It's an old age question: How to tell if someone is telling a lie?
How to separate deception from truth?
Guess we may never have a definitive answer to this, but the science and psychology seem to be getting better.
Who knows? Maybe we'll know for sure one day if O.J. was telling the truth about not slaughtering his wife and her friend.
Until then, I've run across this revealing TED Talk titled "How to spot a liar." Turn your sound up and have a listen.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Farewell to my Aunt Nell
Nell McQueen, my beloved aunt (my mom’s oldest sister), died a few days ago. She was 93 and would have turned 94 on (of all days) 9/11.
I’ve been wondering what it was like on her 78th birthday 16 years ago.
Here’s what I think: Aunt Nell went to bed early the evening of Sept. 10, 2001, thinking, maybe even dreaming, about her upcoming birthday. She loved chocolate cake. Perhaps she had requested such a treat for her special day, so as she closed her eyes on her pillow she pictured a delicious chocolate cake with 78 candles. She loved being with her family, and looked forward, I’m sure, to being (the next day) with as many of her loved ones (sisters, nephews, nieces, grand nephews and grand nieces, close friends and neighbors, fellow Sunday School class members) as possible. She wasn’t much for presents, but who doesn’t like to be surprised? Aunt Nell, before she hit the hay on the night before 9/11, wondered if she’d maybe get a piece of jewelry or a gift card to one of her favorite eating places. She dearly loved to eat! Never dieted or counted calories that I know of. Just ate what she wanted and enjoyed food to the fullest.
And then, the next morning—at about 8:30 and on a Tuesday, as I recall—chaos broke out in New York, Pennsylvania and in Washington, D.C. Big jets, commandeered by Muslim terrorists, had been hijacked and crashed into buildings or to the earth, killing almost 3,000 people. Vicious out-of-the-blue attacks on our own soil shook our nation. Rescue crews and dogs dug through the rubble of fallen Twin Towers in NYC trying to find survivors. A big jet, full of innocent passengers, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board. Another big jet crashed into the Pentagon, causing more death and destruction.
Through it all, Aunt Nell—like millions of other stunned Americans and people all over the world—stayed glued to the news. She couldn’t believe the pictures. She couldn’t believe any of it.
She forgot about her birthday till later that day when someone, probably my mom and my sister, reminded her about it and took her out for lunch. She didn’t want to go. Didn’t feel like celebrating or partying, but they dragged her into the car and took her anyway.
What a birthday that must have been for her! What swirling, conflicting emotions she must have felt! What on earth had happened to her “special day”? Was the world coming to an end?
Gently prodded by those who loved her, my dear aunt ate her chocolate cake and blew out her 78 candles and returned hugs and kisses, but she also did all these things (I think) with reservations. Deep down, Aunt Nell’s heart was with those folks, in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Deep down, she wasn’t at rest or happy or the least bit in a festive mood.
That’s the kind of person my Aunt Nell McQueen was.
I guess the one word that sums up her persona is SWEET. She was a SWEET, caring, kind, generous and thoughtful-to-the-core lady.
She loved a good cup of coffee and she loved porch sitting and working crossword puzzles (she was word smart!) and being with her family.
At her eulogy the other day, David Siebenaler, minister of Valley Forge Christian Church (where she was a lifelong member and taught Sunday School for two decades) summed up her simple but fulfilling life very well. Here are his words:
“Nell …was a blessing to her friends and her church family. She was a faithful friend, one you could count on to stay in touch with you, to be there for you, and to do whatever she could for you. Many of her friends were also members of the church that was such an important part of her life, and she looked forward to being together with them for worship, fellowship, and study. She almost always found a way to inject her sweet spirit and her trademark sense of humor into conversations with these folks. I think of her as one of God’s quiet saints--those people who don’t have to be in the spotlight, but they are always there, quietly doing their part, giving encouragement to those around them. That’s what Nell did, and she did it well, often with a twinkle in her eye.
"I will always remember her teasing one of our greeters who handed out candy on Sunday mornings. She made sure that he knew that she liked Mr. Goodbars and that he’d better have some for her when she came through that door! Nothing pleased Nell more than to brighten someone’s day, and she did a lot of brightening down through the years. She in turn was blessed by the kindness of some of her church friends, who recently entertained her with a pizza party at her home. The best part, she told me afterward, was the chocolate cake. The pizza was good, but she really loved that chocolate cake!
“That sounds like Nell, doesn’t it? She enjoyed the simple things in life, but more importantly, she brought joy to those who knew her.”
Farewell, Aunt Nell. I’ll never forget you, and I'll love you forever.
(With this blog post is a picture of my late aunt (age 93 in the photo) talking to my sister Cheryl. Pictured also is a rainbow I captured with my iPhone camera a few weeks ago one early evening over Watauga Lake—not far from where my aunt was born.)
I’ve been wondering what it was like on her 78th birthday 16 years ago.
Here’s what I think: Aunt Nell went to bed early the evening of Sept. 10, 2001, thinking, maybe even dreaming, about her upcoming birthday. She loved chocolate cake. Perhaps she had requested such a treat for her special day, so as she closed her eyes on her pillow she pictured a delicious chocolate cake with 78 candles. She loved being with her family, and looked forward, I’m sure, to being (the next day) with as many of her loved ones (sisters, nephews, nieces, grand nephews and grand nieces, close friends and neighbors, fellow Sunday School class members) as possible. She wasn’t much for presents, but who doesn’t like to be surprised? Aunt Nell, before she hit the hay on the night before 9/11, wondered if she’d maybe get a piece of jewelry or a gift card to one of her favorite eating places. She dearly loved to eat! Never dieted or counted calories that I know of. Just ate what she wanted and enjoyed food to the fullest.
And then, the next morning—at about 8:30 and on a Tuesday, as I recall—chaos broke out in New York, Pennsylvania and in Washington, D.C. Big jets, commandeered by Muslim terrorists, had been hijacked and crashed into buildings or to the earth, killing almost 3,000 people. Vicious out-of-the-blue attacks on our own soil shook our nation. Rescue crews and dogs dug through the rubble of fallen Twin Towers in NYC trying to find survivors. A big jet, full of innocent passengers, crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania, killing everyone on board. Another big jet crashed into the Pentagon, causing more death and destruction.
Through it all, Aunt Nell—like millions of other stunned Americans and people all over the world—stayed glued to the news. She couldn’t believe the pictures. She couldn’t believe any of it.
She forgot about her birthday till later that day when someone, probably my mom and my sister, reminded her about it and took her out for lunch. She didn’t want to go. Didn’t feel like celebrating or partying, but they dragged her into the car and took her anyway.
What a birthday that must have been for her! What swirling, conflicting emotions she must have felt! What on earth had happened to her “special day”? Was the world coming to an end?
