Former Sun editor convicted over Adam Johnson victim picture | UK news | The Guardian: "Dinsmore, who was promoted to chief operating officer of the paper’s publisher, News UK, in September 2015, was found guilty of breaching the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 following a trial on Monday.
Under the legislation, victims are granted lifelong anonymity and the press is prohibited from publishing any details that might lead to identification.
The judge ruled that, although the Sun had altered the photo to disguise the girl’s identity, it could have left her identifiable by people familiar with her Facebook profile." 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
Report urges end to 94 years of BBC self-regulation
Report urges end to 94 years of BBC self-regulation | Media | The Guardian: "“Not surprisingly, best practice requires regulator and regulatee to be in different legal entities,” he said. “Regulatory oversight should pass wholly to Ofcom, which is already the public service regulator for the UK’s broadcasting industry and has the ability to look at the BBC in the context of the market as a whole. Ofcom would be a strong regulator to match a strong BBC.”
Clementi also recommended that the BBC’s day-to-day operations be run by a unitary board, headed by a majority of non-executive directors." 'via Blog this'
Clementi also recommended that the BBC’s day-to-day operations be run by a unitary board, headed by a majority of non-executive directors." 'via Blog this'
Arlewin v Sweden, satellite TV defamation case - European Court of Human Rights
HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights: "Judgment Arlewin v. Sweden - jurisdiction in defamation proceedings arising out of transborder television programme
Press Release - Chamber Judgments | Published On 01/03/2016" 'via Blog this'
Press Release - Chamber Judgments | Published On 01/03/2016" 'via Blog this'
Saturday, 27 February 2016
CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' New Media Online
CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' - Tech Bytes Fieldfisher: "Where video content is included on a newspaper's website, they must be primarily linked and relevant to the text-based journalistic content in order to fall outside the principal purpose test and hence the AVMS Directive. It does not matter how the video content is organised (whether imbedded within articles or collated on a separate sub-domain) or whether the videos are part of a wider news service. This strikes us as a sensible approach, in that the AVMS Directive should not be capable of circumvention merely by the service architecture and the way content is presented.
It is also interesting to compare the CJEU's judgment on the principal purpose test with an earlier decision of Ofcom in the Sun Video case. In that case, Ofcom found in favour of the Sun (as there was significant linking between the videos and the articles) and also laid out some examples of characteristics of a service which did meet the principal purpose test. These included the length of the content, whether the service was styled like a television channel and whether the videos were catalogued on a separate section. Interestingly, these examples don't chime well with the CJEU's recent judgment, so we might expect to see some recasting by Ofcom and any other EU regulators who have taken a similar view." 'via Blog this'
It is also interesting to compare the CJEU's judgment on the principal purpose test with an earlier decision of Ofcom in the Sun Video case. In that case, Ofcom found in favour of the Sun (as there was significant linking between the videos and the articles) and also laid out some examples of characteristics of a service which did meet the principal purpose test. These included the length of the content, whether the service was styled like a television channel and whether the videos were catalogued on a separate section. Interestingly, these examples don't chime well with the CJEU's recent judgment, so we might expect to see some recasting by Ofcom and any other EU regulators who have taken a similar view." 'via Blog this'
Friday, 26 February 2016
New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat
CURIA - List of results: "Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof - Austria.
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ - Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service - Comparability of the service to television broadcasting - Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet.
Case C-347/14."
Analysis here 'via Blog this'
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof - Austria.
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ - Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service - Comparability of the service to television broadcasting - Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet.
Case C-347/14."
Analysis here 'via Blog this'
Thursday, 28 January 2016
Justin Walford evidence to Leveson Inquiry
View Section: Justin Walford :: Leveson Inquiry :: SayIt:
"Mr Jay: In terms of your current position, you are currently the editorial legal counsel at News Group Newspaper Limited, which publishes the Sun and of course previously and formerly the News of the World, and you are effectively now the legal manager of the Sun; is that correct?
Justin Walford: It's not strictly correct, because in fact once Tom Crone had left, we had a new legal director came in called Simon Toms and a new lawyer joined me, Ben Beabey, and we are technically at the same status. We both report to Simon Toms.
Mr Jay
Thank you. You were and you still are a barrister. You were called to the bar in 1981. You practised at libel chambers and in 1985 you joined the Express and you moved on to NGN in 2005.
