The Chronicle Network seeks to work with larger independent news networks like Lion Publishers, based in Chicago, and found online at: https://www.lionpublishers.com. We encourage members to consider joining both this local network and Lion Publishers at the same time.
While The Chronicle Network does not charge for membership, Lion Publishing does charge about $150/year plus attendance fees to some events. Those membership fees help pay for expert legal advice like the following excerpt from Lion Publishing on “Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Copyright, and Digital Media.”
“How can you reduce your risk of being sued for defamation and invasion of privacy while still engaging in robust reporting?
That was the question discussed during Legal Issues Workshop: Libel and Invasion of Privacy at the 2018 LION Chicago Summit, one of three legal issues workshops hosted on the first day of the event.
In this workshop, Jeffrey Hermes and George Freeman from the Media Law Resource Center were joined by Natalie Spears of Dentons US LLP. They talked about “where journalists and lawyers often meet for the first time, a case involving defamation – libel or slander,” Freeman told the more than 20 LION publishers in the room.
Libel is a published false statement of fact that is damaging to a person’s reputation. It’s important to differentiate when things are published as opinions or as facts.
In a libel case, a plaintiff would have to prove that a false statement of fact was published and that it made at least one person think less of them as a result.
While publishers are held responsible for statement of facts they publish, they are also responsible for the quotes that they include in stories. Those quotes that journalists include in stories are content, and journalists and publications can be sued if they are published as a false statement of fact. It is of utmost importance that journalists, editors, and publishers verify the truthfulness and accuracy of all quotes published.
Publishers are protected from libel cases if information or quotes published come from an official government meeting or document.
Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act protects online publishers being sued for libel by any comments on stories by third-party users. There are exceptions, an important one being that you are responsible for the comments posted by your employees, contributors, and anyone who is linked to employment with your business on your site at all times.
The panel of law experts also warned of using anonymous sources, the cause of many libel cases. Before identifying a source as anonymous, make sure that doing so is truly important and worth the risk. Are you prepared to stand in front of a jury and defend your statement of facts from your source?
The effect of corrections, denials, implications of fact, and using anonymous sources is particularly important and all publishers should have some kind of standard that everyone follows.
Once a false statement of fact is published, a correction or retraction does not always matter. It will not hold up in court. But, corrections and retractions are helpful to run because it is good to show your readers that you recognize when things are in error and some juries may see that there was less damage done in the case of defamation.
Possible defenses under the First Amendment and common law when it comes to libel include the following:
When it comes to defamation in regards to a public figure, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the published fact was false and was made with actual malice or negligence.
Finally, publishers should be cautious when it comes to the invasion of privacy and publication of private facts. If what you are publishing could be highly offensive to a reasonable person or is a private fact, it should not be published without consent.
The panel concluded by reminding their audience that people can withdraw consent of any private fact that was previously granted to them.
“Don’t listen to what we say,” Fifer joked, indicating the pair were not giving legal advice. Even so, the audience of 17 journalists listened. Here are some snapshots of what they heard:
— Want to grab a shot from Google images? Resist the temptation.
— Is embedding a tweeted photo OK? I depends, but doing so may incur less risk that a right-click photo grab.
— How far back does the U.S. view of copyright stretch? America’s Founders situated in the Constitution a charge to Congress aimed at protecting invention.
— Copyright law is wholly rule-based, and not intuitive for journalists, they said in reviewing Section 106 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
— What is copyrightable? It must be “an original work of authorship in a tangible medium of expression.” Hermes showed an image of an ice sculpture by Ai Weiwei photographed by one Frankie Fouganthin in Stockholm. See it here. But this work is not fixed — it melts — thus, no copyright. On the other hand, the photo itself was composed, is fixed and can be copyrighted.
— The concept of “fair use” seems unfair in its complexity. It involves balancing four factors. To illustrate, the speakers displayed a dramatic photo published by The Record, in New Jersey, illustrating flags and the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. An intern for another publication had borrowed the image for a Facebook post, leading to a lawsuit charging unfair use.
— You work hard to craft a story, but a competing publication steals it. What can you do? Not much beyond complaining to the thief. The speakers said that “sucks,” yet it is “tough.”
— To register a copyright, click here You don’t need an attorney.
— Two tips you can take home with you: Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, and all words and images created by the federal government are available for use.
“The only way to get through this presentation is not to name all of the exceptions,” Fifer said.”
– From Lion Publishing: https://www.lionpublishers.com/conference/blog/20181012_copyright_and_digital_media
Copyright © 2023 | Theme by MH Themes