I've always loved Billy Preston — more than just a supremely talented musician (which he was), he had an exuberance and joyfulness that were infectious. The so-called Fifth Beatle, he's the only outside musician to get credit on a Beatles song — "Get Back." He also played keyboards for the band during the rooftop concert. It doesn't get any cooler than that. But he also had a complicated and tragic life involving sexual abuse, addiction, and profound shame over his sexual identity.
So when I heard that a new doc about him would be coming out, I definitely wanted to check it out. But I might never get the chance.
Seems that Preston's estate and some of his friends are suing to stop the release of the film.
Documentaries obviously rely on friends and family of the subject to give interviews and provide film and photos. But what happens when the friends and family hate the final film? Or more specifically, claim that they've been duped — promised that the film's take on the subject would be one thing only to have it be something else.
Plaintiffs are alleging:
The Documentary contains extensive commentary…regarding the roots of his homosexuality and impact of childhood sexual abuse… The overall framing of the Documentary and the manner in which the film is being marketed, all confirm that this project is about pushing the director's and producers' personal agendas and financial benefit rather than the homage to Billy Preston that was sold to Plaintiffs.
So here's the legal question: If someone supplies interviews and opens the archives for use in a documentary, do they have any right to withdraw later? If they've signed releases, I don't see how they have any case at all. But if they were genuinely tricked or duped, maybe?
If anyone has a background in this type of litigation, I'd love to know your opinion on how this is likely to be resolved.
