A legal challenge by Hollywood actress Dame Olivia de Havilland over how she is portrayed in docudrama Feud: Bette and Joan has been dismissed by a US court.
The 101-year-old double Oscar-winner had sued FX Network, claiming it breached her right to privacy and defamed her by incorrectly casting her as a gossip.
The closely-watched case had pitted an individual's rights to their life and likeness against the rights of artists to depict them.
And if the Gone With The Wind actress had won, it could have changed how the entertainment industry tells real-life stories.
The Feud miniseries chronicled the decades-long squabbles of Hollywood legends Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.
Dame Olivia claimed her portrayal by Catherine Zeta-Jones was inaccurate for showing her calling her estranged sister Joan Fontaine a "bitch" and commenting on Frank Sinatra's drinking habits.
But three judges in a California appeal court unanimously ordered the dismissal of the case and ruled Dame Olivia must pay FX's legal fees and costs.
Judge Anne Egerton wrote: "Whether a person portrayed in one of these expressive works is a world-renowned film star - 'a living legend' - or a person no one knows, she or he does not own history.
"Nor does she or he have the legal right to control, dictate, approve, disapprove, or veto the creator's portrayal of actual people."
The court in Los Angeles said allowing the actress' case to proceed would interfere with the rights of authors and filmmakers to make creative works that dramatise historical events.
FX lawyers argued the British-America movie veteran may not have called her sibling a bitch, but did call her a "dragon lady" in an interview on her 100th birthday.
The show's creator, Ryan Murphy, celebrated the judges' decision as a "victory for the creative community".
"Today's victory gives all creators the breathing room necessary to continue to tell important historical stories inspired by true events," he added.
"Most of all, it's a great day for artistic expression and a reminder of how precious our freedom remains."
Suzelle Smith, representing Dame Olivia, criticised the "entirely pro-industry decision" and said they would appeal.
"The court of appeal, unlike the trial court, has taken on itself the role of both judge and jury, denying Miss de Havilland her constitutional rights to have a jury decide her claims to protect the property rights in her name or to defend her reputation against knowing falsehoods," she added.
Should you block ads? Adblocker