Couldn't they sue the film-makers for defamation / libel / slander (whichever one it is) for the "2,000 informants harmed" claim?
Be hard for the "Based on a true story" defense to work for that I would think.
Be hard for the "Based on a true story" defense to work for that I would think.
Edit: Another way the film can get off the hook is by claiming the information depicted is based on the sources (books) it uses for forming the script. I can only speculate, but what matters is shaping the public opinion and they are doing it by leaking the script and expressing their opposition to it.
Another guess is they need definitive evidence before sueing the film/makers. To quote from their memo: "Although the film has premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and numerous other media organizations have been shown review copies, the studio continues to refuse to show the film to WikiLeaks staff."
I can't think of any other film that blatantly sets out to tell a fictional story injurious to the reputation of a living person without renaming them. (Well, My Name Is Bruce, arguably, I guess. But that starred and was directed and co-produced by the "victim", something of an exception.)
I'd love to see Carter-Ruck take this on in a British libel case!
They do? Jobs? The Social Network?
You're right of course, though not sure that Jobs is quite "based on a living person" (though he was alive when the project started, just not when it was released.)