relatives.

It's possible that someobody owns the rights to an image of her that you have reproduced. No reason to suppose that that someone is her relatives, however. It would be up to them to prove this, if that's their claim.

Even if the accusation is that you have plagiarised other sources - taking not just facts and information, but actual text, from newspapers, books, TV programmes, etc - the aggrieved people there would not be her relatives, as such, but the holders of the rights to the material you copied and reproduced - authors, publishers, broadcasters, whoever.

Might be different if you take material from a book written by a relative, or if you quote material from, e.g., letters written by or to her. Even if these letters have previously been quoted (by permission) in a book, say, that doesn't mean they are now in the public domain; they belong to the rights-holders in the letters, who could well be relatives of hers. But, again, if their complaint is that you have reproduced without permission material to which they hold the copyright, it's up them to identify the material and prove that they hold the copyright.

all_names_gone

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither her name nor the historical facts of her story belong to her living relatives.

It's possible that someobody owns the rights to an image of her that you have reproduced. No reason to suppose that that someone is her relatives, however. It would be up to them to prove this, if that's their claim.

Even if the accusation is that you have plagiarised other sources - taking not just facts and information, but actual text, from newspapers, books, TV programmes, etc - the aggrieved people there would not be her relatives, as such, but the holders of the rights to the material you copied and reproduced - authors, publishers, broadcasters, whoever.

Might be different if you take material from a book written by a relative, or if you quote material from, e.g., letters written by or to her. Even if these letters have previously been quoted (by permission) in a book, say, that doesn't mean they are now in the public domain; they belong to the rights-holders in the letters, who could well be relatives of hers. But, again, if their complaint is that you have reproduced without permission material to which they hold the copyright, it's up them to identify the material and prove that they hold the copyright.

I see, that clears a lot up, the only image I am using is a screenshot from a youtube video interview she gave to a TV station in Boston I believe.

The way i have been writing stories is a combination of websites or books that have similar information on the same subject and then write the story in my own words, thats not to say I havent copied and pasted once or twice, but in this story this one I wrote from corroborating websites and books.

As far as I am aware I haven't used any information that belongs to the family, because I do state in the story that she disappeared from public life soon after this incident. And the interest in her stops then too, so before she was even married and had a family basically.

So I feel a bit more confident that this is a shakedown of some type

Bannasidhe

As a historian I have to say usually the problem is with writers of 'fiction' taking your research to write some potboiler and you are entitled to nada as non-fiction isn't protected under copyright. I seem to recall Dan Brown winning a case as it was ruled the work he allegedly mined for info was categorised as historical non-fiction and therefore he could use it.
Back when I was writing my theses on a well known Irish historical figure I received an email from an author who wrote a book on that person telling me to back off and that if I used any of 'her research' I would have to pay her. She was told to take a running jump as 'her research' is all in the public domain and I could, and would, go and look at the documents myself.
And that was the end of that.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a historian I have to say usually the problem is with writers of 'fiction' taking your research to write some potboiler and you are entitled to nada as non-fiction isn't protected under copyright. I seem to recall Dan Brown winning a case as it was ruled the work he allegedly mined for info was categorised as historical non-fiction and therefore he could use it.
Back when I was writing my theses on a well known Irish historical figure I received an email from an author who wrote a book on that person telling me to back off and that if I used any of 'her research' I would have to pay her. She was told to take a running jump as 'her research' is all in the public domain and I could, and would, go and look at the documents myself.
And that was the end of that.

Nitpick: non-fiction is protected, but it's only the author's creative work that gets protection, not any underlying facts. So if I lift chunks of the text of your thesis on, say, Michael Collins and incorporate them into my soon-to-be-released erotic thriller The Big Fella (and Do I Mean Big!), a sizzling tale of lust, violence and then some more lust in revolutionary Ireland, passing them off as my own work, that's a breach of your copyright. But if I simply repeat factual information which I learned from reading your thesis, nope. You may have discovered those facts by diligent research, but you didn't create them.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: non-fiction is protected, but it's only the author's creative work that gets protection, not any underlying facts. So if I lift chunks of the text of your thesis on, say, Michael Collins and incorporate them into my soon-to-be-released erotic thriller The Big Fella (and Do I Mean Big!), a sizzling tale of lust, violence and then some more lust in revolutionary Ireland, passing them off as my own work, that's a breach of your copyright. But if I simply repeat factual information which I learned from reading your thesis, nope. You may have discovered those facts by diligent research, but you didn't create them.

Please keep us updated on the release date.

Mr. Incognito

Hi there.

