Entertainment lawyer and executive producer Bryce Menzies says producers are not obliged to consult their subjects,but they do usually try to get their co-operation.

“Let’s say somebody wants to do a movie about you,” he says. “You would normally go and get your life rights,but life rights are ephemeral. They don’t actually exist. You have no proprietary interest in your story.”

But there is a logic to buying these rights. It’s a stake in the ground to stop someone else tackling the story and means the subject supplies material that adds to a project’s authenticity then,later,promotes it.

But even without life rights,Menzies says,“if you want to make a story,particularly about a public person and if you can get all the information,you can do it.”

There is an argument for not involving the subject,though:creative freedom. If Mark Zuckerberg had collaborated onThe Social Network,there is every chance it would have been yet another anodyne biopic instead of a razor-sharp satire of tech industry ego.

Wolfe Herd,the Bumble founder,asked her lawyer two years ago if she could shut downSwiped but was told it was impossible because she was“somewhat of a public figure”.

Director Rachel Lee Goldenberg has said they could not involve her because of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) resulting from her lawsuit against Tinder. As a result,the film was“inspired by,not based on” her story.

But Dr Tara Lomax,the discipline lead of screen studies at the Australian Film,Television and Radio School,says that Wolfe Herd had every right to request consultation and consent.

“At the end of the day,she’s operating as essentially source material for this film’s creative intent,” she says. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a dialogue with her.”

Lomax thinks the NDA was just an excuse.

“I’ve seen the film and I think this idea that there’s no consent with the person who is essentially the subject matter of this story goes fundamentally against what the story is about,which is trying to promote female leadership,” she says. “Just because you can,doesn’t mean you should.

“And also what are the responsibilities when you’re telling a story that’s about female representation … then essentially erasing the person it’s about?”

Lomax believes Anderson – co-incidentally also played by Lily James – should have been consulted overPam&Tommyas well.

“It’s interesting to see a pattern where stories about male leaders[like Zuckerberg] are about perhaps their problematic business dealings but yet,with women,it’s always about their trauma,” she says.

Associate Professor Bruce Isaacs,from University of Sydney’s faculty of arts and social sciences,says the idea that a public figure like Wolfe Herd has a right to privacy is outdated.

“That ship sailed 30,40 years ago,” he says. “I’m not sure I want to exist in such a culture,but that seems to be the culture we live in.”

Isaacs believes that Hollywood seems to be seeking permission upfront unless the subject is controversial,which is why so many biopics,including the recent Bob Dylan film,A Complete Unknown,are “incredibly conservative”. Knowing these artists’ history,he thinks it’s amazing that music biopics often tell the same story about the same type of character.

“They really did need Dylan to say ‘OK,go ahead with this’,” he says. “That makes it less interesting.”

Questions about an individual’s rights became very real for Kathy Etchingham,a retired real estate agent from Melbourne,who discovered her early life as Jimi Hendrix’s girlfriend in London was being dramatised in the 2013 biopic,Jimi:All Is By My Side.

They were a couple from 1966 – she was 20,he was 23 – until 1969. Before they split over the drug use that contributed to his death in 1970,Etchingham describes their relationship “a completely fun time”,with Hendrix devoted to his music career.

In John Ridley’s film,they were played by Andre Benjamin from hip-hop group Outkast and Hayley Atwell.

When Etchingham first heard about it,she wrote to offer her unpaid co-operation. Dissatisfied with the response,she sent a legal letter raising concerns about how she was portrayed.

“They sent me a horrible letter back threatening me with legal action under their First Amendment rights to say what they like about me,” she says. “They said we thoroughly research all living people. My lawyer wrote back and said,‘If you thoroughly researched them,you didn’t actually speak to Kathy’.”

Frustrated,Etchingham took a different tack:she contacted this reporter about her concerns which led to a front-page story headlined ’Scuse me while I defend my guy.

Based on reports from a friend who had watched Jimi at its Toronto world premiere and overseas reviews,she described it as a “completely unethical” Hollywood “product” that invented a scene showing him beating her up.

After watchingJimi herself at the Sydney and Melbourne film festivals,Etchingham felt it also wrongly showed her as a dysfunctional heavy drinker and drug user. When raising her concerns with distributor Madman Entertainment went nowhere,Etchingham approached ACMI,where it was due to open. The season was cancelled and,amid the furore,Madman scrapped the rest of the cinema release.

“I’ve got no axe to grind with people’s artistic leanings,but to actually involve human beings – actual living human beings – in your fantasy is beyond the pale,” she says.

Find out the next TV,streaming series and movies to add to your must-sees.Get The Watchlist delivered every Thursday.