The Oscar winning director, the studio and screenwriter Mark Boal say the First Amendment protects them in use of elements of Jeffrey Sarver’s life in The Hurt Locker. “By any reasonable measure, the film must be considered a ‘transformative’ work of artistic expression that is protected by the First Amendment,” they said in an 87-page brief (read it here) submitted earlier this week to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief goes on to say that there are only “generic similarities” between Sarver and the William James character played by Jeremy Renner in the 2008 film. This case may sound familiar. The former US Army explosive technician Master Sargent had his initial invasion of privacy 2010 suit against Bigelow, Boal and others dismissed in October 2011. At that time, Sarver was ordered to pay $187,000 in lawyers’ fees to Bigelow, Boal, Summit and the Hurt Locker production. The former Master Sgt. appealed that ruling last November. In his own brief (read it here) filed on July 2 against Playboy as well as Bigelow, Boal and others, the veteran claimed that the film’s use of his life was not transformative at all, that it violated his right of publicity and First Amendment rights have to balanced against his own right of privacy. Bigelow, Boal and Summit’s lawyers disagree. “Appellant cannot state a cause of action for false light invasion of privacy because the Film does not portray James in a light that would be highly offensive to a reason person,” said the brief submitted by the defendants earlier this week. The movie and Sarver do have a real history besides these lawsuits. As a writer for Playboy, Boal was embedded with Sarver’s company in Baghdad for two weeks in late 2004. The writer featured both Sarver’s professional and personal life prominently in the subsequent 2005 article. That article became the basis for The Hurt Locker movie. Boal, who won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for The Hurt Locker, worked with Bigelow again on Zero Dark Thirty, her upcoming film on the hunt and killing of Osama Bin Laden. Sarver’s appeal suit also includes allegations of defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud. As well, Sarver claims that U.S. District Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen “certainly lost sight” of the “guideposts when she ruled as a matter of law” that his privacy concerns “lacked minimal merit.’” Sarver is represented by Michael R. Dezsi of the Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi in Detroit as well as Nathan Dooley and Erik Louis Jackson at the LA offices of Cozen O’Connor. Summit Entertainment is represented by David Halberstadter and Rebecca F. Ganz of LA firm Katten Muchin Rosenman. Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are represented by Dale Kinsella and Jeremiah Reynolds of Santa Monica-based Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert.
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.


first amendment doesn’t protect “footage” if the intent is to make a profit. It’s settled law.
Hurt Locker’s intent was to make money, for sure, or else it would not have raised money. If it was a doc then that’s totally different – first amendment kicks in hard.
Why wouldn’t the filmmakers have done a life rights deal with this guy? Only seems fair. And since they didn’t, why not settle with him generously after the success of the film? Make a veteran pay your legal fees? Not nice.
Because that’s the sort of person Bigelow is? You answered your own question.
Agreed. Support our troops.
I love Bigelow and Boal — awesome film, but if this plaintiff’s document is true, they should be kicking the dude some bucks.
So they readily admit that the screenplay was based on the Playboy article about this guy…and yet never thought to pay him some money or get his life rights? Why? The only reasons I can think of are (a) profound laziness — which is unlikely given the monumental task of mounting a production of this caliber (i.e. this wasn’t some director with a 7D shooting a movie with his friends in Arizona or something) or (b) they thought this guy was some dumb enlisted Army grunt who wouldn’t know any better and decided, what the hell, let’s save some pocket change and not pay him squat…or finally (c) that the writer of the playboy piece (and the script) was egotistical enough to think that because he’d, you know, ‘done all the work’ in writing the article that the only rights he had to worry about were his own…and, hell, he’ll give himself a nice little paycheck for adapting his own work.
Any one of these or some combination thereof is simply insulting and unconscionable. I hope he get all the money he’s asking for.
You forgot a 4th possible reason: (d) the guy wanted too much money for his life story rights.
Very interesting legal issue for all writers and producers to watch. But clearly there is a difference between Boal’s legal responsibilities and the much more obvious moral ones.
Sounds like the original suit was just a cash grab. Now this guy needs to figure out how he’s going to come up with $187K.
Typical elitist slugs, Boal is a known hater of the Military and a bad writer to boot. The movie was a terrible rendition of what our troops face every day over there as well as being technically inept in both the operational and tactics used. Anyone who has been in the infantry can point out the hundreds of errors that even troops in basic training would not do in combat.
Sounds to me like the previous judge was paid off or favors called in.
If the screenplay was based on Boal’s Playboy article, then why was the film nominated in the “original” screenplay category? Isn’t scripts based on previously published (or produced) material considered “adapted” screenplay?
If Deadline is right on the basic facts then Summit needs to eat it on this one. ‘Invasion of Privacy’ suit seems obviously without merit if the good Master Sargent agreed to be interviewed and shadowed.
That said, WTF Summit, you gross $49mil & a few Oscars so pay this solider off for his story. To the cleaners with you!
Boal was apparently embedded with an explosive ordinance team, not just with one person. Clearly the screenplay was a composite caricature of the types of military personnel he encountered and not a personalized effort to portray just one guy. It’s ironic that military try to claim that the film wasn’t realistic enough and then at the same time are suing for it being too realistic and for being too much like the research the writer did.
That said, you can tell by the comments here that Boal and Bigelow have a scorched earth policy which hasn’t made them many friends among cast crew and anyone else they work with. So this is probably karma payback or simply a publicity stunt to draw attention to their next dip into the same fatigue-clad, shaky-cam genre well. Snore, snore.
what he should have said was atristic bull. because that is what people i know who do that type of work in the gaurd. that movie was so full of fantasy and fit right in to the leftist beliefs to be inane. i hope the soldier wins they deserve to take those smirks off their faces!