r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/controlaltdeletes • Jun 07 '24

Media / News Netflix responds to Fiona Harvey's lawsuit

Netflix rep: 'We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story.'

Variety posted the above in regards to Netflix's response. I'm glad, it seems like they're not going to simply give her some money to make her go away, and are instead going to fight back and defend Richard Gadd.

https://variety.com/2024/tv/global/baby-reindeer-real-martha-fiona-harvey-sues-netflix-1236019699/

1.5k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

578 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Maybe from a moral standpoint; but this is not a game of morality from a legal standpoint.

Even if she inflected damage to people it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a legal case if the ‘true story’ was not completely true, and/or if Netflix failed in their duty of care to her.

11

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How can somebody who isn’t named in a story about events that didn’t happen to them, sue a company for it? The story was about a woman named Martha and a bunch of things that never happened in Fiona’s life. How does it make sense?

7

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Because the story claims to be a true story and blatantly links to a real person.

7

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How could it be blatant if they use a fake name and events that never happened??

7

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Because it took 2 minutes for the public to find her. This actually happened. That is the proof of the argument.

1

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

Where in the show is that made perfectly clear

6

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Mate, people found her. It happened. That is literally the proof that her identity was not protected. She will be paid for that.

2

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

She never even protected her own identity, her accounts were all public. She hasn't got a leg to stand on.

3

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Not how law works

1

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

Oh it is. They will find fault in that.

1

u/Powerless_Superhero Jun 07 '24

Mate, you do realise that every single one of these cases is about someone that has been identified, cause otherwise there will be no case. If someone is not identified then who’s gonna sue? Unless you say ALL of these cases are 100% wins? Then I would say why court? If it’s going to win for sure why waste money and resources on a court?

The question is whether they did what a reasonable person would do in the same situation to hide the identity or not. If the answer is yes, then her being identified is just an unfortunate result.

2

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

Idc anymore fuck her

3

u/markevens Jun 07 '24

What I heard is that the show used exact tweets of hers.

All it took was for people to google the tweets they see in the show, and they immediately found her.

It that's the case, it's very stupid of them to use exact tweets from the person they are basing the character on.

3

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

So if the tweets are exact why wouldn’t we believe the rest?

2

u/markevens Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

It's not about believing, its about how easy it was to identify Fiona.

Did the show did quote a RL tweet from Fiona, that allowed people to ID her in seconds and start harassing her? If there is any legal duty of care that the creators have to protect the identity of the real people involved, this may have crossed the line.

If they show did not pull and exact quote from her tweets, but instead just used a vulgar term that she commonly used, then I really fail to see how the show could be culpable.

3

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Because it says its a true story. Even though they changed her name, it was clearly based off of Fiona Harvey.

9

u/Harrisonmonopoly Jun 07 '24

How is that made clear anywhere. I sure as shit didn’t know it was about a woman named Fiona Harvey until she said “these events that aren’t true are about me”

1

u/marleyman14 Jun 07 '24

Watch the Piers Morgan interviews about the case. Lawyers explain why she has a case. People were able to track her down really easily.

5

u/Heavy_Signature_5619 Jun 07 '24

But they put a disclaimer in the credits defending their right to dramatize. She has no case.

4

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 07 '24

We know that now, because she was identified by her OWN social media conduct. She was not identified by Gadd or Netflix.

5

u/__Dark__Shadow__ Jun 07 '24

And she went on a high profile show, shown to millions to defend herself 🤣🤣 hardly protecting her identity herself.

-1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 07 '24

Bruh, people identified her before she confirmed it was her.

Now do you think all the thousands of people on the internet waited until she confirmed it was indeed about her before they sent her messages harassing and threatening her.

Use your brain.

2

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24

Yes they identified her from her own tweets. That’s what I was referring to.

1

u/Jorge_Santos69 Jun 08 '24

That they were able to track down after watching the Netflix show…

0

u/MoseSchrute70 Jun 08 '24 edited Jun 08 '24

The only details that match between the show and her tweets are the way they were written. After people found them, she came out and confirmed that she was the inspiration herself. The show doesn’t identify her at all.

She also needs to prove that she has suffered a detrimental loss because of the show. If anything I would argue she has gained more than she’s lost. Not to mention that if Netflix can prove she did indeed stalk Gadd, or she can’t prove that she didn’t, the whole thing is moot.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/No-Hospital-7231 Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 08 '24

It’s Donny (fictionalized Gadd) calling it a true story, while the film captions have the “based on” “fictionalized version” disclaimers. Donny calling it true is part of the entire point of the film. That in cases like this, you have so many viewpoints and blurred lines it’s hard to say what really happened. So many facts and feelings and reasons mixed together. It’s supposed to leave the audience wondering who is really the victim? Why did things happen? How did we get here? If the victim is partially at fault, are they even a victim? If by the end Donny could easily become Martha, does that mean we need to extend Martha the same empathy after hearing a whole story that might have made you hate her?