Gently prodded by those who loved her, my dear aunt ate her chocolate cake and blew out her 78 candles and returned hugs and kisses, but she also did all these things (I think) with reservations. Deep down, Aunt Nell’s heart was with those folks, in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Deep down, she wasn’t at rest or happy or the least bit in a festive mood.
That’s the kind of person my Aunt Nell McQueen was.
I guess the one word that sums up her persona is SWEET. She was a SWEET, caring, kind, generous and thoughtful-to-the-core lady.
She loved a good cup of coffee and she loved porch sitting and working crossword puzzles (she was word smart!) and being with her family.
At her eulogy the other day, David Siebenaler, minister of Valley Forge Christian Church (where she was a lifelong member and taught Sunday School for two decades) summed up her simple but fulfilling life very well. Here are his words:
“Nell …was a blessing to her friends and her church family. She was a faithful friend, one you could count on to stay in touch with you, to be there for you, and to do whatever she could for you. Many of her friends were also members of the church that was such an important part of her life, and she looked forward to being together with them for worship, fellowship, and study. She almost always found a way to inject her sweet spirit and her trademark sense of humor into conversations with these folks. I think of her as one of God’s quiet saints--those people who don’t have to be in the spotlight, but they are always there, quietly doing their part, giving encouragement to those around them. That’s what Nell did, and she did it well, often with a twinkle in her eye.
"I will always remember her teasing one of our greeters who handed out candy on Sunday mornings. She made sure that he knew that she liked Mr. Goodbars and that he’d better have some for her when she came through that door! Nothing pleased Nell more than to brighten someone’s day, and she did a lot of brightening down through the years. She in turn was blessed by the kindness of some of her church friends, who recently entertained her with a pizza party at her home. The best part, she told me afterward, was the chocolate cake. The pizza was good, but she really loved that chocolate cake!
“That sounds like Nell, doesn’t it? She enjoyed the simple things in life, but more importantly, she brought joy to those who knew her.”
Farewell, Aunt Nell. I’ll never forget you, and I'll love you forever.
(With this blog post is a picture of my late aunt (age 93 in the photo) talking to my sister Cheryl. Pictured also is a rainbow I captured with my iPhone camera a few weeks ago one early evening over Watauga Lake—not far from where my aunt was born.)
Monday, Monday...
Hello everyone in the blogosphere.
Touching on a few random topics today.
First is my beloved Carolina Panthers. Here's a shout-out for their tremendous season (17-1) and for gaining a birth in Super Bowl 50. (I don't do Roman numerals).
Secondly, the day of all that caucusing in Iowa has finally arrived. All the prognosticators can rest (yeah, sure). The candidates can relax (won't happen). TV viewers, tired of all the debating and speeches and I'll do that or I'll do this, can sit back and see history unfold.
It all happens today and tonight in the Hawkeye State.
"Why Iowa?" someone asked me.
"Why not?" I replied.
Iowans are a smart, savvy breed. And they are tough. Have to be out there in the Midwest with those ferocious winters. (I know because I lived in Iowa about five years.)
My view of the candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton--slippery, deceptive, prickly, borderline arrogant. Needs to learn how to use email.
2. Bernie Sanders--honest, sincere, frank, friendly (but is he a tad too old to be president?)
3. Martin O'Malley (not sure I'm spelling his name right)--polished and good speaker but doesn't stand a chance.
4. Donald Duck Trump (cause he ducked the last GOP debate)--extremely rich blowhard who claims to have all the answers.
5. Marco Rubio--charismatic and smart, but too scripted in his debating style.
6. Jeb Bush--could step in right now and do a good job as commander-in-chief. But many are tired of the Bushes. I feel sorry for him. Decent man.
7. John Kasich--stay still when you speak, John! Quit waving your arms. You are good, but you won't win the nomination.
8. Mike Huckabee--truly a good man. I believe he's a preacher? Too good to be president.
9. Rick Santorum--speaks well. Intelligent. Has a cool last name. But still a relative unknown on the national scale--even today.
10. Carly Fiorina--too strident. Could be the next CEO of Verizon. Needs to chill.
11. Ben Carson--blinks his eyes too often. Overly soft spoken, gentle and kind. Wants to be everyone's friend. Not working, Ben.
Finally, want to say a good word about an author I have just read. Her name is Adriana Trigioli. She wrote, among other books, Big Stone Gap and Big Cherry Holler. Words roll off her tongue (or through her fingers on a keyboard) like a warm rain soothing your soul. Recommend her strongly.
Touching on a few random topics today.
First is my beloved Carolina Panthers. Here's a shout-out for their tremendous season (17-1) and for gaining a birth in Super Bowl 50. (I don't do Roman numerals).
Secondly, the day of all that caucusing in Iowa has finally arrived. All the prognosticators can rest (yeah, sure). The candidates can relax (won't happen). TV viewers, tired of all the debating and speeches and I'll do that or I'll do this, can sit back and see history unfold.
It all happens today and tonight in the Hawkeye State.
"Why Iowa?" someone asked me.
"Why not?" I replied.
Iowans are a smart, savvy breed. And they are tough. Have to be out there in the Midwest with those ferocious winters. (I know because I lived in Iowa about five years.)
My view of the candidates:
1. Hillary Clinton--slippery, deceptive, prickly, borderline arrogant. Needs to learn how to use email.
2. Bernie Sanders--honest, sincere, frank, friendly (but is he a tad too old to be president?)
3. Martin O'Malley (not sure I'm spelling his name right)--polished and good speaker but doesn't stand a chance.
4. Donald Duck Trump (cause he ducked the last GOP debate)--extremely rich blowhard who claims to have all the answers.
5. Marco Rubio--charismatic and smart, but too scripted in his debating style.
6. Jeb Bush--could step in right now and do a good job as commander-in-chief. But many are tired of the Bushes. I feel sorry for him. Decent man.
7. John Kasich--stay still when you speak, John! Quit waving your arms. You are good, but you won't win the nomination.
8. Mike Huckabee--truly a good man. I believe he's a preacher? Too good to be president.
9. Rick Santorum--speaks well. Intelligent. Has a cool last name. But still a relative unknown on the national scale--even today.
10. Carly Fiorina--too strident. Could be the next CEO of Verizon. Needs to chill.
11. Ben Carson--blinks his eyes too often. Overly soft spoken, gentle and kind. Wants to be everyone's friend. Not working, Ben.
Finally, want to say a good word about an author I have just read. Her name is Adriana Trigioli. She wrote, among other books, Big Stone Gap and Big Cherry Holler. Words roll off her tongue (or through her fingers on a keyboard) like a warm rain soothing your soul. Recommend her strongly.
Copyright and libel
April 23, 2008
Lecture for my p.m. 343 class today.
Good morning, Professor Jamie.
