Disclaimer of a movie: Can it really save the producers?

Question

It is usual in films to use Disclaimer in it to

reduce the possibility of legal action for libel from any person who believes that he or she has been libeled via their portrayal in the work (whether portrayed under their real name or a different name).

A sample disclaimer looks like:

All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

The wording of this disclaimer differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from country to country, as does its legal effectiveness.

Now my question is if everybody knows that it is made to get saved from any legal action from the person, the movie indicated to, why do people allow to use it?

Actually, I think the disclaimer is an intelligent lie. The whole plot is intentional. Sometimes we have also seen in movies that the president of different countries(specially USA) are shaded falsely.

So if different countries thinks they would sue them, can producers be saved from international law?

Again if a renowned person thinks a movie falsely showed him, can he not sue him because of the disclaimer?

If there is any example, please add them. It would be informative.

Answer 1

Well, think about this. If you make a movie with that disclaimer and someone sues you, what's going to happen in court?

Now, it's true that things (especially legal things) change from country to country, but I think it's safe to assume that your lawyer will say that you always stated that everything was fiction, and that all characters were fictitious and didn't intend to ruin anyone's reputation in the real world.

If the president in your movie is corrupted, you're not necessarily saying that the real one is too. You just want to preserve your freedom of creation, by saying "in my movie/story the president is corrupted", that's all. A movie cannot be constrained by real world issues up to that point. Sure, there are some limits but those usually coincide with balance and common sense.

If your movie is about a John Smith that robs a bank in New York, and you don't use the disclaimer, it's very likely every single John Smith will sue you for that. But if you use the disclaimer, why should they? Your movie uses that name but refers to a completely invented character.

Sure, you'd be doing that with or without the disclaimer, but the disclaimer is not for you, but for the others.

Furthermore, the disclaimer doesn't deny people from suing you, it might happen, but it will certainly help both before lawsuits (people won't care, after all, you said all characters are fictional), and during lawsuits (you have a sort of saving-device that might help you win the cause). Yes, it's legally effective, but only meaning that will help you in case of lawsuits, not that people will be 100% prevented from suing you.

Answer 2

The New York Times asked that question about Mark Zuckerberg and the movie The Social Network:

... how can filmmakers take liberties with the story of a living person, and does that person have any recourse if the portrayal upsets him? After all, many movies run a legal disclaimer in the credits that says, “Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.”

[...]

When it comes to public figures, lawyers say, appropriating someone’s life story for a movie is not so different from telling such details in a news article or printed biography.

• Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer, says “a moviemaker is not going to get less protection than a journalist. If they’ve got sources and depositions and the like, and they use it in a reasonably fair way, they are likely protected.”

• Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, law school, said that if Mr. Zuckerberg sued and was declared a public figure, he would then “have to show that the filmmakers knew the statements were false, or were reckless about the possibility of falsehood.”

---

Screenwriter John August puts it this way for non-public figures:

Let’s say the movie has an evil drug dealer named Joe Thompson. If some guy named Joe Thompson in Wayzata, Minnesota decides the movie has defamed him and tries to sue, the studio can point to that disclaimer and say, "Look, we said this character wasn’t based on anyone."

---

From Stanford University - What Good Are Disclaimers?:

When using a person’s name or image, some businesses attempt to avoid liability for breaching a person’s publicity or privacy rights by providing a disclaimer.

[...]

A disclaimer by itself will never shield a business from liability.

Note: This is about disclaimers in general, not just in movies.

---

The Hollywood Reporter made a list of the Top 10 legal disclaimers in Hollywood History:

• "This production has not been approved, endorsed or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." -- The X-Files

• "All characters and events in this show —even those based on real people— are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated ... poorly" -- South Park

  ^{[click the link above for the full list]}

---

It is certainly possible to sue internationally, but I feel like the details about that subject are out of scope for Movies.SE.