Media Law Case Scenarios: Defamation, Copyright & Press Rights

Defamation and the Senator's Wife

Defamation is an intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation, decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held, or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. When defamation appears in writing, it is referred to as libel.

The defenses for this suit rest on multiple areas of defamation law, including intent, truth, and social status.

The strongest defense to any defamation action is the argument that the statements were true, because in order for statements to be considered defamatory they must be false. In this scenario, the journalist uncovered records of a previous espionage investigation of the senator's wife. Publishing a story about that prior investigation is therefore not publishing a false statement.

Under modern defamation law, there are different levels of Constitutional protection for people depending on how active they are in the public eye. The highest protection for journalists applies when dealing with public figures, and the lowest journalistic protection applies to private figures. A public figure is any person who places themselves in the public eye to the point of becoming a household name.

Here, the wife of a new senator is not likely to be a household name, and thus she is not a public figure. The law also provides for a middle group known as limited-purpose public figures. A limited-purpose public figure is one who places themselves into the public eye on a very specific occasion or for a specific reason, thereby opening themselves up to public scrutiny in that area. When this is the case, the press is Constitutionally protected so long as what was reported correlates with that person's public image.

Here, the plaintiff is the wife of a senator and is thus before the public. Additionally, the article published concerned a previous espionage investigation — something that directly relates to her scope within the public eye. For those within this group, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove actual malice, meaning that the writer knew the statements to be false and published them regardless. This standard was established in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), which held that a public official must demonstrate actual malice to prevail in a defamation suit.

Copyright Infringement and the University Journal

Copyright infringement is defined as an unauthorized use of copyrighted material. The creator of a work owns the intellectual property, or copyright, of that work immediately upon its being fixed in a tangible medium. Here, the widow's husband took nature photographs that were then stored in a university's archives. Unless otherwise stated, the copyright for these photos rested exclusively with the deceased and passed to his widow.

A copyright is infringed when a person or entity uses owned images without the consent of their creator for any purpose not otherwise covered by fair use. Here, the college did not give notice of, or seek permission to use, the nature photos. The fair use doctrine makes an exception to copyright protection when the use involves criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. In this case, the university published the pictures alongside a work of fiction in the university's faculty journal. Journals, while academic in nature, are a for-profit publication. The university is therefore not protected under modern copyright law.

International Copyright and the Berne Convention

Copyright infringement is defined as an unauthorized use of copyrighted material. The creator of a work owns the intellectual property, or copyright, of that work immediately upon its being fixed in a tangible medium. Here, the self-published author clearly holds copyright protection within the United States.

Under modern law, there is no automatic guarantee of international copyright protection. In order to protect copyrighted works internationally, many countries began participating in the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC). Under these conventions, a participating country will honor other countries' copyrights and protect those works so long as they clearly indicate copyright status with the universal copyright symbol, date, and name. Here, the unauthorized copy of the book is being distributed throughout Europe. The European Union is a member of both the UCC and the Berne Convention, and therefore does afford protection to those seeking to enforce their copyrights. A case can accordingly be filed in the domiciliary country of the European publisher.

DoD Whistleblower Protections

Under the Department of Defense Whistleblower law, any DoD employee who uncovers cases of fraud, waste, or abuse within their department is protected from reprisal, including loss of position. Under the provisions, a whistleblower is any employee or exterior auditor.

Under the law, the whistleblower must first report the information to a superior officer. Here, the information was initially reported to the head of the department but was ignored. The law then enables whistleblowers to release unclassified information to the press to draw attention to the issue. This step was followed.

When proper protocol is followed, the DoD is precluded from acting in reprisal for the reporting. An act of reprisal is any negative action taken against the employee. Here, the employee was dismissed from their position, constituting an act of reprisal.