Any resemblance to persons living or dead was purely intentional. That prompted one real person to sue the producers of Dog
Tags:al pacino,bank robber,based on true story,clientelevision,crazy cases,dog day afternoon,false light,invasion of privacy,living or dead is purely coincidental,movie disclaimer,portrayal of persons
Grab video code:
Speaker: What you are about to see is true. It happened in Brooklyn, New York on August 22, 1972. It was a bad afternoon for John and Sal. They tried to rob a Brooklyn bank but found that they weren't very good at it, so did the rest of the New York City. As police negotiated for the release of these hostages, they even brought John's wife to the bank. No, not his wife Carmen.
Female Speaker: It's late already by the time I find out it's just you and Sal, I mean, I can't get a babysitter. What am I going to do?
Speaker: But another women, another man actually, a male transvestyte who also married John in a private ceremony. New Yorkers watch the soap opera on live television. All of these was very embarrassing for John. But at least they got Al Pacino to play him in the movies.
Irwin Cramer: Carmen wasn't as pleased with her portrayal, so she sued the Producers for invasion of privacy, claiming that they cast her in a false light. The studio moved to dismissed this invasion of privacy claim arguing that at the very least they change the name of her character. But would this be enough of a defense to Carmen's lawsuit.
According to the New York Supreme Court, it was a defense under New York Law, as long as they use fictitious names. You can't sue for invasion of privacy just because you didn't like your portrayal.
Carmen lost her lawsuit, but her impact lives on in Hollywood. From now on most movies come with a disclaimer. For the Legal Television Network, I am Irwin Kramer.