MovieChat Forums > Six Degrees of Separation (1993) Discussion > I don't understand why David Hampton's L...

I don't understand why David Hampton's Lawsuit was dismissed

posted 15 years ago by Synthia7
10 replies | jump to latest

Clearly the screenwriter based the heart of the story on David's life. I mean, David was caught in bed with another man in the home of one of his con victims. He did pretend to be Poitier's son. And he did scam people in Manhattan.

It's not like the screenwriter pulled the story out of thin air -- I mean he was friends with 2 people who got duped by Hampton. The judge was so wrong. Hampton should have been awared some sort of damages/profits from the movie.

[–] tonycontento 14 years ago

The ultimate irony is that the con man's life story was stolen from him.

I think that it's poetic.

[–] Synthia7 14 years ago

My Gosh, that is so true!

(I've still lost respect for the writer).

[–] RoIn100 14 years ago

I don't know the specifics, but I suspect part of the reason the lawsuit was dismissed was that it did not use enough of Hampton's story to warrant a case -- that and the fact that so much of the story was already well publicized so that it was less a personal story than a news story. I could be wrong, and the little bit of looking around on lone for more details has not turned anything up.

I too find it a strong example of poetic justice that the story of such a flagrant conman got "stolen" from him. Payback can be a you know what, sometimes.

As for the writer, well he didn't really do anything that 99.99% of writers do at one time or another. There's really nothing new under the sun and every writer takes bits and pieces from real happenings in the world to mold into an overall story.

[–] Synthia7 14 years ago

Not true. It made use of his entire schtick, down to specific details. Writers get sued for much less.

Writers get permission to use someone's life story. He changed the names but not enough of the details.

Everything from use the college children to gain access to family details, to the story of Sidney Portier, to the gay lover caught in the act, to the arrest, were straight from the real life events. Even the children's colleges was exact.

The demeanor and the persuasiveness of the character was part of David's charm too. In fact, after the play of Six Degrees ran, one of the writer's friends who had been scammed by David was angry that David was played as heroic...

The writer didn't sit at a desk and imagine characters and events. He sat down with his two friends who were scammed and wrote it based on what they knew of David and what he did.

I've researched this. That's David's story. You have no idea what you're talking about. And no, real writers, don't steal other people's life stories and profit without getting license.

[–] fidelio1980 14 years ago

Actually, you have no idea what you're talking about. Mostly because you don't understand that there's a big legal difference between copying another writer's published work, and writing a script/novel/whatever based on someone's life.

Are you claiming that anyone who writes the script for a "biopic" has to get permission from the subject to do it, or else the subject can easily sue them and win? Even if (like in Six Degrees of Separation) the names were changed?

If that is what you're claiming, can you explain how it's possible that Aaron Sorkin has signed on to adapt a book about John Edwards into a movie? The movie will be about Edwards' affair and his lovechild and his attempts to cover the whole thing up. It's definitely not being made with Edwards' permission. So how the hell would Sorkin be able to write and sell a script like that? Wouldn't Edwards be able to sue him for a bundle for "stealing" his life story without his permission?

[–] Synthia7 14 years ago

Life story rights are very complex. And it's true that I am no lawyer and possibly don't understand all the complexities. So, I hear what you're saying Fidelio.

As far as the Edwards' affair... so much of that is already in the public domain, so it's up for grabs. Also, Edwards is a public figure, so the public domain issue helps the movie-makers greatly.

Life story rights become an issue if a writer starts digging up stuff on private citizens and much of the stuff is not in the public domain. There are invasion of privacy issues. Of course, if a writer fictionalizes a life story, he can get away with using it as an inspiration without permission. To me, however, this was so much more than an inspiration because it's so clearly IS Hampton's story. Giving him a new name does little to obscure that.

I'm a writer myself and ethically I would never follow a life story that closely without giving proper credit and optioning rights.

P.S. I was just reading last summer where a man who owns a repo business sued the makers of the movie Repo Men for using his life story without permission. They read an article about him and based the movie on that. Perhaps, he has firmer ground to stand on since he's a private citizen who has not been arrested and made notorious.

[–] mikeoak840 13 years ago

It made use of his entire schtick, down to specific details. Writers get sued for much less. How true - Hampton sued the writer. Hampton lost. Get over it. Furthermore, he's been dead nearly a decade. There'll be no appeals. There'll be no retrial. He won't suddenly be vindicated and come back to life to revel in your adoration. Move on.

[–] macklin-1 13 years ago

I wouldn't call it poetic justice. It would seem that David Hampton has been getting screwed by people long before this story.

[–] Seller7862 14 years ago

@synthiarose

There is a dictum in western law handed down over centuries which states: "Those with dirty hands cannot sue with the claim others have dirty hands."

If someone steals money and then sues for damages because someone profited from telling how he did it, that crook (the real one) will lose 99% of the time.

[–] fidelio1980 14 years ago

I've read the decision (I don't know if it's publicly available, but I have access to Westlaw, so I read it there) and the court's decision all came down to the fact that the play didn't use David Hampton's name, portrait, or picture. The New York state laws that deal with these types of cases only apply to instances where someone's name, portrait, or picture is used.

That isn't the way it works in every state - but nonetheless, a case like Hampton's would be difficult to win in any state. If he was claiming that Guare defamed him, the circumstances would be very different. But he was just claiming that Guare was using his persona for a profit.