I’m presuming you will teach my 343 class this afternoon.
Remind them to take notes of key points; helps them learn.
Lecture today focuses on another dimension of First Amendment law–copyright.
First a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
So I don’t claim to be an expert on copyright–a very complex part of First Amendment law.
But I know enough maybe to help all the future professional journalists (or other kinds of communication professionals in our feature writing class.)
A few key points:
1. This lecture is not the end all about copyright law. Everyone in our class needs to read more about copyright in our AP Style book (or in some other reputable source). Everyone can also find an abundance of good info. about copyright on the Web. Do some research. Learn all you can.
2. What is copyright? Basically, it’s a law that protects a person’s intellectual property. If a person writes or creates some sort of expression (photo, graphic, story, sketch...), copyright assures the creator of that expression a certain degree of protection from intellectual theft.
3. When you research or read about copyright law, one word keeps coming up over and over. The word is “PERMISSION.” This means that if you are not sure if something is copyrighted, then it probably is copyrighted! Always, when in doubt as a writer, artist, photographer and you want to borrow someone else’s work for your own use, ask the creator of that work for HIS/HER PERMISSION.
4. Even though you cite the source of expression (that you have lifted from someone else’s work and used for your own purposes), you could still be guilty of copyright infringement, especially if you are somehow being paid money (as in Mad Money) for your writing, graphics, photography or whatever. Again, always best to get PERMISSION OF THE CREATOR OF THE WORK BEFORE YOU LIFT IT FOR YOUR OWN USE.
An exception to the above is if you are researching and writing a paper for a class or course. In that case, if your work is purely for academic reasons and you don’t intend to have it published, you probably don’t need to get permission from the creator of the work you have cited or borrowed. But you definitely need to source it (give the original author credit) in your paper.
5. There’s a common misconception that writing, photography, graphics or other forms of expression have to be accompanied by the copyright symbol (letter C inside a circle) before the expression has copyright protection. Not true! All things written, captured on camera, or sketched are immediately copyrighted!
That said, it is the case that the copyright notice (which you can also have registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) reinforces protection of the creator of the original work. The notice is a caution or reminder to people not to steal or rip off the work without permission of the creator of the work.
6. One big factor that comes into play regarding copyright law is commercial benefit. Are you, through your writing, photography, infographics, sketches, getting paid for that expression? And, if so, does what you claim to be totally your expression (writing, photography, whatever), contain the work of others? Careful if this is the case! You could be found guilty of copyright infringement and pay big money (to the original creator of the expression) in a court of law.
7. There is a little wiggle room in the copyright law. There’s an exemption called fair comment. This means that it’s okay for you to reproduce, without permission of the original creator of the expression, that expression if you are doing an evaluation or critique or review or even a parody of that expression. This helps movie and arts review (books, plays) critics do their thing in the media. But it’s not okay for you, even if you are a critic of some sort, to pass off someone else’s work as your own.
8. Always good to remember that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. But the verbatim (precise, exact) expression of those facts and idea are subject to copyright protection.
Example: I write a feature story about the O.J. Simpson murder trial. I note in my story, in my own words, certain facts about that trial such as: it occurred in the early 1990s; Mr. Simpson was accused of murdering two persons–his wife and his wife’s close friend; the two dead persons were found in pools of blood, butchered, on a sidewalk at Mr. Simpson’s home residence in Los Angeles; the jury in this case returned a verdict of not guilty and let Mr. Simpson go free.
On the other hand, if I lift verbatim a passage from another article (about Simpson’s murder trial) written by someone else (whether printed in a newspaper, magazine or from a Web site) and use that in my story (as if I had written that lifted portion), then I am guilty of copyright infringement.
It’s also a common misunderstanding that the amount or extent of text that a person lifts from another person’s writing, without that original creator’s permission, factors into whether a violation of copyright has occurred.
Careful! Courts have ruled that in some instances, even though very few words were stolen from another person’s work, those very few words constitute the heart and soul of the original expression; and thus violation of copyright has occurred. This situation has happened with regard to the words in songs or the musical notes of songs. Very little may have been stolen or borrowed, but it’s still against copyright law.
9. Just because something is on the Web, it’s not free for the taking–UNLESS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF THE WEB SITE STATES EXPLICITLY ON THE WEB SITE THAT MATERIAL ON THE SITE MAY BE USED FREELY FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.
But again, be careful. If no such statement is on the Web site, the material on the site is copyrighted. We therefore get back to asking for permission to use or borrow.
Bottom line: If you did not create the material you located on a Web site, do not use it without the creator’s permission. Without that permission, you cannot legally use or copy the expression for your own use. Without permission, you are a common, scumbag intellectual, lying, cheating thief who is guilty of copyright infringement!
Some may wonder how they can get caught for stealing work from a Web site. It can happen folks! Big corporations and other entities today have “spiders” (software that scours or crawls the Internet) looking for intellectual property thieves.
Blogging: This is a fairly new phenomenon, in terms of copyright law, but my reading is that while you can blog freely, you should not reproduce or blog someone else’s verbatim expression as your own expression. Again, we get back to that important permission factor! It does seem okay, to have links in your blog (without the permission of the original creator of that link.) Didn’t I say earlier that copyright law is complex??!!
Well, okay folks, that’s about it today for copyright law.
But, before we depart, let’s take a quick look at libel law. (Very quick look!)
Oops (and before we do that), here’s a homework assignment: Do some research and find out why the following persons are significant when it comes to First Amendment law or ethics:
Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly, Stephen Glass.
Who knows, someone may ask you about these people on our final exam.
Also, you should closely study the SPJ Code of Ethics (which you can find online at: www.spj.org)
Again, potential final exam material. When you read the code, think about how various provisions of it might apply to feature writers.
Quick flashback item for class discussion (on invasion of privacy) before we touch on libel law:
1. As a staff member of The Johnsonian, you want to photograph a couple of students embracing each other closely on a bench near the fountain in front of Tillman Hall at Winthrop. Can you take their picture, and be legally safe from invasion of privacy, without getting the couple’s permission?
2. You’re a freelance writer and photographer walking down the beach at Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Just so happens you have your camera with you, as you should have because, once a journalist, always a journalist!) You notice a young woman (about 25-30 years old) sunning herself on a blanket. She’s lying on her back. There’s a slight breeze. She seems to be napping. Suddenly a gust of wind blows the top of her bikini off. She remains asleep. You snap her picture, hurry back to your laptop at your motel room and write an article, accompanying the picture, which you sell to a magazine at the beach. Your article is about what people might be surprised to spot at the beach. The woman in the photo sues you for invasion of privacy. Does she have a good case?
Okay, what is libel?
It’s an important dimension of First Amendment law and you should read all about it in the AP Style book (required textbook for our course.)