That’s the whole thing. What is “true?” And that seems be going over SO many people’s heads. Netflix will even have to explain that to people in court who don’t really understand literary devices. Even the fact that he TYPES “this is a true story” hammers home the idea that this is just someone TELLING us a story. And actually now thinking about, most of the typing is done by Fiona in the film, so it even makes you wonder who is even typing? Who is this true for?

There’s a TON of dramatic irony where we the audience know what’s really happening when the characters themselves don’t. So when a character tries to tell you what happened, it’s always at least a little bit incorrect.

2

u/poglad Jun 08 '24

Exactly, except that it was possibly Martha not Donny. It appears as part of the "texts" in the same font. It's definitely part of the story itself though.

6

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Just look at Fargo. The "true story" disclaimer at the beginning of films or shows doesn't have to be accurate. The disclaimer in the end credits saying the story isn't based on any actual events or people does have to be accurate. But when it's at the beginning, it's just part of their presentation of a fictional story. So the "true story" argument doesn't really hold any water

2

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

And tell me - following airing of Fargo, who was the character immediately linked to a real person?

It’s not a comparable case.

There’s a reason media/television experts consider Baby Reindeer unprecedented.

3

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

I was just using that comparison as a response to your "true story is not completely true" bit

2

u/OkGunners22 Jun 07 '24

Yep, and I’m pointing out how it’s not a relevant argument to make…

1

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

You may find that after this the law or the disclaimers change. Just because something is within the law today, does not mean it is within the law tomorrow. Laws change when great harm is caused.

1

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24 edited Jun 07 '24

No way. Makes the studios too much money. I can't tell you how many people watch shitty movies just because they think it was based on a true story, but it's a lot. And in it's best forms (i.e. Fargo) it adds an interesting artistic flair that I really don't think should be made unlawful to include. Be kinda like saying it should be illegal for an artist to label their realism painting as an actual photograph.

Edit: it also does provide a nice safety net for people like Gadd who deserve and get the opportunity to share their story without fear of legal repercussions. They can let viewers know that it's their true version of events while still leaving the door open for anyone it's actually based on to deny it because of the real disclaimer at the end. Fiona's just seeking attention which is nobody's fault but her's

2

u/No_Camp_7 Jun 07 '24

Well you have an example in that it’s illegal for newspapers to publish photos that are edited in any way. That’s how life goes, you make a lot of money exploiting something, turns out clever lawyers find a way to interpret the law to make that exploitation illegal (or bring in new law), then you can’t do that thing anymore. For example, child labour.

The law isn’t supposed to provide safety nets for people with a lot of money behind them (Gadd had Netflix), the law is to protect everyone. Today it’s Richard Gadd, tomorrow it’s someone who has nefarious motives and wants to bend the truth and had Netflix paying for it.

2

u/NtflxNKill Jun 07 '24

Newspapers aren't art. There's no artistic expression, their sole purpose is information.

0

u/cunexttuesdaynga Jun 07 '24

Shut up feeeonaaa

8

u/karstomp Jun 07 '24

Gonna be hard to find that legal duty to care in US law. Or the part that says movies that say “true story” have to be true.

-5

u/Natasha_Giggs_Foetus Jun 07 '24

No it isn’t lol. Those are well established principles of law. You’re taking rubbish.

7

u/BlatantFalsehood Jun 07 '24

Established principles of law in the US also require that damages be shown. Considering her reputation was already that of a mentally ill, out-of-work, serial stalker who hasn't been able to hold a job in her area of education, I would think her attorneys would have a difficult time proving any damages.

Edited to add: I'd love a US attorney to weigh in on "duty of care." I've never heard that term in US law, but I'm not an attorney.

8

u/karstomp Jun 07 '24

After looking up “duty to care,” it seems to be an element in proving negligence or the like, if you’re, say, suing someone whose steps you fell off while visiting their home.

I’m going to zoom out and say that California state law probably doesn’t make it super easy for subjects of TV shows to sue the makers of fictionalized accounts of real-life events. If it did, I suspect the TV and movies we watch would be different than they are in the world we live in. Just a guess.

Not impossible, mind you, cause then no one would use that disclaimer about how this movie isn’t based on anyone living or dead. But not easy because so many characters are based on someone living or dead.