Mockumentary question...

Robert

Robert

So, say I'm doing a short, and I want to have a fake (but seemingly real) interview with Jimmy Hendrix from the 60's, are there any legal ramifications I should be aware of?

This is a fake interview, but nowhere in the short do I state that, so it is possible that a person seeing the short might think that it is an real interview with him from the 60's.

And for those of you who will answer only with "Talk to a lawyer", let me say in advance, "Thanks." :lol:
 
I should mention that I will be shooting the scene with an actor who looks like Hendrix. I will not be using any real footage of the real Hendrix himself.
 
Robert said:
I should mention that I will be shooting the scene with an actor who looks like Hendrix. I will not be using any real footage of the real Hendrix himself.
Click to expand...
Go for it. Just make sure that you don't use actual Hendrix footage or Hendrix music without permission. Parody is protected by the US Constitution.
I'm working on a Stanley Kubrick parody (http://kubrickparody.com) and I wrote in intellectual property lawyers from hell that quote the Supreme Court:


10. INT. ELEVATOR - DAY

BOYLE
Does it take any more than
necessary from the parodied work to
render the parody?

PRESCOTT, TUMOR
Definitely not.

BOYLE
Did it go to the heart of the work.

PRESCOTT, TUMOR
Yes.

BOYLE
Was it transformative.

PRESCOTT, TUMOR
Yes.

BOYLE
Is it clearly about the deceased
and his work?

PRESCOTT, TUMOR
Yes.

BUSINESSWOMAN
What are you talking about?

The lawyers ignore the businesswoman.

BOYLE
It’s not as if the parody
appropriates another work, say,
“The Cat in The Hat” to lampoon
another party, say, O.J. Simpson?

PRESCOTT, TUMOR
Definitely not.

BOYLE
Bah!
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
What if it's not a parody?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you're on firmer legal ground with parody. Even if you're project wasn't a parody it sounds like you'd be okay because Hendrix is a important historical figure and there is a public interest in artistic works being made concerning him. If it's a short film - and you aren't charging money to see it - it's probably no big deal.
I'd just go for it unless you are planning outright libel. Remember the law is supposed to err on the side of free expression - especially when it comes to journalism or the arts!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top