A quick bottom line definition of libel is this: Libel is defamatory, false, published information about a named or otherwise identified person.
In libel cases, we have a plaintiff and we have a defendant.
The plaintiff is the person who thinks he/she has been libeled or damaged by the media.
The defendant is the person who wrote the article about the allegedly defamed person; the defendant can also be the medium (newspaper, magazine, movie, Web site...) where the expression/article appeared.
When a plaintiff files a libel suit against a defendant, the plaintiff must prove four things before he/she can prevail or win in the lawsuit:
1. Publication. Means the material had to be published somewhere. Publication has been defined loosely by the courts to mean that if 3 or more people read/see material, then it is published. Does material appearing in an article in The Johnsonian constitute publication? Yes! What about an e-mail that Jamie Low sends Larry Timbs (but Larry does not share with anyone else)? That would not be “publication” because only two people saw the message. But if Larry forwards/shares Jamie’s e-mail with at least one other person, well, that’s a whole different kettle of fish, ladies and gentlemen!
2. Identification. Means that in addition to proving that material was published about her, the plaintiff has to prove that she was IDENTIFIED, by name or otherwise, in that published material.
Example: Say someone thinks they have been defamed (humiliated or embarrassed) through an article published in The Johnsonian. The article in question is about gays and lesbians at Winthrop Univ. It mentions no one’s name and in no way identifies anyone in particular. It is a general overview article about gays and lesbians at Winthrop. Someone quoted in the article says something very, very degrading against gays and lesbians. Ralph Ralphson, a gay student at Winthrop, reads the article and really becomes angry at The Johnsonian and at the student who wrote the article. Ralph sues for libel. Will he win this lawsuit against the newspaper and the writer?
CLASS DISCUSSION OF ABOVE SITUATION AT THIS POINT.
Then, again, still focusing on the element of identification, consider that The Johnsonian runs an article about cheerleaders at Winthrop. The article mentions no one’s name on the cheerleading squad, but it does assert that at least one of the Winthrop cheerleaders is a prostitute. Here’s where the situation concerning I.D. gets tricky. Small group of potential libel plaintiffs? If the group is relatively small, even though no one is named in particular in an article, careful! (How many cheerleaders are there at the ball games at Winthrop?) All of the members of the small group might sue the newspaper for libel (or maybe only one member will sue.)
There’s great risk here cause the group is relatively small.
You may be wondering what happens if the newspaper reporter accurately quotes someone (and has that someone on a recording) saying that one of the cheerleaders is a prostitute. Yes, the reporter has been accurate, but the quote still might be held as grounds for a successful libel suit. Keep reading to understand why.
3. Defamation: (rimes, curiously, with defecation) Means in essence that the published article about a person identified in the article also defames that person. Defames means that the person was greatly humiliated, hurt, embarrassed or had his/her good name or reputation damaged. Defamation also might mean the published material caused the plaintiff to lose wages or friends or business customers or even his/her job.
CLASS DISCUSSION HERE ON HOW AN ARTICLE IN The Johnsonian could possibly defame a Winthrop student. Also, how could the student PROVE that he/she had been defamed?
Remember: Probably the most precious thing we have in life is our good name or reputation. We work to protect that every day of our lives, don’t we? And then along comes a reporter who writes a defamatory article about us. Bad news all the way around!
4. Falsity: In addition, to PROVING that published material about him/her is defamatory and identifies her/him in the article, a libel plaintiff must prove, to win a libel case, that the material published is false. If, on the other hand, the published defamatory material is true, the libel plaintiff can’t win the case. But she may be able to prevail in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. (Flashback to “embarrassing facts” privacy invasion tort referred to in a previous lecture for our class.)
Summary: To win a libel case, the person suing the media and or reporter for libel must PROVE the following elements: Publication, Identification, Defamation, Falsity. Lest all those are proved by the plaintiff (person bringing suit) the plaintiff cannot win.
Okay, one more thing (and it’s a big thing that everyone should read about in the AP Style book or some other good reference book on First Amendment law.)
When it comes to public officials or public figures, these sorts of people must prove to win a libel case against the media something called “actual malice.”
These public officials or public figures must ALSO, of course, prove the same things that private (nonpublic) people must prove: Publication, Identification, Defamation, and Falsity.
So the burden of proof, to win a libel case, is higher for public officials/figures as opposed to private individuals who pretty much keep to themselves.
What, for purposes of libel law, is a private person?
What’s a public official or public person?
(Do some research and reading and find out!)
So what is “actual malice.”
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth. Does not have to mean both. It means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth.
Okay, so what does knowledge of falsity mean?
Reckless disregard for the truth?
Again, do some research–in your style book and/or elsewhere and find out. Key terms for sure.
Also, while you’re at it, look up the famous court case titled:
New York Times v. Sullivan
It’s probably the most famous First Amendment law case in history.
Enough for today.
I’m tired.
Surgery coming on Monday a.m.
Miss you all.
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.April 23, 2008
Lecture for my p.m. 343 class today.
Good morning, Professor Jamie.
I’m presuming you will teach my 343 class this afternoon.
Remind them to take notes of key points; helps them learn.
Lecture today focuses on another dimension of First Amendment law–copyright.
First a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
So I don’t claim to be an expert on copyright–a very complex part of First Amendment law.
But I know enough maybe to help all the future professional journalists (or other kinds of communication professionals in our feature writing class.)
A few key points:
1. This lecture is not the end all about copyright law. Everyone in our class needs to read more about copyright in our AP Style book (or in some other reputable source). Everyone can also find an abundance of good info. about copyright on the Web. Do some research. Learn all you can.
2. What is copyright? Basically, it’s a law that protects a person’s intellectual property. If a person writes or creates some sort of expression (photo, graphic, story, sketch...), copyright assures the creator of that expression a certain degree of protection from intellectual theft.
3. When you research or read about copyright law, one word keeps coming up over and over. The word is “PERMISSION.” This means that if you are not sure if something is copyrighted, then it probably is copyrighted! Always, when in doubt as a writer, artist, photographer and you want to borrow someone else’s work for your own use, ask the creator of that work for HIS/HER PERMISSION.
4. Even though you cite the source of expression (that you have lifted from someone else’s work and used for your own purposes), you could still be guilty of copyright infringement, especially if you are somehow being paid money (as in Mad Money) for your writing, graphics, photography or whatever. Again, always best to get PERMISSION OF THE CREATOR OF THE WORK BEFORE YOU LIFT IT FOR YOUR OWN USE.
An exception to the above is if you are researching and writing a paper for a class or course. In that case, if your work is purely for academic reasons and you don’t intend to have it published, you probably don’t need to get permission from the creator of the work you have cited or borrowed. But you definitely need to source it (give the original author credit) in your paper.
