Replies

Although taking that one step further - since the Runaway Bride's story would not have existed without the input and work of various law enforcement and public servants, should she hand over some of her half million to that city? I know she paid some restitution, but now she seems to have hit the jackpot. What if the response of the city had been, instead, so what, she ran away, and we're not looking for her. Maybe that's a stretch here, but maybe not. I feel the city workers and others who looked for her are more deserving of that money.

I respectfully disagree about Woodward and Felt. I don't think it's a valid journalistic question at all.
Let's take another example. Stephen Ambrose wrote D-DAY largely based on interviews with veterans--none of whom saw a nickel but all of whom got a book. That was all Ambrose promised.
The standard that the "Killing Fields" guy is suggesting is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If applied universally (and why apply it selectively?), it would destroy nonfiction publishing because every subject would expect to share in the proceeds. This violates the First Rule and would make the subject untrustworthy.

The Willbanks deal is a whole other story. If she profits from a book, my eyebrows go up because I suspect her of committing a hoax. There are no "Son of Sam" laws in Georgia (and they've been found unconstitutional in other states anyway) but I would hope she'd be prosecuted for committing fraud.