Billy Joel Says Goodbye to Hollywood

How the Piecemeal Framework of Right of Publicity and Invasion of Privacy Laws Leaves Him the Star of a Film He Wants Scrapped

The proliferation of biopic films is leaving an indelible mark on filmmaking in the 2010’s and 2020’s. Coming off the success of the release of Michael, the Michael Jackson biopic which grossed nearly $900 million since its release and skyrocketed several Michael Jackson singles back into the Billboard Hot 100, a recent Variety press-release announced the greenlight for Billy & Me; a biopic involving the early life of Billy Joel. The use of the term “involving” rather than “depicting” is intentional. This project, which has been in blue sky and development phases since 2021, is entirely unauthorized by Billy Joel himself. Mr. Joel has voiced his objection to the project in private for years, and is now, concurrently with the production announcement, releasing public statements that Billy & Me is “legally and professionally misguided” and that he “reserves his rights.” Joel and his team were explicit that his famous tunes “will not be licensed and he has not authorized those associated with the proposed film to depict him visually or vocally.”

Legally and professionally misguided, perhaps, but illegal? Not quite (as of the date of publication of this article). First Amendment federal framework allows projects such as these to gain momentum, even while their subject objects, because the right to storytelling of historical fact is not owned by any one individual or group. As a world-renowned artist, Mr. Joel has made his art (and arguably his personal life) a topic of public news and scrutiny which is easily fact-checked. In other words, there aren’t many tools for Joel’s team to stop this biopic train from entering pre-production. However, upon publication, there are many tools in the state law arsenal for public figures to protect their privacy and image. As is well known, Joel has always been, and will always be, in a “New York State of Mind.”

Rights of Publicity

New York state law provides its residents with right of publicity protections during the life of the subject and even 40 years thereafter. According to the New York Department of State, the right of publicity includes “every individual’s inherent right to control the commercial use of his or her personal characteristics.” While “personal characteristics” usually refers to an exact image, signature, or voiceprint of an individual, for artists this can be expanded to include distinctive accessories or gimmicks, a signature gait, or a stage name. A young actor will soon be cast to portray young Joel, and the extent to which this portrayal uses Joel’s name (will “Joel” be mentioned, or will the character remain simply “Billy”?), voice (both Michael and Bohemian Rhapsody synthesized original vocal tracks with new actor performances to create an original biopic soundtrack), and likeness (think, recreations of old album covers and promo materials), may give Joel ammunition to claim his right of publicity has been violated.

The Empire State also makes invasion of the right of privacy a misdemeanor. Under New York Civil Rights Law § 50, “a person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes. . . the name, portrait, picture, likeness, or voice of any living person without having first obtained written consent of such person . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.” This statute makes possible that Joel could have a cause of action before the film premieres, but after advertising and promotion have begun. In the civil law context, New York does not boast any privacy tort protections. However, from a federal standpoint, Constitutional protections may be available for the production team if Billy & Me delves into Joel’s factual personal life, such as his marriage to Elizabeth Weber and her involvement as his manager in the early 1970s during and before his catapult to fame.

Production Challenges

Finally, should the film dramatize Joel’s life to a state of falsehood that evidences malicious intent to ruin Joel’s reputation, then Joel may sue for defamation. Since Joel is a public figure, the bar for defamation is quite high and quite easily avoided by the Billy & Me production team as truth is an absolute defense. For public figures such as Joel, actual malice in the dramatized storytelling would be required for Joel to prevail rather than mere negligence of factual inaccuracies, which would pass muster for ordinary folks.

