A former MP complained of breach of privacy after The Sun published photographs of him allegedly “nuzzling” his face in a friend’s breasts. The Independent Press Standards Organisation found in favour of the MP on privacy grounds, saying there was no public interest justification. A further complaint on grounds of accuracy was not upheld. Press Gazette’s account of the saga shows the reasoning behind the ruling. Read it here.
A certain former national newspaper did not want to pay for pictures it found on social media, so it “embedded” them in its website as a link. The freelance who took them found a way to get revenge, as Private Eye gleefully reported – and Twitter noted.
It’s a US column talking about US law, but the general principle will apply: Steven Goldstein explains that streaming is (should be, anyway) covered by performing rights licences so the money gets to the rights holders, but a podcast is a recording, not a performance, and not covered by a licence. Read his piece here
The Daily Mail paid damages after publishing pictures from a charity calendar featuring naked students. An agency wrongly told the paper it had consent to use them. A student claimed breach of copyright through the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. Read more (and see an image) here
Pictures and information may be considered private even if posted on sites such as Facebook, says new guidance from the Independent Press Standards Organisation on sourcing material from social media. It highlights issues of accuracy, privacy, children and grief under the Editors’ Code. Read the full guidance, with case studies and examples of rulings, here.
Legal expert Cleland Thom says the Independent website was wrong to justify lifting facts from court copy on the basis that there is no copyright in news as long as it is re-written. Retaining just 11 consecutive words can be a breach. But it is legally unsafe for other reasons too, as well as raising ethical questions. Read more
Parody and pastiche involve copying someone else’s creative work to some extent, which should breach copyright law. That in itself would infringe the human rights of the person making the parody. But as of 2014, English law allows an exemption for parody as long as certain tests are met, according to the website Keep Calm and Talk About Law. Read more