Daoud affair: can writers freely draw inspiration from real people?

It is a debate that reappears regularly in court cases pitting novelists against people who recognize themselves in their works. While article 9 of our civil code recognizes the right to privacy, how does this right relate to freedom of expression and literary creation? Is the legal process adequate to deal with these cases? Should these disputes be diverted in the future?

Two fundamental rights

The Kamel Daoud affair reveals a fundamental tension between two essential rights as Mathieu Simonnet explains, “jurisprudence protects both the creative freedom of the writer and respect for private life“, but this cohabitation can be delicate. Indeed, the recognition of a person, even in a restricted circle, is enough for an invasion of privacy to be claimed. This case highlights the importance for the authors of juggling reality and fiction while respecting the boundaries imposed by law.

The causes of the Daoud affair

For the writer Mathieu Simonet, the Daoud affair is above all the symbol of a refusal of the duty of memory and of an attempt by the Algerian authorities to censor certain speeches: “In this case, it is not really a question of private life, but rather an attempt to put pressure on Algerian writers to impose limits on the subjects they can discuss, in particular the massacres of the civil war between 1992 and 2002. Kamel Daoud, although he knew the woman in question and dedicated his book Ouri to her as a tribute to the free women of Algeria and the victims of the war, took care to modify his name and erase all references allowing it to be identified. Contrary to what she claims, she is not the only survivor of this type of situation, and nothing in the book allows us to recognize her before she herself comes forward publicly to denounce an attack on her private life. . All elements likely to refer to her have been carefully erased, and her presence in the book is only a metaphor, thus making her complaint difficult to justify legally..”

Towards a right of reply?

In the context of accusations of violation of privacy, media coverage often plays a contradictory role. Hervé Letellier underlines this paradox: “In the name of one's private life, one comes to publicize what could only be noticed by very few people.“This process draws increased public attention to elements that could have remained confidential. This dimension, amplified by public debates, further complicates the relationship between authors and the people who recognize themselves in their works. To get out of this impasse, Mathieu Simonnet offers a solution: “On publishers' sites, people who would be the inspiration for a book could give their version or say what they think about it.“This right of response, more integrated into the editorial process, could also serve as a safeguard for writers, while protecting their creative freedom.