A New Legal Challenge for Authors : Litigation: Writer sues to get credit for TV film based on her book ‘Burning Bridges.’ The case raises the question of privacy versus freedom of expression.

When Inette Miller sold the film and television rights to her book, “Burning Bridges,” to Lorimar-Telepictures, the contract--like most book-to-film deals negotiated in Hollywood--stated that besides money, Miller would receive an on-screen credit reading “Based on the book by Inette Miller.”

But when “Burning Bridges” airs on ABC Sunday, Miller’s name will be nowhere in sight.

Instead, the only writing credit will go to executive producer Judith Paige Mitchell, who adapted Miller’s book for television. No mention will be made in the film nor in publicity material that the screenplay came from a book.

Neither Lorimar nor ABC would comment on why Miller’s name has been omitted. But Miller’s attorney, Carol Rinzler, said that Lorimar claims to fear legal action from a woman upon whom one of the characters is based. A source close to the project confirmed that fear.

Miller’s case--perhaps the first of this sort, according to agents and attorneys interviewed--is an example of the effect that an increasingly litigious society is having on the increasingly corporate world of network television.

It raises questions about privacy versus freedom of expression, and of whether simply removing the author’s name will really protect the producers should the woman sue.

“Burning Bridges” chronicles the mid-life crisis and accompanying love affairs of a woman, played in the movie by Meredith Baxter-Birney and based on Miller’s own experience. According to Rinzler, the book was based on fact, but the characters’ identities were disguised.

When Lorimar bought the rights, the company asked for and received releases from the people on whom the major characters in the book are based, Rinzler said. The studio did not ask for a release from the woman whom it now fears might sue, she said. The character--the wife of a man who has an affair with the main character--only appears in two scenes.

“The agreement provided for the usual credit,” Rinzler said. “There was very vague language which said they did not have to give her credit if there were legal problems, whatever that means. And they informed her a couple of weeks ago that they were not going to give her credit.”

Miller filed suit March 29 against Lorimar, asking that her name be put back in the credits or that she be paid at least $25,000 in damages.

The studio has never denied that the film was based on the book--indeed, ABC sent out press releases trumpeting that fact when Baxter-Birney was signed for the lead role a few months ago. “The picture is absolutely based on the book,” said a source involved with the project.

But the source said that Lorimar’s legal department is convinced that the studio would be better protected against lawsuits if Miller’s name and the reference to her book are left off.

“This is a continual battle,” said Edward Rubin, professor of law and associate dean at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. “Credit, along with money, are the two fighting issues in entertainment law.”

The struggle, Rubin said, is between the rights of an author and the fear that corporations have of being sued. It is compounded, he said, because most studios today have special insurance to pay for invasion-of-privacy suits, and the insurers are extremely conservative about what they will allow.

The result, he said, is what legal scholars call a “chilling effect” on art and expression.

“What happens is that a book like this, which is clearly legal and would win in any lawsuit, falls victim to this conservatism,” Rubin said. “The chill comes because the producer is risk-averse. They prefer not to take a chance.”

By taking Miller’s name off the credits, experts said, Lorimar might be trying to further disguise the real identities of the characters, whose friends and neighbors might know the name of Miller as someone who wrote a book about their town.

But according to Rubin and others, that wouldn’t work.

“Either what she’s saying is libelous or it isn’t,” said Irving (Swifty) Lazar, a leading Hollywood agent who works with a number of prominent authors. “If they think it’s libelous, why would they (make the movie) in the first place? If it’s not, why are they keeping her name off?”

“The networks are especially careful because there have been so many lawsuits,” said literary agent Todd Harris, who is known for selling film rights to books.

Still, he said, he has never seen a case like Miller’s.

“I’ve sold over 150 books in the past year, and I’ve run into just about everything. This is a new one on me.”

Traditionally, privacy cases are very difficult to win. Unless the portrayal of a person is particularly negative or deliberately falsified, the courts have tended to side with the author.

A plaintiff in a privacy suit must first prove that someone watching the movie would know that the character in question is based on the plaintiff. Then, he or she would have to prove that the portrayal is false or destructive.

But sources at the networks said that even winning such suits costs time and money--and could bring increases in insurance premiums.

“What the lawyers are trying to do is prevent you from getting in trouble,” said Geoffrey Cowan, who teaches mass communications law at UCLA. “And if you are already in up to your ankles, they’re going to try to keep you from getting in up to your knees.”

For authors, the result is often an attempt by the network or studio to extricate itself from all responsibility in the event of a lawsuit.

“In a book publishing contract, the single most difficult clauses to alter in any way are the warrantee clause and the indemnification clause. Publishers do not want to change those clauses,” said agent Eric Lasher. “And in those (clauses) the author warrants that everything they’ve written is true and they indemnify the publisher.”

But to Miller, the issue is not abstract legal theory, but an intensely personal loss.

“I feel raped,” she said. “It’s immoral--you don’t take somebody’s work and not credit them.

Getting credit, Miller said, means being able to negotiate better deals in the future.

“Your credit is your reputation,” said UC Berkeley’s Rubin. “The size and time your name appears on the screen is the only thing linking you to the product and the only way you can get jobs in the future.”