5. There’s a common misconception that writing, photography, graphics or other forms of expression have to be accompanied by the copyright symbol (letter C inside a circle) before the expression has copyright protection. Not true! All things written, captured on camera, or sketched are immediately copyrighted!
That said, it is the case that the copyright notice (which you can also have registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) reinforces protection of the creator of the original work. The notice is a caution or reminder to people not to steal or rip off the work without permission of the creator of the work.
6. One big factor that comes into play regarding copyright law is commercial benefit. Are you, through your writing, photography, infographics, sketches, getting paid for that expression? And, if so, does what you claim to be totally your expression (writing, photography, whatever), contain the work of others? Careful if this is the case! You could be found guilty of copyright infringement and pay big money (to the original creator of the expression) in a court of law.
7. There is a little wiggle room in the copyright law. There’s an exemption called fair comment. This means that it’s okay for you to reproduce, without permission of the original creator of the expression, that expression if you are doing an evaluation or critique or review or even a parody of that expression. This helps movie and arts review (books, plays) critics do their thing in the media. But it’s not okay for you, even if you are a critic of some sort, to pass off someone else’s work as your own.
8. Always good to remember that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. But the verbatim (precise, exact) expression of those facts and idea are subject to copyright protection.
Example: I write a feature story about the O.J. Simpson murder trial. I note in my story, in my own words, certain facts about that trial such as: it occurred in the early 1990s; Mr. Simpson was accused of murdering two persons–his wife and his wife’s close friend; the two dead persons were found in pools of blood, butchered, on a sidewalk at Mr. Simpson’s home residence in Los Angeles; the jury in this case returned a verdict of not guilty and let Mr. Simpson go free.
On the other hand, if I lift verbatim a passage from another article (about Simpson’s murder trial) written by someone else (whether printed in a newspaper, magazine or from a Web site) and use that in my story (as if I had written that lifted portion), then I am guilty of copyright infringement.
It’s also a common misunderstanding that the amount or extent of text that a person lifts from another person’s writing, without that original creator’s permission, factors into whether a violation of copyright has occurred.
Careful! Courts have ruled that in some instances, even though very few words were stolen from another person’s work, those very few words constitute the heart and soul of the original expression; and thus violation of copyright has occurred. This situation has happened with regard to the words in songs or the musical notes of songs. Very little may have been stolen or borrowed, but it’s still against copyright law.
9. Just because something is on the Web, it’s not free for the taking–UNLESS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF THE WEB SITE STATES EXPLICITLY ON THE WEB SITE THAT MATERIAL ON THE SITE MAY BE USED FREELY FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.
But again, be careful. If no such statement is on the Web site, the material on the site is copyrighted. We therefore get back to asking for permission to use or borrow.
Bottom line: If you did not create the material you located on a Web site, do not use it without the creator’s permission. Without that permission, you cannot legally use or copy the expression for your own use. Without permission, you are a common, scumbag intellectual, lying, cheating thief who is guilty of copyright infringement!
Some may wonder how they can get caught for stealing work from a Web site. It can happen folks! Big corporations and other entities today have “spiders” (software that scours or crawls the Internet) looking for intellectual property thieves.
Blogging: This is a fairly new phenomenon, in terms of copyright law, but my reading is that while you can blog freely, you should not reproduce or blog someone else’s verbatim expression as your own expression. Again, we get back to that important permission factor! It does seem okay, to have links in your blog (without the permission of the original creator of that link.) Didn’t I say earlier that copyright law is complex??!!
Well, okay folks, that’s about it today for copyright law.
But, before we depart, let’s take a quick look at libel law. (Very quick look!)
Oops (and before we do that), here’s a homework assignment: Do some research and find out why the following persons are significant when it comes to First Amendment law or ethics:
Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly, Stephen Glass.
Who knows, someone may ask you about these people on our final exam.
Also, you should closely study the SPJ Code of Ethics (which you can find online at: www.spj.org)
Again, potential final exam material. When you read the code, think about how various provisions of it might apply to feature writers.
Quick flashback item for class discussion (on invasion of privacy) before we touch on libel law:
1. As a staff member of The Johnsonian, you want to photograph a couple of students embracing each other closely on a bench near the fountain in front of Tillman Hall at Winthrop. Can you take their picture, and be legally safe from invasion of privacy, without getting the couple’s permission?
2. You’re a freelance writer and photographer walking down the beach at Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Just so happens you have your camera with you, as you should have because, once a journalist, always a journalist!) You notice a young woman (about 25-30 years old) sunning herself on a blanket. She’s lying on her back. There’s a slight breeze. She seems to be napping. Suddenly a gust of wind blows the top of her bikini off. She remains asleep. You snap her picture, hurry back to your laptop at your motel room and write an article, accompanying the picture, which you sell to a magazine at the beach. Your article is about what people might be surprised to spot at the beach. The woman in the photo sues you for invasion of privacy. Does she have a good case?
Okay, what is libel?
It’s an important dimension of First Amendment law and you should read all about it in the AP Style book (required textbook for our course.)
A quick bottom line definition of libel is this: Libel is defamatory, false, published information about a named or otherwise identified person.
In libel cases, we have a plaintiff and we have a defendant.
The plaintiff is the person who thinks he/she has been libeled or damaged by the media.
The defendant is the person who wrote the article about the allegedly defamed person; the defendant can also be the medium (newspaper, magazine, movie, Web site...) where the expression/article appeared.
When a plaintiff files a libel suit against a defendant, the plaintiff must prove four things before he/she can prevail or win in the lawsuit:
1. Publication. Means the material had to be published somewhere. Publication has been defined loosely by the courts to mean that if 3 or more people read/see material, then it is published. Does material appearing in an article in The Johnsonian constitute publication? Yes! What about an e-mail that Jamie Low sends Larry Timbs (but Larry does not share with anyone else)? That would not be “publication” because only two people saw the message. But if Larry forwards/shares Jamie’s e-mail with at least one other person, well, that’s a whole different kettle of fish, ladies and gentlemen!
2. Identification. Means that in addition to proving that material was published about her, the plaintiff has to prove that she was IDENTIFIED, by name or otherwise, in that published material.
Example: Say someone thinks they have been defamed (humiliated or embarrassed) through an article published in The Johnsonian. The article in question is about gays and lesbians at Winthrop Univ. It mentions no one’s name and in no way identifies anyone in particular. It is a general overview article about gays and lesbians at Winthrop. Someone quoted in the article says something very, very degrading against gays and lesbians. Ralph Ralphson, a gay student at Winthrop, reads the article and really becomes angry at The Johnsonian and at the student who wrote the article. Ralph sues for libel. Will he win this lawsuit against the newspaper and the writer?
CLASS DISCUSSION OF ABOVE SITUATION AT THIS POINT.
