To wonder if there are rules when you write a book with real people discussed.

[lunar1]

Does the publisher have to contact people mentioned in a book? Do they have to be given the right to reply or to contest the content before publication?

What about tv interviews? Can we just say what we want, about anyone and sell it for the world to consume?

Obviously looking at the content of Spare, none of these things have happened.

I can't imagine having historical conversations and moments published for all the world to see.

They royal family will probably stay quiet, but what about everyone else? Not many people will have the clout to be heard above PH's words.

I’m not sure if they are ‘rules’ as such, but I would assume the things you mentioned must be generally considered ‘best practice’ maybe?

Because of you print something about someone which they feel is incorrect, you run the risk of them taking legal action?

I have no knowledge of publishing though

Yes there are libel laws. So a publisher should publish true statements or risk being suited for libel and having to take the publication out of circulation

Common decency?

I think it's damn rude to right a 'tell all' tale about other people, frankly. Lacks dignity for a start.

You can publish what you want in words - there are more rules about images depending on where they were taken public vs private and who owns the image copyright.

You face consequences for those words if they affect the person you are writing about under certain circumstances.

With a book both the author and the publisher would be liable for legal consequences for publishing something that was libelous etc.

Hurting someone’s feelings or exposing a private moment isn’t necessarily libelous or an invasion of privacy unfortunately for those mentioned in books like this.

"Obviously looking at the content of Spare, none of these things have happened."
What do you mean? Why have you drawn that conclusion?

You can print and say what you like. You may face libel/slander charges if you have made shit up or have no evidence to back up what you say.

@Alvinne, it's an assumption and I could be wrong. If nothing else I can't imagine the words about his time in the army would have been approved.

Nor the private conversations with his brother.

I just can't imagine being exposed in the way people seem to have been in this book, ex girlfriends etc. I can't imagine any of my ex's including details like this for profit.

Well it's not generally something that people do to be polite.

Publishing houses certainly should run it all past the lawyers. Sometimes they decide the risk of a libel action is worth it if the story is juicy enough/the subject can't afford to take it to court. It often isn't worth bringing action even if you can because it'll only bring even more attention to the story. And if you weren't identified in the book, it's rarely worth telling the whole world that it was you. There's often an element of calculated risk. At any rate, if the book sales and resulting spin offs are good enough, it could be worth it in the end whatever happens.

If they were getting ££££££ and a whole lucrative career out of it, they might.

Or they might not. Plenty of people don't. But plenty do. And the ones whose careers depend on publicity are more likely to.

No they probably wouldn't have been approved.

For the army stuff, the publisher's legal team were probably careful to consider whether it broke the Official Secrets Act.

For the conversations with Prince William, it would just be libel laws. The publishers are probably confident that everything in the book is either true in essence (for factual things), or Prince Harry's personal opinion. It's possible that they could also be relying on the expectation that the palace would not want to pursue a libel case.

A lot of the time, you want to get things approved (even when you don't have to) because you want to have an ongoing relationship with the other party in some sense.