Few opening cards carry as much weight as the words "This is a true story". They promise the audience authenticity, and they tell every person depicted on screen that what follows is offered as fact. That is precisely why stories drawn from real lives, whether a biopic, a drama inspired by a news story or a series built around real events, call for a different level of clearance from a work of pure fiction.
The principles below apply equally to drama, documentary and factual productions, and the earlier they are considered, the more creative freedom a production keeps.
TRUE, BASED ON, OR INSPIRED BY
How a production frames its story shapes how the audience reads it. "A true story" invites viewers to take every scene as fact; "based on true events" signals that the broad shape is real but the detail has been dramatised; "inspired by" puts more distance between the screen and the record. The choice matters, however, framing alone is not a shield. If an identifiable real person is shown doing or saying something that would damage their reputation, a softer opening card will not undo that, and the wording should be chosen to match what the production can actually stand behind.
DEFAMATION: THE REPUTATION RISK
In England and Wales, a statement is defamatory only if its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant's reputation (section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013); for a company trading for profit, that means serious financial loss. The principal defences are that the imputation is substantially true (section 2), that it is an honest opinion with its basis indicated (section 3), and that it was published on a matter of public interest which the publisher reasonably believed was in the public interest to publish (section 4).
Drama creates its own pressure points. Invented dialogue, compressed timelines, composite characters and imagined motives are the ordinary tools of storytelling, yet each can attribute to a real person something they never said or did. The risk is greatest where a scene suggests wrongdoing, dishonesty or criminality, and where the change is the kind of detail an audience would assume was researched.
The line between dramatisation and allegation was drawn sharply in the litigation over Netflix's Baby Reindeer, a series that opened with the words "This is a true story". In allowing the defamation claim brought by the woman who said she was identifiable as the character Martha to proceed, the US federal judge observed that "There is a major difference between stalking and being convicted of stalking in a court of law". In October 2026 the US appeals court hearing Netflix's challenge to that ruling indicated that it was likely to lack jurisdiction over the appeal, a step that would send the claim back towards trial. It is an American case, decided under American law, however, the lesson translates directly: a dramatic flourish that adds a conviction, a crime or a betrayal to a real person's story is a factual claim, not a creative choice.
PRIVACY: TRUE IS NOT THE SAME AS SAFE
Privacy works differently. A claim for misuse of private information asks whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information and, if so, whether that is outweighed by the right to freedom of expression in the circumstances. Truth is not a defence. A scrupulously accurate scene about someone's health, relationships, family life or finances can still give rise to a claim, particularly where the person is a private individual rather than a public figure, or where children are involved. The question is less "is it true?" than "is it ours to tell, and is it necessary to the story?"
IDENTIFICATION: WHEN A NAME IS NOT ENOUGH
Changing a name does not, of itself, solve the problem. As long ago as E. Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20, the House of Lords held that a publisher can be liable where readers reasonably understand a supposedly fictional character to refer to a real person, whatever the author intended. The principle is very much alive: in 2026 a national newspaper settled a claim, with an apology and damages, after publishing a piece under what it said was an invented name, only for that name, together with the profession and family circumstances described, to match a real woman.
Identification can come from a combination of details rather than a name: an occupation, a workplace, a town, a distinctive event. A renamed character who keeps every other recognisable feature of the real person is still, for these purposes, that person. Equally, a wholly invented character given a name that happens to match a real individual in the same profession or place can create an unintended link, which is why fictional names are checked as a matter of course.
THE LIVING, THE DEAD AND THOSE AROUND THEM
Under English law the dead cannot be defamed, and a defamation claim does not pass to a person's estate. That offers historical drama a measure of freedom, however, it is not a blanket licence. Living relatives, colleagues and others who appear in the story, or who are identifiable through it, may have claims of their own, and a portrayal of a deceased person can carry imputations about the people still living around them. Productions intended for international distribution should also bear in mind that other jurisdictions take different approaches.
FACTUAL AND DOCUMENTARY
On documentary and factual productions, the same risks arise through contributors, interviews, reconstructions and archive. Contributor releases need to reflect what the contributor actually agreed to, people who are discussed but do not take part may need an opportunity to respond, and reconstructions should not present supposition as fact. For broadcast in the UK, the Fairness and Privacy sections of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code (Sections Seven and Eight) will also apply, and broadcasters will expect to see that they have been considered.
WHAT CLEARANCE DOES WITH A TRUE STORY
Where a project draws on real people or events, the most useful thing a production can do is say so at the outset, as it considerably broadens the research and shapes the approach from the first draft. A Script Clearance Report on a true story goes well past names and brands. Each real person and each depicted event is researched against the public record, and each portrayal is assessed for identification, defamatory meaning, private information and the defences realistically available, with the sources set out alongside. The recommendations are practical: keep the scene as written, adjust the detail, create a composite, rename, attribute a contested account to a character's point of view, or seek consent or a life rights agreement.
The result is a documented position that supports the production's legal counsel, its broadcaster or distributor, and its E&O insurer, and it is updated as each new draft arrives. Where a judgement call needs specialist input, the report identifies it clearly so that it can be referred early, rather than late, to the production's legal counsel, typically its libel lawyers.
THE QUIET CONCLUSION
True stories are some of the most powerful work a production can make, and the vast majority can be told with their impact intact. The skill lies in knowing which details carry the truth of the story and which carry the risk, and in settling those questions while they are still a line on a page.
The Media Rights Collective provides Script Clearance Reports for film and television productions, including projects based on real people and events, alongside production clearances through prep, the shoot and post.
Contact Jessica directly to discuss a project based on real people or events.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Productions should consult their legal counsel on specific matters.
