Media Law: Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows anyone to make a request for information from a public authority.

The Act was one of New Labour's key pledges made in their election manifesto of 1997. The intention was to create a piece of legislation to improve democracy and accountability within government through increased transparency.

Tony Blair has gone on to say that he now regrets implementing these changes as they have a "chilling effect" on government. In other words, public authorities are now incredibly careful about what they keep in writing, preferring "sofa politics."

The main points to remember about Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are:

• A "public authority" is not defined by the Act, however, most are listed within the Act itself or by other statutes.
• There are over 100,000 bodies including the NHS, local government authorities, universities, colleges and schools, plus many more.
• Several bodies are not covered for national security reasons, like MI5 and MI6.
• The public authority must respond within 20 working days. They then have 40 days to supply the information or state a reason why they cannot.
• The public authority may refuse if the information will cost too much to find out. £600 is the limit for larger bodies (government departments) and £450 is the limit for smaller authorities. 
• There are several exemptions that stop a request e.g. if the information will prejudice international relations. (See McNae's for a full list and commentary.)
• One reason for not giving the information is that the authority plans to publish in the future. This has been seen as an escape route by many.
• Authorities may delay or deny the request if they do not believe it is in the public interest. A journalist must be prepared to argue that it is. 
• You can achieve this by appealing for an internal review. If this fails you can go to the Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal. The High Court is the last available route of defence and was used to break the MP's expenses story. 

whatdotheyknow.com allows anyone to make an FOI request, or to view FOI requests that others have made; five FOI request have been made against the University of Winchester recently.

Other people's requests:

New Forest District Council spent over £7000 on shredders between 2003-2008.

242 Hampshire Constabulary Male Police Officers passed basic driving exams, 42 failed.

No staff at Channel 4 have been disciplined for inappropriate use of social networking sites such as Facebook.

A request for a copy of the BBC canteen menu
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/47122/response/120285/attach/html/4/RFI20101263%20Classics%20menu.pdf.html

Beaulieu Fire Station in the New Forest only had 38 incidents to deal with last year, compared with 923 in St.Mary's, Southampton.

Media Law: Copyright

Reading McNae's last week made for some epically dull reading. I can find a great deal of interest in ideas like libel and freedom and information, but copyright law doesn't really do it for me. However, I can appreciate it is an increasingly important area of law due to the nature of the internet, and the sheer volume of information that it presents.

Copyright gives protection to creative and artistic works, by giving the author legally enforceable rights under law.

This protection comes from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which extends to any "literary, dramatic, artistic, or musical work, sound, recording, film, broadcast, or typographical arrangement."

One area in particular affects journalists. That is, there is no copyright in "facts, news, ideas or information." Instead copyright exists in the way this information is presented, as this is seen as the action that requires skill and labour. So technically we are able to lift ideas from other people, as Dan Brown did in his book The Da Vinci Code.

However, journalists must be careful. A journalist can be in breach if they take facts from others stories time and again, showing no individual research. This is even true if the story is entirely rewritten each time.

Since the Copyright Act came in to force the owner of the copyright is the author of the work. For example, the person who takes the photograph will be the owner of the copyright of that photograph. The exception to this is when a person completes work in the course of their employment. Any articles undertaken whilst at a newspaper will be owned by that newspaper, unless there is a clause in the employment contract to the contrary.

The defence of fair dealing allows journalists to use copyrighted work while reporting on current affairs. For example, the BBC can show Sky's football pictures from that day, as long as it is in a very cropped, highlighted format, and remains current affairs, e.g. it is shown on the same day.

Problems will only arise if too much of the work is used than absolutely necessary. The work must also be accredited to the owner. In one case between the BBC and Sky it was held that clips between 14 and 37 that had an accreditation were within the definition of fair dealing. The same applies when using clips for artistic review.

The length of copyright protection varies depending on the work published. In general, copyright lasts 70 years after the author's death. Copyright of a broadcast lasts 50 years, and 25 years for a photograph after it has been published.

Remedies to breach of copyright include both civil and criminal actions. The owner of the copyright can get an injunction against the person using their work, and then seek damages. The amount of damages will depend on how reckless or deliberate the infringement has been. An order to reclaim any infringing work can also be issued. A criminal penalty can also occur, but according to McNae's this is generally reserved for piracy cases.

Vanilla Ice v Queen and Bowie:

Vanilla Ice decided to blatantly lift the baseline from "Under Pressure" by Bowie and Queen, thinking no permission would be needed as he has changed the tempo. He was, of course, very wrong and was forced to settle out of court for a large amount.

http://www.fairwagelawyers.com/most-famous-music-copyright-infringment.html

Who put the ball in the Germans net?