Well versed on these legal principles, the Billy & Me production team began planting seeds for a multifaceted defense framework, chiefly, the contention that the film is not a Billy Joel biopic but a biopic depicting the life of Irwin Mazur, Joel’s first manager. The film will incidentally center around one of the highlights of Mazur’s life – shaping young Joel in the 1960’s with his early band “The Hassles.” Nevertheless, Billy & Me is certainly marketed as a young Billy Joel biopic–after all, Billy constitutes the first half of the title and leaves viewers to guess the identity of “me” rather than opting for the obvious title Billy & Mazur. The indefinite title may also pay homage to the participation of Jon Small, Joel’s bandmate from “The Hassles” who signed a life rights agreement for the project and is sure to be a heavy hitter on the production team for historical accuracy. Press releases thus far for Billy & Me have teetered between denial that the production is a Billy Joel biopic and reverence to the part Mr. Joel plays in the spotlighted Mazur/Small story. After all, Small stated “[t]his is the most honest, heartfelt, and authentic portrayal of Billy’s early life and rise to becoming one of the greatest musical voices of our time.” Notably, the Mazur/Small story is unmentioned.

The risks associated with proceeding without a subject’s cooperation are not merely theoretical. A similar situation arose in 2020 with Stardust, a biographical drama directed by Gabriel Range that chronicled the early stages of David Bowie’s career, including his first US tour and the creation of his iconic alter-ego, Ziggy Stardust. Like Billy & Me, the film sought to tell the story of a legendary musician without the artist’s (or his estate’s) permission. Before the film’s release, the Bowie estate publicly disavowed the project and refused to authorize the use of Bowie’s music. As a result, Stardust was forced to tell the story of one of the most influential musicians of all time without featuring the very songs that made him famous. The film was met with largely negative reviews and was considered a “flop,” reportedly grossing approximately $62,000 worldwide against a production budget of $5.5 million. The parallels between the two films are difficult to ignore–both films center on globally recognized artists, both were developed without the artist’s approval, and both faced significant obstacles in securing rights to the artist’s music.

Life Rights

This begs the question: if moviegoers arrive at the theater expecting a Billy Joel biopic comparable to Michael and leave without hearing any of Joel’s hits, is Billy & Me setting itself up for poor reviews and fast-tapering box office performance from misguided ticket buyers? (No intended offense to Mr. Mazur, but the question posed is one of false advertising for the average moviegoer who won’t invest further research than watching a trailer which is sure to show a young Billy Joel growing up in 1960’s New York). Alternatively, is the opening weekend box office and potential uptick in streaming of “The Hassles” catalog worth the potential for disgruntled viewership when the project itself may not be inherently extralegal?

On another note, does it matter that Billy Joel did not sign away his life rights to the Billy & Me production team? The term “life rights” is often conflated with the right of publicity and is not aptly named because it isn’t a “right” at all. Rather, it’s a waiver of ancillary rights vested in an individual who promises not to enforce said rights after the project in question hits the market. Mazur and Small publicly stated that they signed a life rights agreement for Billy & Me, which provides several benefits to the production team in the form of waivers and promises. Although the exact terms of Mazur and Small’s agreements are unknown, a typical “life rights” agreement would include a waiver of any right of publicity or invasion of privacy claims, a promise to provide relevant personal source materials (such as journals, anecdotes, or diaries), and potential exclusivity as to media production of the subject’s life or a specific time frame therein. Simply put, Joel does not need to provide any “life rights” for production to continue, but Billy & Me must proceed with extreme caution without the benefit of any waiver of his vested rights.

John Ottman, who received accolades for his work on both Bohemian Rhapsody and Michael, is signed onto the project. Filming is set to begin in just a few months, despite Joel’s vocal objections. Although there is no set release date for Billy & Me, and therefore plenty of time for Joel and the production team to work out their differences, it is also notable that Joel recently blessed, and participated in, the July 2025 release of HBO mini-series Billy Joel: And So It Goes, which provided five hours of documentary-style insight to Joel’s life and career. The documentary may be the only format in which Mr. Joel would prefer to share his story at present.

For more information, HBS’ entertainment practice group is prepared nationwide to provide you with guidance on intellectual property, privacy, media, filmmaking, music licensing, and beyond.

Disclaimer:

This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Hall Booth Smith, P.C. and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.