If it's not an unfair question to ask -- and tell me if it is -- is there a difference in culture, in general terms, between the Express Newspapers at the time you were there and then News International?" 'via Blog this'
"Mr Jay: In terms of your current position, you are currently the editorial legal counsel at News Group Newspaper Limited, which publishes the Sun and of course previously and formerly the News of the World, and you are effectively now the legal manager of the Sun; is that correct?
Justin Walford: It's not strictly correct, because in fact once Tom Crone had left, we had a new legal director came in called Simon Toms and a new lawyer joined me, Ben Beabey, and we are technically at the same status. We both report to Simon Toms.
Mr Jay
Thank you. You were and you still are a barrister. You were called to the bar in 1981. You practised at libel chambers and in 1985 you joined the Express and you moved on to NGN in 2005.
If it's not an unfair question to ask -- and tell me if it is -- is there a difference in culture, in general terms, between the Express Newspapers at the time you were there and then News International?" 'via Blog this'
Monday, 4 January 2016
Media law cases in 2015: a short survey of the libel, privacy and data protection cases
Media law cases in 2015: a short survey of the libel, privacy and data protection cases | Inforrm's Blog: "The four particularly noteworthy cases of the year were, in chronological order:
Vidal-Hall v Google ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) in which the Court of Appeal disapplied section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 so that claims can now be made for distress damages in data protection, without proof of financial loss. This has opened the way for group actions in data protection – claims which are likely to be an important area of litigation in 2016. This decision was the subject of a popular Inforrm case comment. The decision is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, due to be heard in October 2016.
OPO v Rhodes ([2015] UKSC 32) in which the Supreme Court discharged an interim injunction restraining the publication of a book. The Court clarified the tort of intentionally inflicting mental suffering, gave a powerful reminder of the importance of freedom of expression, provided important guidance on the form of injunctive relief and abolished imputations of an intention by operation of a rule of law. This case was the subject of two of our most popular posts of the year by Dan Tench (on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions).
Gulati v MGN([2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)) – in which, in a detailed and comprehensive judgment (upheld by the Court of Appeal in December [2015] EWCA Civ 1291) Mann J awarded damages totalling £1.2 million were awarded to 8 victims of phone hacking. We had posts on the first instance and Court of Appeal
Lachaux v Independent Print [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) – the most important decision so far on the “serious harm” requirement under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2015, rejecting the submission that the law had not been substantially changed but accepting proof of serious harm by inference. We had an Inforrm case comment on this decision. An application for permission to appeal is presently pending before the Court of Appeal.
Libel
There were seven judgments after full libel trials – all of them by judge alone. Only one of those trials was against the mainstream media – and was won convincingly by newspaper. Overall the claimants were successful in 3 out of the 7 cases." 'via Blog this'
Vidal-Hall v Google ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) in which the Court of Appeal disapplied section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 so that claims can now be made for distress damages in data protection, without proof of financial loss. This has opened the way for group actions in data protection – claims which are likely to be an important area of litigation in 2016. This decision was the subject of a popular Inforrm case comment. The decision is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, due to be heard in October 2016.
OPO v Rhodes ([2015] UKSC 32) in which the Supreme Court discharged an interim injunction restraining the publication of a book. The Court clarified the tort of intentionally inflicting mental suffering, gave a powerful reminder of the importance of freedom of expression, provided important guidance on the form of injunctive relief and abolished imputations of an intention by operation of a rule of law. This case was the subject of two of our most popular posts of the year by Dan Tench (on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions).
Gulati v MGN([2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)) – in which, in a detailed and comprehensive judgment (upheld by the Court of Appeal in December [2015] EWCA Civ 1291) Mann J awarded damages totalling £1.2 million were awarded to 8 victims of phone hacking. We had posts on the first instance and Court of Appeal
Lachaux v Independent Print [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) – the most important decision so far on the “serious harm” requirement under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2015, rejecting the submission that the law had not been substantially changed but accepting proof of serious harm by inference. We had an Inforrm case comment on this decision. An application for permission to appeal is presently pending before the Court of Appeal.
Libel
There were seven judgments after full libel trials – all of them by judge alone. Only one of those trials was against the mainstream media – and was won convincingly by newspaper. Overall the claimants were successful in 3 out of the 7 cases." 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)