Just a few points;

1. You cannot defame the Dead.
2. The "rights" of someone's name do not exist. There are instances where a particularly story can be sold or an estate can register a trademark or copyright can be extended but this cannot be in or around more than 70 years after someone is dead.
3. You dont know that this person represents the family. This could be a common shake down scam.
4. Unless you get a letter from an actual LAWYER ignore tripe of this sort.
5. I wouldnt even bother responding.

nuac

Peregrinus
Re The Big Fella - Is there no end to your erudition?
Could I have an advance copy? Just interested in the politics of the time, and any comments by Dev aka The Long Fella:)

coylemj

all_names_gone wrote: »

I write stories about the Irish Mob, without getting into it its mainly about Prohibition mobsters, so I wrote a story about the partner of a famous mobster and now the family are demanding $20,000 from me for using her name etc.

Not asking you to copy & paste the text here, we get the general gist of the demand you have received but what kind of communication are we talking about - e-mail or letter and if a letter, was it from a legal firm?

You can probably get rid of them by simply asking them to itemise the charges they are looking to levy for your (alleged) breaches of the copyright the family claim to have rights over. And, based on the fact that the subject of your work is dead, ask them to quote the relevant authorities (acts of Congress or case law) by which they claim to maintain rights over the use of the name and/or image of a dead person. You haven't used any private family photos or diaries so they really haven't a leg to stand on.

The estate of Elvis Presely was able to assert rights over use of his image, they may feel that this applies to any dead person so they're trying it on.

all_names_gone

coylemj wrote: »

Not asking you to copy & paste the text here, we get the general gist of the demand you have received but what kind of communication are we talking about - e-mail or letter and if a letter, was it from a legal firm?

You can probably get rid of them by simply asking them to itemise the charges they are looking to levy for your (alleged) breaches of the copyright the family claim to have rights over. And, based on the fact that the subject of your work is dead, ask them to quote the relevant authorities (acts of Congress or case law) by which they claim to maintain rights over the use of the name and/or image of a dead person. You haven't used any private family photos or diaries so they really haven't a leg to stand on.

The estate of Elvis Presely was able to assert rights over use of his image, they may feel that this applies to any dead person so they're trying it on.

It was a message through Facebook initially then and message from my personal website, not the actual website that holds all of my stories. Yeah the more I think of it the more it stinks of a scam of some type to be honest.

I have an email drafted with the links to every story and book and front page newspaper of the day to send, I was waiting to get a bit more clarity before sending it, which now looks like it will be soon

all_names_gone

Another thing occurred to me today, the story and facts itself happened well before this woman in the story was even married or had children, so its possible that they have discovered a part of their grand mothers history they never knew about, the fact that she was involved with one of the biggest gangsters in Prohibition history.

And to further that, the last anyone heard of this woman she was living in New Jersey and was married but thats where the interest stops for most people

Perifect

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a historian I have to say usually the problem is with writers of 'fiction' taking your research to write some potboiler and you are entitled to nada as non-fiction isn't protected under copyright. I seem to recall Dan Brown winning a case as it was ruled the work he allegedly mined for info was categorised as historical non-fiction and therefore he could use it.
Back when I was writing my theses on a well known Irish historical figure I received an email from an author who wrote a book on that person telling me to back off and that if I used any of 'her research' I would have to pay her. She was told to take a running jump as 'her research' is all in the public domain and I could, and would, go and look at the documents myself.
And that was the end of that.

Was that on Charlie Haughey?

Avatar MIA

all_names_gone wrote: »

I have an email drafted with the links to every story and book and front page newspaper of the day to send, I was waiting to get a bit more clarity before sending it, which now looks like it will be soon

Don't engage any further. Getting a response will only encourage them.

cnocbui

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hi there.

Just a few points;

1. You cannot defame the Dead.
2. The "rights" of someone's name do not exist. There are instances where a particularly story can be sold or an estate can register a trademark or copyright can be extended but this cannot be in or around more than 70 years after someone is dead.
3. You dont know that this person represents the family. This could be a common shake down scam.
4. Unless you get a letter from an actual LAWYER ignore tripe of this sort.
5. I wouldnt even bother responding.

I thought there was a case a few years ago where a mother wasn't happy at the portrayal of her criminal son, after his death, and sued for libel and won. Was that subsequently overturned, or am I miss-remembering the outcome?

all_names_gone

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Don't engage any further. Getting a response will only encourage them.

Yes this sounds like good advice. Because I do feel it will turn into a back and forward and becoming draining.

Dial Hard

all_names_gone wrote:

It was a message through Facebook initially then and message from my personal website, not the actual website that holds all of my stories. Yeah the more I think of it the more it stinks of a scam of some type to be honest.

I don't even think it's a scam, I think they're just chancing their arm.

Ignore and move on.