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer announced his decision to leave Manchester United last week to become manager of his home town club, Molde.

Always the consummate professional, Solskjaer spent fourteen years at the Premier League's number one club, scoring an impressive 126 goals.

Known as the "Baby-Faced Assassin" for his incredible knack of coming off the bench to put United ahead in the dying minutes, while managing to look no older than fifteen, Solskjaer scored two of my favourite United goals.

The first came in a pivotal F.A Cup 4th round match versus United's biggest rivals in 1999. Liverpool had been 1-0 up for 85 minutes, before Dwight Yorke levelled with two minutes remaining. Most teams would happily settle for the replay at this point. But not Manchester United and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

The ball fell to Ole in the box, who proceeded to smash the ball beyond David James into the bottom corner, winning the match. The goal gave the eleven year old me the opportunity to mock my liverpool supporting friends for weeks on end, for this I'll be forever grateful.

The second is infinitely more famous, coming "that night in Barcelona." Again, United are behind from an early goal, this time from Bayern Munich's Mario Basler.

The tone of the match was set, Bayern edged possession and chances. With all my young hope gone, United pushed forward into injury time, winning a corner. Beckham crossed it in, perhaps aiming for the goalkeeper Schmeichel. The ball was cleared and scuffed back in by Giggs, before being poked home by Teddy Sheringham.

There was only one outcome in this match now, United. Another corner was won, drifted in once again from Beckham. Headed down by Sheringham..... "and Solskjaer has won it!!!!!"

Ecstacy for United, one Baby Faced Assassin to thank for it.

I thank you Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, for giving me two of the greatest moments of my childhood.

Photographs

Action Photographs:

Action photographs are the most common photographs used in news. They show the reader what is going on. For example, they are very common in sport.

Identification Photos:

"Mugshots." They are used to identify the person in question to avoid any libel issue that may occur, (e.g. if someone else has the same name and, therefore, is implicated by the story)

Features

NME, 13/11/2010:


Observational: "One Very Big Weekend: Babyshambles' return...."
Feature Interview: "Kings of the Wild Frontier." My Chemical Romance interview.
Profile: "The Man Who Shot the Seventies." Profile of Mick Rock, photographer to the stars in the 1970's.
Arts Review: The review section, includes a review of Rihanna's new album.

Live Magazine, The Mail on Sunday, 07/11/2010:


Consumer Review: "Live for Tech: Rob Waugh." Technology review.
Feature Interview: " The $3 Billion Man." Denzel Washington interview.
Comment and Analysis: "Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone that ever made a chair?" Essay on Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg.
Confessional Interview: "The world according to Emilia Fox."

Celebs on Sunday, The Sunday Mirror, 14/11/2010:


Pictures/Fashion: "Groomed & Doomed." Pictures of famous people in variety of jumpers.
Feature Interview: "Matt Barker and Aliona Vilani..."
Confessional Interview: Tom Felton
Response: "Help!" Questions from the reader.

Easy Living, 12/2010:


Response: "Your Letters..."
Feature Interview: "Mistress Of All She Surveys." Interview with Sarah Parish.
Pictures/Fashion: "Your most stylish Christmas ever." Clothes to buy for Christmas Day.
Consumer Review: "Christmas Gift Guide: Best wishes from the EL team xx."

Cristiano Ronaldo v The Daily Telegraph

The Daily Telegraph has been forced to pay “substantial damages” after defaming Cristiano Ronaldo.

The article in question alleged that the footballing superstar had been out partying and drinking alcohol when he should have been resting whilst recovering from an injury. The Daily Telegraph had reported that Ronaldo put down his crutches to party with a group of models, in fact he had stuck to a quiet corner drinking only non-alcoholic energy drinks.

The Daily Telegraph also suggested that his manager at the time, Sir Alex Ferguson, had been dismayed by Ronaldo's behaviour. However, according to the BBC, Sir Alex had actually offered to stand as a witness for Ronaldo.

Without having access to the judgement, I think we can assume that the judge would have said that the report “tended to” disparage Ronaldo in his business or trade, by suggesting that he was not acting in a way a professional sportsman should. The “reasonable person” test is also satisfied here.

The other aspects of the test to prove defamation are also easily proven.

Identification: The article obviously refers to Cristiano Ronaldo as it names him. A picture was also printed next to the article.

Third Party Publication: The article was published in the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper with a large readership.

None of the defences to libel are available in this case. Justification could be used if there were any proof that backed up the claims. However, there appears to be none. There is no defence of fair comment as the article represented facts, not opinion. The defence of privilege is irrelevant.

The Daily Telegraph could have argued that the information was in the public interest and that their story had been a product of responsible journalism. However, it appears that the story was not considered important enough to be in the public interest, or that all of the strict criteria that were laid out in the Reynolds case were not satisfied.

