I bailed on Netflix’s Baby Reindeer series mid-way through the second episode, and wish I had quit earlier. I found the sordid tale of a dim-witted would-be stand-up comic and the sociopathic woman who stalked him too unpleasant and infuriating to stomach. I think I’d rather watch cattle be slaughtered. For some reason the thing is popular, however, and now it’s the object of a lawsuit.
Fiona Harvey, who says she is the real life inspiration for the series villain, the stalker Martha, has filed a $170 million lawsuit against Netflix alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence and violations of her right of privacy.” [ NOT “right of publicity,” which is how I managed to type it first time around.]” The sum includes totals for damages, “loss of enjoyment and loss of business” plus “all profits from ‘Baby Reindeer’.”
The problem appears to be that the Netflix series begins with the legend, “This is a true story.” Not “Based on a true story,” or “Mostly true” or “based on actual events,” but just a “true story.” Of course, it obviously isn’t completely true, because the names of the characters are different. What does an audience member reasonably take from that statement in a dramatic work that is not presented as a documentary? I know what I take from it: nothing at all.
It may be true, it may be sort of true, or the statement that the story is true may just be an artifice to fool the audience and make them more involved. Many, many horror movies begin with statements that the story is true, and it is always complete hooey. “Fargo,” a great film, begins, “THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987.” They did not take place, however. The tale was inspired by an embezzlement scheme similar to the one that launches the carnival of errors that is “Fargo,” but there was no kidnapping, no murders, no wood-chipper. The real life model for William Macy’s pathetic character didn’t sue the Coen Brothers for making him out to be a bungling fool.
Moreover, would Fiona have suffered from the film if she didn’t go on TV and make certain everyone knew that Martha was her?
It is being said that the lawsuit will make future films avoid false or exaggerated “This is a true story” intros. That would be a shame, a genuine limitation on a useful tool of artistic license. I think the real lesson of the Martha/Fiona problem is that if your artistic work is likely to activate a wacko who is running loose, take appropriate precautions.
Ethics Alarms 
The problem with this case is that fans of the show, so-called “internet sleuths”, used the internet to determine that Fiona Harvey was the person dramatized in “Baby Reindeer” and began harassing her based on her portrayal in the series. She says that the show unfairly characterized her and led to the harassment.
This will probably be an issue going forward, since fans of movies and television can’t let anything go and just enjoy the entertainment.
Ever see “Don’t F**k with Cats?” Fascinating documentary on internet sleuths.
At this point, I would hope that audiences would realize that being inspired by a true story is not necessarily the same as being 100% authentic. Creative license is something everyone should understand.
However…
The fiction I write is, for the most part, based on actual events and people. But as soon as you put actual events and people into fictional works, they become plots and characters and simply are no longer their original sources. Making a cogent piece of fiction changes both events and people beyond recognition. The author goes inside the characters and creates them anew according to the logic dictated by the piece of fiction and the point the author is trying to make by writing it.
The Da Vinci Code opened with four ‘Facts’ in the frontispiece; each of which was false!
There are people who actually believe the story, despite Brown specifically saying within the story itself that people love a conspiracy theory!
You’d love to think the courts would throw this case out so hard that Harvey would get concussion; but ……..
Brown does that in other novels as well, much to the chagrin of Brown Haters. “Angels and Demons” is full of “true” assertions that aren’t. There’s a whole book about them, and it’s better than the novel!
Brown does take considerable license with facts and/or the truth. His books are fun to read, though “Origin” was terrible. “Digital Fortress” was very interesting as it talked about AI and cybernetics.
jvb
PS: Why isn’t WordPress sending me new posts or comments to posts? I feel unloved, unwanted, and unappreciated.
jvb
I found Digital Fortress to be execrable. As bad as he is with the facts when it comes to things like church history, cryptography has rather less room for alternative interpretations. It’s like deciding 2+2=4 doesn’t work for your storyline, so you tell the reader 2+2=3 instead and hope they don’t notice.
“Violations of her right of publicity” seems a rather apt slip of the fingers.
Now how did THAT slip by? Anyway, fixed. Thanks.