Then, again, still focusing on the element of identification, consider that The Johnsonian runs an article about cheerleaders at Winthrop. The article mentions no one’s name on the cheerleading squad, but it does assert that at least one of the Winthrop cheerleaders is a prostitute. Here’s where the situation concerning I.D. gets tricky. Small group of potential libel plaintiffs? If the group is relatively small, even though no one is named in particular in an article, careful! (How many cheerleaders are there at the ball games at Winthrop?) All of the members of the small group might sue the newspaper for libel (or maybe only one member will sue.)
There’s great risk here cause the group is relatively small.
You may be wondering what happens if the newspaper reporter accurately quotes someone (and has that someone on a recording) saying that one of the cheerleaders is a prostitute. Yes, the reporter has been accurate, but the quote still might be held as grounds for a successful libel suit. Keep reading to understand why.
3. Defamation: (rimes, curiously, with defecation) Means in essence that the published article about a person identified in the article also defames that person. Defames means that the person was greatly humiliated, hurt, embarrassed or had his/her good name or reputation damaged. Defamation also might mean the published material caused the plaintiff to lose wages or friends or business customers or even his/her job.
CLASS DISCUSSION HERE ON HOW AN ARTICLE IN The Johnsonian could possibly defame a Winthrop student. Also, how could the student PROVE that he/she had been defamed?
Remember: Probably the most precious thing we have in life is our good name or reputation. We work to protect that every day of our lives, don’t we? And then along comes a reporter who writes a defamatory article about us. Bad news all the way around!
4. Falsity: In addition, to PROVING that published material about him/her is defamatory and identifies her/him in the article, a libel plaintiff must prove, to win a libel case, that the material published is false. If, on the other hand, the published defamatory material is true, the libel plaintiff can’t win the case. But she may be able to prevail in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. (Flashback to “embarrassing facts” privacy invasion tort referred to in a previous lecture for our class.)
Summary: To win a libel case, the person suing the media and or reporter for libel must PROVE the following elements: Publication, Identification, Defamation, Falsity. Lest all those are proved by the plaintiff (person bringing suit) the plaintiff cannot win.
Okay, one more thing (and it’s a big thing that everyone should read about in the AP Style book or some other good reference book on First Amendment law.)
When it comes to public officials or public figures, these sorts of people must prove to win a libel case against the media something called “actual malice.”
These public officials or public figures must ALSO, of course, prove the same things that private (nonpublic) people must prove: Publication, Identification, Defamation, and Falsity.
So the burden of proof, to win a libel case, is higher for public officials/figures as opposed to private individuals who pretty much keep to themselves.
What, for purposes of libel law, is a private person?
What’s a public official or public person?
(Do some research and reading and find out!)
So what is “actual malice.”
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth. Does not have to mean both. It means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth.
Okay, so what does knowledge of falsity mean?
Reckless disregard for the truth?
Again, do some research–in your style book and/or elsewhere and find out. Key terms for sure.
Also, while you’re at it, look up the famous court case titled:
New York Times v. Sullivan
It’s probably the most famous First Amendment law case in history.
Enough for today.
I’m tired.
Surgery coming on Monday a.m.
Miss you all.
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.
Lecture for my p.m. 343 class today.
Good morning, Professor Jamie.
I’m presuming you will teach my 343 class this afternoon.
Remind them to take notes of key points; helps them learn.
Lecture today focuses on another dimension of First Amendment law–copyright.
First a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
So I don’t claim to be an expert on copyright–a very complex part of First Amendment law.
But I know enough maybe to help all the future professional journalists (or other kinds of communication professionals in our feature writing class.)
A few key points:
1. This lecture is not the end all about copyright law. Everyone in our class needs to read more about copyright in our AP Style book (or in some other reputable source). Everyone can also find an abundance of good info. about copyright on the Web. Do some research. Learn all you can.
2. What is copyright? Basically, it’s a law that protects a person’s intellectual property. If a person writes or creates some sort of expression (photo, graphic, story, sketch...), copyright assures the creator of that expression a certain degree of protection from intellectual theft.
3. When you research or read about copyright law, one word keeps coming up over and over. The word is “PERMISSION.” This means that if you are not sure if something is copyrighted, then it probably is copyrighted! Always, when in doubt as a writer, artist, photographer and you want to borrow someone else’s work for your own use, ask the creator of that work for HIS/HER PERMISSION.
4. Even though you cite the source of expression (that you have lifted from someone else’s work and used for your own purposes), you could still be guilty of copyright infringement, especially if you are somehow being paid money (as in Mad Money) for your writing, graphics, photography or whatever. Again, always best to get PERMISSION OF THE CREATOR OF THE WORK BEFORE YOU LIFT IT FOR YOUR OWN USE.
An exception to the above is if you are researching and writing a paper for a class or course. In that case, if your work is purely for academic reasons and you don’t intend to have it published, you probably don’t need to get permission from the creator of the work you have cited or borrowed. But you definitely need to source it (give the original author credit) in your paper.
5. There’s a common misconception that writing, photography, graphics or other forms of expression have to be accompanied by the copyright symbol (letter C inside a circle) before the expression has copyright protection. Not true! All things written, captured on camera, or sketched are immediately copyrighted!
That said, it is the case that the copyright notice (which you can also have registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) reinforces protection of the creator of the original work. The notice is a caution or reminder to people not to steal or rip off the work without permission of the creator of the work.
6. One big factor that comes into play regarding copyright law is commercial benefit. Are you, through your writing, photography, infographics, sketches, getting paid for that expression? And, if so, does what you claim to be totally your expression (writing, photography, whatever), contain the work of others? Careful if this is the case! You could be found guilty of copyright infringement and pay big money (to the original creator of the expression) in a court of law.
7. There is a little wiggle room in the copyright law. There’s an exemption called fair comment. This means that it’s okay for you to reproduce, without permission of the original creator of the expression, that expression if you are doing an evaluation or critique or review or even a parody of that expression. This helps movie and arts review (books, plays) critics do their thing in the media. But it’s not okay for you, even if you are a critic of some sort, to pass off someone else’s work as your own.
8. Always good to remember that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. But the verbatim (precise, exact) expression of those facts and idea are subject to copyright protection.
Example: I write a feature story about the O.J. Simpson murder trial. I note in my story, in my own words, certain facts about that trial such as: it occurred in the early 1990s; Mr. Simpson was accused of murdering two persons–his wife and his wife’s close friend; the two dead persons were found in pools of blood, butchered, on a sidewalk at Mr. Simpson’s home residence in Los Angeles; the jury in this case returned a verdict of not guilty and let Mr. Simpson go free.
On the other hand, if I lift verbatim a passage from another article (about Simpson’s murder trial) written by someone else (whether printed in a newspaper, magazine or from a Web site) and use that in my story (as if I had written that lifted portion), then I am guilty of copyright infringement.