Mr. Incognito

cnocbui wrote: »

I thought there was a case a few years ago where a mother wasn't happy at the portrayal of her criminal son, after his death, and sued for libel and won. Was that subsequently overturned, or am I miss-remembering the outcome?

Couldnt happen.

Not in Ireland anyway

daheff

all_names_gone wrote: »

It was a message through Facebook initially then and message from my personal website, not the actual website that holds all of my stories. Yeah the more I think of it the more it stinks of a scam of some type to be honest.

I have an email drafted with the links to every story and book and front page newspaper of the day to send, I was waiting to get a bit more clarity before sending it, which now looks like it will be soon

Unless your FB page say you wrote the story, then I'd just respond telling them they have the wrong person.


Don't respond via the website. Ignore it.

professore

nuac wrote: »

Peregrinus
Re The Big Fella - Is there no end to your erudition?
Could I have an advance copy? Just interested in the politics of the time, and any comments by Dev aka The Long Fella:)

The Big Fella and the Long Fella ... sounds more like a homoerotic thriller to me ...

Sleeper12

Obviously they aren't entitled to any money but can you refuse the mob? Are they making you an offer you can't refuse?

Sleeper12

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hi there.

Just a few points;

1. You cannot defame the Dead.

Michael Jacksons family can vouch for this

all_names_gone

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Obviously they aren't entitled to any money but can you refuse the mob? Are they making you an offer you can't refuse?

Ha, yes Ill be expecting a horse's head in my bed one day lol

LLewellen Farquarson

Or refer them to the case of Akkell v Pressdram

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html?m=1

all_names_gone

The biggest worry for me is not the actual $20,000, which is nonsensical but its the fact that they could possible have my Facebook page taken down, which I have put hundreds of hours of work into and gains about 100 new followers a week and the website which took months to put together and build up too. Thats my biggest concern, I have since spoken to the hosting company and they have assured me that unless it is illegal or I am causing trouble on their servers is only then they will act, but so far I have done neither of those things.

all_names_gone

LLewellen Farquarson wrote: »

Or refer them to the case of Akkell v Pressdram

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html?m=1

Haha love it lol

Dial Hard

all_names_gone wrote:

The biggest worry for me is not the actual $20,000, which is nonsensical but its the fact that they could possible have my Facebook page taken down, which I have put hundreds of hours of work into and gains about 100 new followers a week and the website which took months to put together and build up too. Thats my biggest concern, I have since spoken to the hosting company and they have assured me that unless it is illegal or I am causing trouble on their servers is only then they will act, but so far I have done neither of those things.

On what grounds do you think they could possibly have your Facebook page taken down???

You're giving this far too much headspace, dude. Laugh at their neck and move on, seriously.

all_names_gone

Dial Hard wrote: »

On what grounds do you think they could possibly have your Facebook page taken down???

You're giving this far too much headspace, dude. Laugh at their neck and move on, seriously.

Yes I suppose youre right about getting carried away with it.

I guess I am thinking of the obscure Facebook community guidelines that they seem to make up as they go along but again there probably is no basis for any of it and Im just getting paranoid.

Cryptopagan

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: non-fiction is protected, but it's only the author's creative work that gets protection, not any underlying facts. So if I lift chunks of the text of your thesis on, say, Michael Collins and incorporate them into my soon-to-be-released erotic thriller The Big Fella (and Do I Mean Big!), a sizzling tale of lust, violence and then some more lust in revolutionary Ireland, passing them off as my own work, that's a breach of your copyright. But if I simply repeat factual information which I learned from reading your thesis, nope. You may have discovered those facts by diligent research, but you didn't create them.

What if the "researcher" had just made up the "facts", and passed it off as non-fiction? If, for example, in the 80s you concocted some febrile conspiracy theorist's tome about paintings and virgin births which never troubled the bestsellers lists, but which years later formed the basis for a hit novel. You might then decide you wanted the world to acknowledge that you did indeed just make all that stuff up.

coylemj

all_names_gone wrote: »

I have an email drafted with the links to every story and book and front page newspaper of the day to send, I was waiting to get a bit more clarity before sending it, which now looks like it will be soon

Go easy with the volume of detail. The longer your reply, the more they will figure that you are worried and taking their claim seriously. Which may be true but you don't want them to know that.

Sometimes, less is more and I'd say this is one of those occasions. I would simply point out that all of the material you used is in the public domain and leave it at that.

The Enbalmer

It's a simple blackmail/fraud attempt.
Block communications with them via whatever media they contacted you. Do not engage further or try to reason with them.

