From The Salt Path To Baby Reindeer – What Does 'True Story' Mean Legally?

Last year, Netflix hit Baby Reindeer got into some hot water over the framing of its episodes as a “true story.” 

And now, The Observer’s investigation into The Salt Path (a book which sold over two million copies and was adapted into a film starring Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs) has called its self-described “honest” and “true” nature into question. 

The publication explored the idea that the book, written by Raynor Winn, may have lied about everything from her and her partner’s names to the cause of their financial woes. 

Records appear to show that the pair, whose long walks while homeless were the focus of the book, may have had a home in France the whole time; meanwhile, neurologists have shed doubt on the husband, James’s, diagnosis. 

In a statement shared with The Telegraph, author Raynor Winn said: “[The] Observer article is highly misleading. We are taking legal advice and won’t be making any further comment at this time.”

But where does “truth” begin and end in art? What weight does the “emotional truth” Baby Reindeer creators cited carry, and is there a legal difference between “based on a true story” and “this is a true story” in TV, books, and films?

“Based on a true story” and “this is a true story” are not the same 

The Observer said that at the time of writing (5 July), The Salt Path’s publisher still described the book as “unflinchingly honest” and “true” on their site.

This is still the case as I write this (7 July).

According to Nakia Gray, a media and intellectual property lawyer with Locked & Lawyered Firm, “based on a true story” and “a true story” are legally distinct terms. 

“The former signals to the audience that while the story draws inspiration from real events or people, creative liberties have likely been taken – it’s a disclaimer of sorts,” she tells HuffPost UK.

“The latter is a much bolder claim and could expose the filmmaker to greater legal risk if the portrayal is inaccurate or defamatory, especially when living individuals are involved.” 

Previously, for instance, a real-life chess player who sued Netflix for The Queen’s Gambit, which they say misrepresented parts of their career.

Gray continues, “These labels impact everything from defamation defences to whether someone portrayed in the story can successfully sue for misrepresentation or invasion of privacy.

“In short: those few words carry serious legal weight.”

There are many terms which allude to truth but don’t promise it

On an episode of The Rest Is Entertainment, journalist Marina Hyde pointed out that the intro line to Wicked Little Letters, which claimed the events which unfolded in the series were “more true than you’d think,” was allowed because the story is “something that happened in the 1920s” and everyone depicted in the film is now dead.

It’s therefore not considered possible to libel them.

Legally speaking, she added, “no individual holds the legal right to the story of their own life”.

“As long as you’ve obtained the information legally and without any sort of subterfuge, then you are free to make a story about anything,” she continued.

But that right competes with other people’s right not to be defamed, which is why, co-host Richard Osman said, “based on” is always the safer bet.