CAITLIN MCNULTY—True crime has dominated the entertainment industry for the past decade, primarily through documentaries, docuseries, and podcasts diving deep into the details of some of the most infamous crimes to date. Last year, Netflix’s ten-episode series Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story gained 496 million hours watched within two weeks and now reigns as the second-most popular Netflix show in history. While the series has been praised for its stellar acting and theatrics through its Golden Globes nominations and victory, many have taken to social media to voice their significant concerns over exploitation and apathy for the victims and their families by glamourizing Dahmer and his heinous murders. Rita Isbell, the sister of Errol Lindsey (one of Dahmer’s victims), stated that, “[w]hen I saw some of the show, it bothered me, especially when I saw myself . . . It brought back all the emotions I was feeling back then . . .” and “I was never contacted about the show. I feel like Netflix should’ve asked if we mind or how we felt about making it. They didn’t ask me anything. They just did it.” Unfortunately, Isbell is one of many who have been retraumatized through Hollywood’s true crime monetization because victims and their families lack adequate legal protections to prevent the exploitation of their stories.
Because court documents are public records, victims and their next of kin are not legally entitled to notification or consultation before an entertainment company turns their case into a multimillion-dollar media production. The production company’s only responsibility is to portray the story accurately, factually, and respectfully of victims’ privacy rights in order to avoid any civil liability. If production fails to do so, victims may have a cause of action against the production company for either defamation or right to publicity. To prevail under a defamation claim, a false statement must be made that harms a person’s reputation. A right to publicity claim does not require the statement to be false but instead protects against unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name, image, or likeness. Unfortunately, the right to publicity is largely state law and has only been enacted by half of the states, so many individuals whose name appears in any true crime depictions may lack adequate legal relief. However, even if an individual is to prevail under one of these causes of action, the lack of a notification or consultation requirement means that most victims and their families only find out that their story has become a Hollywood production after it premieres. This delayed notification limits their relief to monetary damages that are unlikely to adequately repair the harm caused.
Unfortunately, courts often rule against victims or their families who bring these causes of action against entertainment moguls. In 2018, actress Olivia de Havilland brought a right of publicity suit against FX Networks and producer Ryan Murphy for their inaccurate portrayal of her in their series Feud: Bette and Joan. The California Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment protected FX and Murphy from being legally required to obtain de Havilland’s consent prior to production because it was a work of artistic expression, and “she [does not have] the legal right to control, dictate, approve, disapprove, or veto the creator’s portrayal of actual people.”
Isbell (or any other of Dahmer’s victims’ family members) is likely to face the same legal result if she were to sue Netflix or the same co-creator Ryan Murphy for her portrayal in Monster, as victims’ privacy rights seem to take a back seat to the free speech and press rights of entertainment companies. In the future, entertainment companies looking to dramatize true crime should obtain victims’ consent and feedback to both minimize the psychological impact these productions have on their healing journeys and to more accurately portray the series of events that occurred. While the entertainment industry’s right to free speech need not be infringed upon, victims’ personhood must be more greatly considered to equally balance legal and ethical considerations in the true crime industry. Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story is not a story that should be further exploited and dramatized for profit; it is the tragic reality for many families that want to heal from their decades-long heartbreak. The entertainment industry must cease to profit from others’ tragedies without paying any respect to the fact that these are real, excruciating experiences that people endure in their lifetimes.
