At this week’s DEN meeting, we were given a very informative legal briefing which ranged across the full spectrum of privacy, contempt, libel and community issues.
Too much to go through in full so I’ve picked out these points which are worth sharing with the online world.
(Please bear in mind I’m not a lawyer, so if in doubt, consult someone with the suitable qualifications! )
While ensuring plenty of links is an essential basic of online journalism, for both user experience and SEO, there are issues in linking to be aware of;
* A linking convention of opening in a new window will not save us if we do link to something defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Placing the link could (untested) be seen as us actively pushing the user towards the material.
This also applies if we link to material for which we don’t hold the copyright. Obvious example of this would be a youtube vide with music within it. Linking or embedding the video means we could be liable for copyright infringement even though it’s not a package we initiated.
* Linking to a foreign site or article could lead to a contravention of a British court order. An example was given of an American report of a court case which was published in ignorance of a court order issued in the UK banning publication. A British site picking it up or linking to it was unaware of the order and assumed publication was safe because it was already online. Dangerous assumption.
* Never link into the archive for active cases. This effectively makes the material “live” again so that, even if the background was only housed in the archive, it removes contempt of court protection available for archive material.
* Be aware that the material being linked to could change from something safe to something less savoury. I always give an example of a porn site setting up when I’m teaching on this point and so was surprised to hear that this was a real scenario recently. A link to what started life as a ladies underwear business changed to a porn site when the initial owner went bust (no pun intended!).
Dim Sum Digital 
This seems ridiculous. Linking to a video that infringes music copyright? That would exclude virtually all of YouTube.
And how are we to know about every court order banning publication? Likewise, how are we to know when a linked site from years ago changes hands?
Fascinating nevertheless, but I’m not sure if there are any cases that support these? Would like to know much more about all this.
LikeLike
This seems ridiculous. Linking to a video that infringes music copyright? That would exclude virtually all of YouTube.
And how are we to know about every court order banning publication? Likewise, how are we to know when a linked site from years ago changes hands?
Fascinating nevertheless, but I’m not sure if there are any cases that support these? Would like to know much more about all this.
LikeLike
@paulbradshaw you raise good questions. I attempted to get the technical nature of the possibilities into this posting by italicising the could because a lot of what the lawyers said was theoretical. For instance, taking pictures of people in a public street can now be considered an ifringement of an individual’s privacy if that person complains. However, if pictures of people in streets weren’t published there wouldn’t be much on Flickr these days! I always ask lawyers the same question too – “has any British news orgaisation paid out?”. It seems no org has yet been to court to make case law – stuff is being settled out of court. But the youtube scenario is real enough – look at the regular tributes to dead youngsters posted there where a backing track is laid. Who’s the record label more likley to seek damages from – a multi-million pound turnover media org or a grieving family?
On the court orders – that is a publisher’s duty of care but on the linked site changing hands – you’ll only ever know when someone complains. But that underwear to porn example did actually happen to a northern paper recently we heard. A user complained, link severed.
LikeLike
@paulbradshaw you raise good questions. I attempted to get the technical nature of the possibilities into this posting by italicising the could because a lot of what the lawyers said was theoretical. For instance, taking pictures of people in a public street can now be considered an ifringement of an individual’s privacy if that person complains. However, if pictures of people in streets weren’t published there wouldn’t be much on Flickr these days! I always ask lawyers the same question too – “has any British news orgaisation paid out?”. It seems no org has yet been to court to make case law – stuff is being settled out of court. But the youtube scenario is real enough – look at the regular tributes to dead youngsters posted there where a backing track is laid. Who’s the record label more likley to seek damages from – a multi-million pound turnover media org or a grieving family?
On the court orders – that is a publisher’s duty of care but on the linked site changing hands – you’ll only ever know when someone complains. But that underwear to porn example did actually happen to a northern paper recently we heard. A user complained, link severed.
LikeLike