This case shows there can be a fine line between a defamatory story and a non-defamatory story. If the Daily Telegraph had merely reported that he had gone to the club it would have been fine, but to suggest he had danced without crutches whilst intoxicated made the story defamatory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11709871

Media Law: Privacy

There are several areas of law regarding confidentiality that journalists must consider. These include official secrets, private secrets and the human right of privacy.

The Official Secrets Act 1911 prevents those who have signed a confidentiality agreement with the state from revealing any information they may be privy to. The Act is quite wide reaching; even those who work at the Post Office are required to sign it. However, the main purpose of the Act is to protect national secrets, particularly at times of war.

The law encompassing private secrets is more complex. Protection is extended to protect both commercial and family secrets.

In Coco v AN Clark three elements were set out that were required to form a breach of confidence. The information must have:

•      The necessary quality of confidence;
•      Have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence;
•      There was no permission to pass on the information, and;
•      Detriment is likely to be caused.

Information will have the “necessary quality of confidence” when that information is imparted in circumstances that imply confidentiality.  Information that is already in the public domain, or available from other sources will not have a quality of confidence.

An obligation of confidence arises most often when there is a contractual relationship between two parties, often in an employment relationship. For example, if I knew in advance that the pub I work in was to raise its prices, it is likely that I would be under a common law obligation not to tell anyone in advance. 

Often a gagging clause will be written into a contract. However, even if there is not one present there will be an implied term that any employee will not act in a detrimental way towards the employer’s interests.

Obligations will arise when there is a reasonable expectation of confidence. There is always an expectation on a doctor or a parent to keep information a secret. The obligation is dependent on the importance of the information and the person that you are telling. For example, it is less likely that a brother or sister will be under an obligation than a parent, but could be if the information was serious enough.

The legal duty of confidentiality will pass to a journalist if they know that the information imparted is of a confidential nature. So, a journalist will be liable under the law if they attempt to publish material that they know is confidential that they have obtained from someone in a privileged position. If we are investigating someone for an article it is not a good idea to talk to the parents or doctor of the person in question, as it is likely the duty of confidence will pass to us.

Lastly, there must be a detriment to the person. According to the Spycatcher case that detriment does not have to be a financial one. Instead, a detriment may be caused if the information is disclosed to someone the subject would prefer it not to be.

Human rights law has superseded this common law idea of a relationship between two parties.  The rights of privacy and the enjoyment of family life are guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention. On the face of it this article gives complete protection of privacy to someone. However, the Human Rights Act requires that courts must have regard for the right to freedom of expression when coming to a decision. In the Douglas case it was said:

“Everything will ultimately depend on the proper balance between privacy and publicity in the situation facing the court.”

Currently, the private life of Wayne Rooney has been splashed across the front page of The Sun newspaper. Initial analysis of this would conclude that there has been a clear breach of privacy law, as the photos detail a private situation between a married couple, there is no public interest. However, this shows the complex nature of the relationship between celebrities and newspapers. It is likely this is in fact a set-up situation in order to raise the profile of the Rooney family, and to sell more newspapers.

Writing Practice: Press Releases

Below is some writing practice based on press releases from Government agencies.

UK Space Agency:

Britain's commercial space interests received a boost today after an agreement was reached between the UK Space Agency (UKSA) and their Russian counterparts.

The agreement will lead to increased cooperation between the two nations in their civil space activities, in particular, between the UKSA and the Russian Federal Space Bureau.

Chief Executive of UKSA, Dr David Willams said: “It is a truly global activity and one where it is right that we should work together.”  

The Association of Police Authorities:

The number of police on British streets could be reduced after cuts to the police budget in the spending review.

Police authorities across the country face cuts of 4% cuts year on year after George Osbourne’s announcement yesterday.

The Association of Police Authorities said: “We await further detail on today’s announcement, in particular on individual force allocations.”

The Serious Organised Crime Agency:

A man pleaded guilty today after being caught running a drugs empire whilst in prison.

The inmate, already serving a 15 year sentence for drug offences, was caught using a mobile phone attempting to import cocaine from South America.

SOCA’s Director General, Bill Hughes said: “This is a warning shot for anyone who thinks prison won‘t affect business as usual. We are determined to stamp down hard on criminals.”

The Crown Estate:

Green campaigners were celebrating today after it was announced the Government will support new offshore wind farms.

£60 million will be invested in the development of the UK’s offshore wind manufacturing capacity, in the hope of eventually cutting the reliance on fossil fuels.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: “The potential for Britain to lead in the offshore wind industry is immense. We need thousands of offshore turbines in the next decade and beyond.”

“It will create jobs, help secure our energy supplies and protect our planet.”