## Facts

- In 1924, Nathan F. Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb pleaded guilty in Cook County, Illinois, to the kidnapping and murder of Bobby Franks, a crime that received international notoriety.
- Meyer Levin, who knew Leopold and Loeb and reported on the crime, wrote the novel *Compulsion*, published in 1956, using the Leopold–Loeb case as its factual framework while blending fact and fiction and changing names.
- A play and motion picture based on *Compulsion* were produced and distributed; publicity for the works linked them to the Leopold–Loeb case and, according to Leopold, used the names “Leopold” and “Loeb” in advertising.
- Leopold sued Levin and various publishers, distributors, producers, and exhibitors, alleging (1) false portrayal and (2) invasion of privacy through exploitation of his identity and renewed public attention to the crime.
- The trial court initially granted Leopold summary judgment on liability, reserving damages; after remand and further proceedings before a successor judge, that ruling was vacated and judgment was entered for defendants (summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings).
- Leopold appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Illinois privacy law permits recovery for publication and dramatization of a historically notorious crime and its participants, long after the events, when the subject remains a matter of legitimate public interest.
2. Whether alleged fictionalization or false portrayal in a dramatized work based on a notorious crime states an actionable claim under Illinois law on the pleadings and undisputed facts.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendants.
- The court held Leopold could not recover for invasion of privacy based on books, plays, films, or related publicity concerning a matter of legitimate and continuing public interest.
- The court rejected liability based on alleged falsity or fictionalization on the record presented, concluding the claims did not amount to a legally cognizable basis for relief in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois recognizes privacy interests, but the right of privacy does not prohibit publication of matters of legitimate public or general interest.
- Perpetrators of infamous crimes have a diminished claim to privacy concerning public discussion and depiction of the crime and its aftermath, including later dramatizations.
- Commercial exploitation incidental to dissemination of works on matters of public interest does not, by itself, convert such publication into an actionable privacy invasion.
- Where a work is a literary or dramatic treatment grounded in a notorious historical event, alleged inaccuracies or imagined elements do not automatically establish actionable “false light” or defamation-like liability absent a legally sufficient showing on the pleadings and undisputed facts.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Illinois privacy law does not allow a convicted participant in a notorious crime to obtain damages or suppress dramatized retellings of the event that remain matters of legitimate public interest, even when the works are commercially promoted and incorporate fictionalized elements.


Leopold v. Levin, 45 Ill. 2d 434, 259 N.E.2d 250 (Ill. 1970)