Can you write a nonfiction novel about a criminal who has been dead for over 30 years?

[TwentyFour]

I have a nonfiction idea about a family of murderers and all were convicted of murder or some other crime, but they are not famous and all but one is dead. The events happened some thirty plus years ago and I have public newspaper articles and accounts on the five or more murders the men committed. I've found only five right now but there is evidence of the contrary. I would also like to add the brothers were suspects in the harassment of local police and townsfolk. They were convicted, sentenced, and some were even murdered by police. I ask if it is legal to write a novel about this band of murderers after they have all died.

[TwentyFour]

I want to add the fact that the only living relative was neither implicated or convicted in any of the crimes of the family.

[TrixieBelden]

Sure you can. Why not? If your saying itis nonfiction you have to be able to prove what your saying which it sounds like you have in the newspaper clippings.

[Ruth2]

You can write a nonfiction book about them, and you can write a novel about them but implicit in the definition of "novel" is that it is fiction. A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

But yes, if you can support your statements then I don't see why you couldn't write the book.

[Allen R. Brady]

Originally Posted by Ruth2

You can write a nonfiction book about them, and you can write a novel about them but implicit in the definition of "novel" is that it is fiction. A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

A novel would be more problematic than a non-fiction work. In most jurisdictions in the US, your heirs control your personality rights for 75 years after your death. So you're free to write a book about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, but if you want to write the same book about Ronald Reagan, you would have to get permission from his heirs.

The same restrictions don't apply to non-fiction.

[tylertoo]

Originally Posted by Ruth2

A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

Ah, but Capote changed all that.

From Wikipedia:

Truman Capote was one of the first authors who was recognized for nonfiction novel writing. ...The way in which the book is written objectively means that Capote has little influence over the granular facts of the case. The creative choices he can make are those of tone, tenor. ...
Capote argued that the non-fiction novel should be devoid of first-person narration and, ideally, free of any mention of the novelist. After the publication of In Cold Blood, many authors tested the form's "original" concept; notably including Hunter S. Thompson (1966's Hell's Angels), Norman Mailer (1968's Armies of the Night) and Tom Wolfe (1968's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test).

[Ruth2]

Originally Posted by tylertoo

Ah, but Capote changed all that.

From Wikipedia:

Ah, true, true. I stand corrected. Thanks.

[mugwort]

I think if you harbor concerns about the legality concerning any subject might be a good idea to contact a lawyer. Not implying in any way you are in legal trouble. Its just to know your rights, the legality of your proposal. Don't know where you live. I know in the US there are Community Legal Services with attorneys who charge very little for their service.
I am not necessarily in disagreement with the other posters. I just think to be on the safe side to take up my suggestion.

[HapiSofi]

If a lawyer isn't a specialist in publishing law, he won't have any idea what he's talking about, and you'll just be wasting your money on bad advice.

[iron9567]

I agree with the opinion on asking a lawyer first. It never hurts to take that extra step to be safe.
thanks
the iron man

[TwentyFour]

The crimes are real, the people were convicted, I have evidence to the cases and I am interested, but not diving in right now. It's sort of a far off dream at the moment since I am almost sure no one else in the country (other than the victims families and townsfolk) would even know who the people are.

It's been thirty plus years since the police murdered the key player in the group. His death is most what I want to write about, his public lynching by police and the reasons why.

It might be best to find all the evidence and write a fiction work, names changed. I'm still researching and I want to get police files about some of the incidents. I'm just confused on where to look for that. The sheriff of the time did not file any report on the murder of this man, it was pretty much a cover up of the time.

[Izhitsa]

The following links seem useful: http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/...dead-john.html and http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/...n-fiction.html

[HapiSofi]

It's taken me a while to realize that no one in this discussion knows that you can't libel the dead. It's true. You can't. Libel laws apply only to the living.

If the dead criminals you want to write about have any living relatives, and you've said that they were participants or otherwise complicit in the crimes, they might have a case. If you didn't say that, simply being related doesn't give them standing.

You've said the police committed various misdeeds as well. If you've identified officers by name as being among the guilty, they might have a case.

Anything that's a matter of public record is fair game.

If you can prove something is true, it isn't libel.

If you're presenting your work as nonfiction, learn to be precise about your sources. If so-and-so said something useful and colorful for which there's no firm evidence, "So-and-so said [whatever]" is okay, because what you're asserting is that he said it. However, if your omniscient narrative voice simply repeats whatever that thing was that he said, then you're asserting the thing in its own right, and "So-and-so said it" is not a defense.

Allen Brady is mistaken on a number of points:

A novel would be more problematic than a non-fiction work.

No. It has a different set of potential problems. Given what you want to do, a novel might be easier to manage.

In most jurisdictions in the US,

In California plus twelve other states.nineteen states now, but those laws are seriously inconsistent from state to state.

your heirs control your personality rights for 75 years after your death.

That only applies if you're a bona fide celebrity, which for purposes of this law mostly means that your "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" has commercial value. If Bill Cosby died tomorrow, Royal pudding couldn't hire a Bill Cosby impersonator to do knockoffs of Cosby's Jello pudding ads.

How "personality rights" interact with freedom of speech, the right to say things that are demonstrably true, the interests of historical analysis, and other speech rights, has not yet been sorted out. What this means in practice is that whoever has the biggest lawyers gets to play the bully. Thus, you could in theory publish pornography starring Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Richard Feynman, Omar Bradley, or Rosa Parks, but the likeness of Sonny Bono is sacrosanct until 2073.