It’s also a common misunderstanding that the amount or extent of text that a person lifts from another person’s writing, without that original creator’s permission, factors into whether a violation of copyright has occurred.
Careful! Courts have ruled that in some instances, even though very few words were stolen from another person’s work, those very few words constitute the heart and soul of the original expression; and thus violation of copyright has occurred. This situation has happened with regard to the words in songs or the musical notes of songs. Very little may have been stolen or borrowed, but it’s still against copyright law.
9. Just because something is on the Web, it’s not free for the taking–UNLESS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF THE WEB SITE STATES EXPLICITLY ON THE WEB SITE THAT MATERIAL ON THE SITE MAY BE USED FREELY FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.
But again, be careful. If no such statement is on the Web site, the material on the site is copyrighted. We therefore get back to asking for permission to use or borrow.
Bottom line: If you did not create the material you located on a Web site, do not use it without the creator’s permission. Without that permission, you cannot legally use or copy the expression for your own use. Without permission, you are a common, scumbag intellectual, lying, cheating thief who is guilty of copyright infringement!
Some may wonder how they can get caught for stealing work from a Web site. It can happen folks! Big corporations and other entities today have “spiders” (software that scours or crawls the Internet) looking for intellectual property thieves.
Blogging: This is a fairly new phenomenon, in terms of copyright law, but my reading is that while you can blog freely, you should not reproduce or blog someone else’s verbatim expression as your own expression. Again, we get back to that important permission factor! It does seem okay, to have links in your blog (without the permission of the original creator of that link.) Didn’t I say earlier that copyright law is complex??!!
Well, okay folks, that’s about it today for copyright law.
But, before we depart, let’s take a quick look at libel law. (Very quick look!)
Oops (and before we do that), here’s a homework assignment: Do some research and find out why the following persons are significant when it comes to First Amendment law or ethics:
Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly, Stephen Glass.
Who knows, someone may ask you about these people on our final exam.
Also, you should closely study the SPJ Code of Ethics (which you can find online at: www.spj.org)
Again, potential final exam material. When you read the code, think about how various provisions of it might apply to feature writers.
Quick flashback item for class discussion (on invasion of privacy) before we touch on libel law:
1. As a staff member of The Johnsonian, you want to photograph a couple of students embracing each other closely on a bench near the fountain in front of Tillman Hall at Winthrop. Can you take their picture, and be legally safe from invasion of privacy, without getting the couple’s permission?
2. You’re a freelance writer and photographer walking down the beach at Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Just so happens you have your camera with you, as you should have because, once a journalist, always a journalist!) You notice a young woman (about 25-30 years old) sunning herself on a blanket. She’s lying on her back. There’s a slight breeze. She seems to be napping. Suddenly a gust of wind blows the top of her bikini off. She remains asleep. You snap her picture, hurry back to your laptop at your motel room and write an article, accompanying the picture, which you sell to a magazine at the beach. Your article is about what people might be surprised to spot at the beach. The woman in the photo sues you for invasion of privacy. Does she have a good case?
Okay, what is libel?
It’s an important dimension of First Amendment law and you should read all about it in the AP Style book (required textbook for our course.)
A quick bottom line definition of libel is this: Libel is defamatory, false, published information about a named or otherwise identified person.
In libel cases, we have a plaintiff and we have a defendant.
The plaintiff is the person who thinks he/she has been libeled or damaged by the media.
The defendant is the person who wrote the article about the allegedly defamed person; the defendant can also be the medium (newspaper, magazine, movie, Web site...) where the expression/article appeared.
When a plaintiff files a libel suit against a defendant, the plaintiff must prove four things before he/she can prevail or win in the lawsuit:
1. Publication. Means the material had to be published somewhere. Publication has been defined loosely by the courts to mean that if 3 or more people read/see material, then it is published. Does material appearing in an article in The Johnsonian constitute publication? Yes! What about an e-mail that Jamie Low sends Larry Timbs (but Larry does not share with anyone else)? That would not be “publication” because only two people saw the message. But if Larry forwards/shares Jamie’s e-mail with at least one other person, well, that’s a whole different kettle of fish, ladies and gentlemen!
2. Identification. Means that in addition to proving that material was published about her, the plaintiff has to prove that she was IDENTIFIED, by name or otherwise, in that published material.
Example: Say someone thinks they have been defamed (humiliated or embarrassed) through an article published in The Johnsonian. The article in question is about gays and lesbians at Winthrop Univ. It mentions no one’s name and in no way identifies anyone in particular. It is a general overview article about gays and lesbians at Winthrop. Someone quoted in the article says something very, very degrading against gays and lesbians. Ralph Ralphson, a gay student at Winthrop, reads the article and really becomes angry at The Johnsonian and at the student who wrote the article. Ralph sues for libel. Will he win this lawsuit against the newspaper and the writer?
CLASS DISCUSSION OF ABOVE SITUATION AT THIS POINT.
Then, again, still focusing on the element of identification, consider that The Johnsonian runs an article about cheerleaders at Winthrop. The article mentions no one’s name on the cheerleading squad, but it does assert that at least one of the Winthrop cheerleaders is a prostitute. Here’s where the situation concerning I.D. gets tricky. Small group of potential libel plaintiffs? If the group is relatively small, even though no one is named in particular in an article, careful! (How many cheerleaders are there at the ball games at Winthrop?) All of the members of the small group might sue the newspaper for libel (or maybe only one member will sue.)
There’s great risk here cause the group is relatively small.
You may be wondering what happens if the newspaper reporter accurately quotes someone (and has that someone on a recording) saying that one of the cheerleaders is a prostitute. Yes, the reporter has been accurate, but the quote still might be held as grounds for a successful libel suit. Keep reading to understand why.
3. Defamation: (rimes, curiously, with defecation) Means in essence that the published article about a person identified in the article also defames that person. Defames means that the person was greatly humiliated, hurt, embarrassed or had his/her good name or reputation damaged. Defamation also might mean the published material caused the plaintiff to lose wages or friends or business customers or even his/her job.
CLASS DISCUSSION HERE ON HOW AN ARTICLE IN The Johnsonian could possibly defame a Winthrop student. Also, how could the student PROVE that he/she had been defamed?
Remember: Probably the most precious thing we have in life is our good name or reputation. We work to protect that every day of our lives, don’t we? And then along comes a reporter who writes a defamatory article about us. Bad news all the way around!
4. Falsity: In addition, to PROVING that published material about him/her is defamatory and identifies her/him in the article, a libel plaintiff must prove, to win a libel case, that the material published is false. If, on the other hand, the published defamatory material is true, the libel plaintiff can’t win the case. But she may be able to prevail in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. (Flashback to “embarrassing facts” privacy invasion tort referred to in a previous lecture for our class.)
