Hello everyone,

today we will talk about live story purchase agreements.

Life story purchase agreements have become a crucial part of the entertainment industry, particularly for filmmakers, studios, and streaming platforms that seek to adapt real-life narratives into films, television shows, and documentaries. These agreements allow producers to secure the rights to an individual’s life story, ensuring exclusive access to their experiences, memories, and sometimes even their persona for adaptation into a script or screenplay. While such agreements can be complex, the legal frameworks governing them vary significantly between New York and California. Understanding the key differences in contract formation, enforceability, and statutory protections in these jurisdictions is essential for entertainment attorneys, producers, and rights holders.

Contract Formation and Enforceability

New York and California both recognize the validity of life story rights contracts, but they approach enforceability differently, particularly in relation to considerations of public policy, First Amendment protections, and contractual obligations.

In New York, life story purchase agreements are generally enforceable as long as they meet the standard requirements of contract law, including offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. However, New York courts tend to prioritize contractual freedom, meaning that once a contract is signed, courts are more likely to uphold the terms unless there is a clear violation of public policy, fraud, or duress. That being said, New York law places a strong emphasis on personal rights and privacy laws, which can sometimes restrict the scope of life story agreements, particularly in cases where the agreement infringes on an individual’s right to control their likeness and personal history.

In California, life story purchase agreements are governed by a more robust legal framework, influenced by the state’s strong entertainment industry and its well-established laws on publicity rights. California’s right of publicity laws, which provide protections even after an individual’s death, can complicate negotiations surrounding life story purchases. Under California Civil Code Section 3344.1, an individual’s likeness, name, and image remain protected for 70 years after death, which means that agreements involving deceased individuals may require additional clearances from their estate or heirs. Furthermore, California’s strong stance on unconscionable contracts can result in greater judicial scrutiny if an agreement is deemed overly one-sided or exploitative.

Right of Publicity and Privacy Considerations

The right of publicity is a critical legal doctrine in life story purchase agreements, and its application differs significantly between New York and California.

In New York, the right of publicity is governed by Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, which restrict the commercial use of an individual’s name, likeness, or voice without their written consent. Unlike California, New York historically did not recognize a posthumous right of publicity, meaning that once an individual passed away, their likeness was no longer protected under state law. However, in 2021, New York amended its laws to grant posthumous rights of publicity for individuals whose names or likenesses have commercial value. This change brings New York closer to California’s model, though key differences remain, particularly in how enforcement is handled and the scope of protection.

In California, the right of publicity is much broader and provides significantly more protection to individuals and their estates. Under California Civil Code Section 3344, an individual’s name, likeness, signature, and voice cannot be used for commercial purposes without their permission. The extension of these rights for 70 years post-mortem under Section 3344.1 makes California one of the most protective states in terms of life story rights. This means that life story purchase agreements in California often involve more negotiations, particularly when dealing with the rights of deceased individuals. Filmmakers and studios must ensure that all proper consents are secured, which can sometimes require negotiations with multiple heirs or estate representatives.

First Amendment Considerations and Exceptions

Both New York and California recognize that life story purchase agreements must be balanced against First Amendment protections, particularly when the adaptation of a life story takes the form of a fictionalized or journalistic work.

In New York, courts have generally been more protective of journalistic freedoms, often allowing filmmakers and writers to create works based on real-life individuals without necessarily obtaining their consent, as long as the portrayal falls under the category of newsworthy material or expressive works. For example, documentaries, biographies, and historical dramatizations are often protected under New York’s broad interpretation of the First Amendment. However, if a film or television project commercializes a person’s name or likeness in a way that misleads the public or implies endorsement without consent, then legal claims for misappropriation or false endorsement may arise.

California, despite its strong right of publicity laws, also provides significant First Amendment exceptions for expressive works. Courts in California have ruled that creative works, such as films, books, and television programs, are generally protected forms of free speech. However, California courts are more likely than New York courts to recognize the transformative use defense, which evaluates whether a work meaningfully transforms a person’s likeness rather than merely exploiting it for commercial gain. If a filmmaker significantly alters a real-life story through fictionalization, the likelihood of facing a right of publicity claim is reduced, though this does not eliminate all risks.

Industry Implications and Best Practices

For entertainment lawyers, producers, and screenwriters operating in either New York or California, understanding these differences is crucial for structuring life story purchase agreements that minimize legal risks while ensuring enforceability.

In New York, contracts tend to be more straightforward but may require additional safeguards against claims of false endorsement or defamation. Legal practitioners should ensure that any agreement includes comprehensive release clauses, indemnification provisions, and waivers of claims to prevent disputes over portrayals in films or television adaptations.

In California, the negotiation process is often more complex due to its stronger right of publicity laws and posthumous protections. Life story purchase agreements in California should always include explicit publicity rights clearances, particularly when dealing with estates of deceased individuals. Additionally, filmmakers and studios should be prepared to argue transformative use defenses if they face legal challenges over the portrayal of real-life individuals.

Conclusion

Life story purchase agreements serve as essential legal instruments in the entertainment industry, shaping the way real-life narratives are adapted for film and television. While both New York and California uphold these agreements, their legal frameworks differ in crucial ways, particularly regarding enforceability, publicity rights, and First Amendment protections. New York’s laws offer more flexibility for journalistic and expressive works, whereas California’s robust right of publicity laws provide greater protection to individuals and their estates. Understanding these nuances is essential for entertainment professionals who seek to navigate the complexities of acquiring and adapting life stories while ensuring legal compliance and minimizing potential disputes.

This post is written by lawyer Ernest Goodman, but it is not a consultation and should not be considered legal advice.

.