(Rant: The very existence of that law is a gross distortion of the legal system. Why should the heirs of celebrities have rights no one else does -- continuing for 75 years after their deaths? It's just one more bought-and-paid-for Hollywood law for which there's no sane justification: a standing affront to the public good and the common discourse.) (/End of rant.)

So you're free to write a book about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, but if you want to write the same book about Ronald Reagan, you would have to get permission from his heirs.

If it's parodic, satirical, or otherwise functions as commentary, you're on firmer ground. To use a different strategy, if what you say is demonstrably true, you're also on solid ground.

Practically speaking, the more literary oomph you can muster, the more rights you have. This isn't fair, and strictly speaking it isn't the law, but it's how things work. If your book has literary pretensions, cover quotes from distinguished sources, and it's published by the likes of Viking, or Atlantic, or Farrar Straus Giroux, you can get away with things no trashy paperback could ever dream of.

The same restrictions don't apply to non-fiction.

Again, a different set of restrictions apply.

[HapiSofi]

Some useful links from Right of Writers: A blog about writing and the law.

Can a Writer Be Sued for Libeling the Dead?
Could I Be Liable for Libel in Fiction?
The Dead as Characters in Fiction: Shoeless Joe, J.D. Salinger, and J.R.R. Tolkien
Can I Be Sued for Publishing the Truth?
44 Places Where Writers (and Other Creative People) Can Obtain Free or Low-Cost Legal Help

[Torgo]

To add to HapiSofi's words of wisdom, I'd also note that in the UK and Europe you also have to be a little wary of the law of privacy. You can't, in general, reveal private details of a living person's life without certain justifications (e.g. the details are not private; they are already in the public domain; you have express written permission; what you are revealing is in the public interest.)

[TwentyFour]

Thank you all. I have been looking into the case and the state did send the evidence and body to out of area officials. The case was recommended to the state police and grand jury. I'm still trying to find out what happened after this, it's unclear where it went after the recommendation. However, the sheriff in question was continually harassed and given death threats, along with other members of the local authorities. All members associated with the criminal activities has died, I'm not accusing anyone else, there is little else to go on. I do not have the names of the officers who killed him and the sheriff in question has also died. The case simply disappeared from public files. If I cannot find anything else, I'll most likely fictionalize it. There isn't much I can do if there's no record. I don't know where to go to find information on state records like the one I would need. I just know a young man who thrived on violence was shot in the back while he lay either unconscious or hurt from an automobile accident. It's been thirty some years and this family is still thought of as monsters in our town. No one cared but his own family and now as I look back all this time I think why didn't someone care?

[Ruth2]

"... why didn't someone care." That's your hook.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Izhitsa

The following links seem useful: http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/...dead-john.html and http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/...n-fiction.html

THAT'S SOME NICE POSTING THERE

[TrixieBelden]

Ah! Tylertoo, I was about to say that when I read your reply, lol. I think that's the first thing aspiring true crime writers learn.

Originally Posted by tylertoo

Ah, but Capote changed all that.

From Wikipedia:

[TwentyFour]

Thanks all, will work on more research and getting my facts in order. I do like that hook.

[HapiSofi]

Originally Posted by Torgo

To add to HapiSofi's words of wisdom, I'd also note that in the UK and Europe you also have to be a little wary of the law of privacy. You can't, in general, reveal private details of a living person's life without certain justifications (e.g. the details are not private; they are already in the public domain; you have express written permission; what you are revealing is in the public interest.)

That's as opposed to the United States, which in theory distinguishes public figures from private everybody else, the latter having more claim to privacy. This distinction was a lot clearer before the internet came along. A blogger is clearly a public figure, but how about someone who has a Facebook page?

You should mostly keep this in mind if you're writing about someone in the U.S. who has no online presence, has never been the subject of news stories, and has never known, done, or been anything of significant public interest. You can still write about them insofar as what you're saying is factually accurate, and pertinent to the work you're writing.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Ruth2

"... why didn't someone care." That's your hook.

I'll say! It worked for me! I'm hooked.

[Old Hoodoo]

Originally Posted by tylertoo

Ah, but Capote changed all that.

From Wikipedia:

Is this what they call today creative nonfiction or is there a distinction?

[Old Hoodoo]

Originally Posted by TwentyFour

I have a nonfiction idea about a family of murderers and all were convicted of murder or some other crime, but they are not famous and all but one is dead. The events happened some thirty plus years ago and I have public newspaper articles and accounts on the five or more murders the men committed. I've found only five right now but there is evidence of the contrary. I would also like to add the brothers were suspects in the harassment of local police and townsfolk. They were convicted, sentenced, and some were even murdered by police. I ask if it is legal to write a novel about this band of murderers after they have all died.

You are covered. Famous is irrelevant...felonious criminals are clearly public figures so even if you suggest they may have committed unproven murders you are OK. Don't worry, write happy. Sounds darn interesting.

[WeaselFire]

Forget about the laws for a moment. One way this is often covered is a novel "inspired by a true story." Write the book, include the facts, even the names, and preface the book as based on the truth, not actually the truth.

This does loosen most of the legal issues but, more importantly, it frees the author to make a great story out of what may be a dry telling of just facts. When asked whether "The Amityville Horror" was true, author Jay Anson replied "How should I know? I only wrote it."

Jeff