Peregrinus

Cryptopagan wrote: »

What if the "researcher" had just made up the "facts", and passed it off as non-fiction? If, for example, in the 80s you concocted some febrile conspiracy theorist's tome about paintings and virgin births which never troubled the bestsellers lists, but which years later formed the basis for a hit novel. You might then decide you wanted the world to acknowledge that you did indeed just make all that stuff up.

If you have presented your work as factual, and other people take you at face value and treat your inventions as factual, you can't subsequently complain that they have copied your creative work. By your own behaviour, you encouraged them to believe that they were entitled to copy what they had no way of knowing was your creative work.

JimsAlterEgo

The Enbalmer wrote: »

It's a simple blackmail/fraud attempt.
Block communications with them via whatever media they contacted you. Do not engage further or try to reason with them.

or counter reply and say you have reported their communication as an attempt at blackmail

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: non-fiction is protected, but it's only the author's creative work that gets protection, not any underlying facts. So if I lift chunks of the text of your thesis on, say, Michael Collins and incorporate them into my soon-to-be-released erotic thriller The Big Fella (and Do I Mean Big!), a sizzling tale of lust, violence and then some more lust in revolutionary Ireland, passing them off as my own work, that's a breach of your copyright. But if I simply repeat factual information which I learned from reading your thesis, nope. You may have discovered those facts by diligent research, but you didn't create them.

Agree, I was oversimplifying it - the issue from the historians side is that everything you write should be based completely on the sources with any 'creativity' avoided so It's pretty much fair game. No historian is going to go to court and say 'I was being creative in that passage m'lud' which is akin to saying 'I made that bit up.' This is not to say it doesn't happen - just that no academic would ever admit to it...


This is the ruling I was referring to :

Today's appeal upheld the high court verdict, which ruled that while both books explored similar ideas this did not constitute a breach of copyright.

Copyright law protected Baigent and Leigh over the research and composition of their book, and the way the ideas in it were originally expressed, Lord Justice Mummery, one of three appeal judges, said.

"It does not, however, extend to clothing information, facts, ideas, theories and themes with exclusive property rights, so as to enable the claimants to monopolise historical research or knowledge and prevent the legitimate use of historical and biographical material, theories propounded, general arguments deployed, or general hypotheses suggested (whether they are sound or not) or general themes written about," he ruled.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/28/danbrown.books

So while a work of non-fiction may be protected in theory, it really isn't - and who has a few million to fight the case anyway?

Having read both those books, my personal opinion is that Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was very 'creative' in it's use of the material (it's the kind of work I would use in a case study module to teach students how to rigorously take a source apart - books that you could drive a bus through the gaps in research are ideal for that) and when I read Da Vinci Code I thought hang on - I've read most of this before in Holy Blood/Holy Grail.

TBH I think the warning shot across my bow was because when I looked at the documents I discovered large sections where the author did appear to get very creative in her book so if I had used any of those parts she might have had a case - all I did was reference them in footnotes and demonstrate how there was no evidence to support such flights of fancy.

Funny you should mention tales of lust, lust and more lust - I have a collection of truly awful books where my theses subject appears in just such potboilers

Peregrinus

Yeah. I think the basic point is that the actual historical facts can't be copyrighted - even if you are the person who has uncovered a previously unknown historical fact, it's not your fact; it's just a fact. And the same goes for other disciplines - scientific facts, for example.

What you have copyright in is your expression of the facts. So if people copy chunks of your text, you have a case against them. But you don't have a case if they make use of facts which they learned from reading your text - not even if your text was the only place anyone could have learned those facts.

Non-fiction authors do occasionally succeed in copyright actions. For example, if you write a maths textbook obviously the mathematical rules, principles etc that it teaches are not copyright. But if somebody copies your questions, worked examples, illustrations, etc, you have them over a barrel. But outside of cases like that, not so much.

BarryD2

The unusual aspect of this query is the subject matter. If the OP were writing about growing roses or along those lines, they can just laugh it off.

But there's the law and there's mob law. What I'd be concerned about, are not the strict legalities but whether these people are still in the game and have contacts here?

The Enbalmer

BarryD2 wrote: »

But there's the law and there's mob law. What I'd be concerned about, are not the strict legalities but whether these people are still in the game and have contacts here?

Gangsters don't make extortion attempts via email...i'd take my chances.

BarryD2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

What if the "researcher" had just made up the "facts", and passed it off as non-fiction? If, for example, in the 80s you concocted some febrile conspiracy theorist's tome about paintings and virgin births which never troubled the bestsellers lists, but which years later formed the basis for a hit novel. You might then decide you wanted the world to acknowledge that you did indeed just make all that stuff up.

That's the tricky bit, isn't it. Lazy authors taking stuff that purports to be factual but not checking it out. Easy to be on the wrong side of that.