Summary: To win a libel case, the person suing the media and or reporter for libel must PROVE the following elements: Publication, Identification, Defamation, Falsity. Lest all those are proved by the plaintiff (person bringing suit) the plaintiff cannot win.
Okay, one more thing (and it’s a big thing that everyone should read about in the AP Style book or some other good reference book on First Amendment law.)
When it comes to public officials or public figures, these sorts of people must prove to win a libel case against the media something called “actual malice.”
These public officials or public figures must ALSO, of course, prove the same things that private (nonpublic) people must prove: Publication, Identification, Defamation, and Falsity.
So the burden of proof, to win a libel case, is higher for public officials/figures as opposed to private individuals who pretty much keep to themselves.
What, for purposes of libel law, is a private person?
What’s a public official or public person?
(Do some research and reading and find out!)
So what is “actual malice.”
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth. Does not have to mean both. It means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth.
Okay, so what does knowledge of falsity mean?
Reckless disregard for the truth?
Again, do some research–in your style book and/or elsewhere and find out. Key terms for sure.
Also, while you’re at it, look up the famous court case titled:
New York Times v. Sullivan
It’s probably the most famous First Amendment law case in history.
Enough for today.
I’m tired.
Surgery coming on Monday a.m.
Miss you all.
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.April 23, 2008
Lecture for my p.m. 343 class today.
Good morning, Professor Jamie.
I’m presuming you will teach my 343 class this afternoon.
Remind them to take notes of key points; helps them learn.
Lecture today focuses on another dimension of First Amendment law–copyright.
First a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV.
So I don’t claim to be an expert on copyright–a very complex part of First Amendment law.
But I know enough maybe to help all the future professional journalists (or other kinds of communication professionals in our feature writing class.)
A few key points:
1. This lecture is not the end all about copyright law. Everyone in our class needs to read more about copyright in our AP Style book (or in some other reputable source). Everyone can also find an abundance of good info. about copyright on the Web. Do some research. Learn all you can.
2. What is copyright? Basically, it’s a law that protects a person’s intellectual property. If a person writes or creates some sort of expression (photo, graphic, story, sketch...), copyright assures the creator of that expression a certain degree of protection from intellectual theft.
3. When you research or read about copyright law, one word keeps coming up over and over. The word is “PERMISSION.” This means that if you are not sure if something is copyrighted, then it probably is copyrighted! Always, when in doubt as a writer, artist, photographer and you want to borrow someone else’s work for your own use, ask the creator of that work for HIS/HER PERMISSION.
4. Even though you cite the source of expression (that you have lifted from someone else’s work and used for your own purposes), you could still be guilty of copyright infringement, especially if you are somehow being paid money (as in Mad Money) for your writing, graphics, photography or whatever. Again, always best to get PERMISSION OF THE CREATOR OF THE WORK BEFORE YOU LIFT IT FOR YOUR OWN USE.
An exception to the above is if you are researching and writing a paper for a class or course. In that case, if your work is purely for academic reasons and you don’t intend to have it published, you probably don’t need to get permission from the creator of the work you have cited or borrowed. But you definitely need to source it (give the original author credit) in your paper.
5. There’s a common misconception that writing, photography, graphics or other forms of expression have to be accompanied by the copyright symbol (letter C inside a circle) before the expression has copyright protection. Not true! All things written, captured on camera, or sketched are immediately copyrighted!
That said, it is the case that the copyright notice (which you can also have registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) reinforces protection of the creator of the original work. The notice is a caution or reminder to people not to steal or rip off the work without permission of the creator of the work.
6. One big factor that comes into play regarding copyright law is commercial benefit. Are you, through your writing, photography, infographics, sketches, getting paid for that expression? And, if so, does what you claim to be totally your expression (writing, photography, whatever), contain the work of others? Careful if this is the case! You could be found guilty of copyright infringement and pay big money (to the original creator of the expression) in a court of law.
7. There is a little wiggle room in the copyright law. There’s an exemption called fair comment. This means that it’s okay for you to reproduce, without permission of the original creator of the expression, that expression if you are doing an evaluation or critique or review or even a parody of that expression. This helps movie and arts review (books, plays) critics do their thing in the media. But it’s not okay for you, even if you are a critic of some sort, to pass off someone else’s work as your own.
8. Always good to remember that facts and ideas cannot be copyrighted. But the verbatim (precise, exact) expression of those facts and idea are subject to copyright protection.
Example: I write a feature story about the O.J. Simpson murder trial. I note in my story, in my own words, certain facts about that trial such as: it occurred in the early 1990s; Mr. Simpson was accused of murdering two persons–his wife and his wife’s close friend; the two dead persons were found in pools of blood, butchered, on a sidewalk at Mr. Simpson’s home residence in Los Angeles; the jury in this case returned a verdict of not guilty and let Mr. Simpson go free.
On the other hand, if I lift verbatim a passage from another article (about Simpson’s murder trial) written by someone else (whether printed in a newspaper, magazine or from a Web site) and use that in my story (as if I had written that lifted portion), then I am guilty of copyright infringement.
It’s also a common misunderstanding that the amount or extent of text that a person lifts from another person’s writing, without that original creator’s permission, factors into whether a violation of copyright has occurred.
Careful! Courts have ruled that in some instances, even though very few words were stolen from another person’s work, those very few words constitute the heart and soul of the original expression; and thus violation of copyright has occurred. This situation has happened with regard to the words in songs or the musical notes of songs. Very little may have been stolen or borrowed, but it’s still against copyright law.
9. Just because something is on the Web, it’s not free for the taking–UNLESS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF THE WEB SITE STATES EXPLICITLY ON THE WEB SITE THAT MATERIAL ON THE SITE MAY BE USED FREELY FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.
But again, be careful. If no such statement is on the Web site, the material on the site is copyrighted. We therefore get back to asking for permission to use or borrow.
Bottom line: If you did not create the material you located on a Web site, do not use it without the creator’s permission. Without that permission, you cannot legally use or copy the expression for your own use. Without permission, you are a common, scumbag intellectual, lying, cheating thief who is guilty of copyright infringement!
Some may wonder how they can get caught for stealing work from a Web site. It can happen folks! Big corporations and other entities today have “spiders” (software that scours or crawls the Internet) looking for intellectual property thieves.
Blogging: This is a fairly new phenomenon, in terms of copyright law, but my reading is that while you can blog freely, you should not reproduce or blog someone else’s verbatim expression as your own expression. Again, we get back to that important permission factor! It does seem okay, to have links in your blog (without the permission of the original creator of that link.) Didn’t I say earlier that copyright law is complex??!!
Well, okay folks, that’s about it today for copyright law.
But, before we depart, let’s take a quick look at libel law. (Very quick look!)
Oops (and before we do that), here’s a homework assignment: Do some research and find out why the following persons are significant when it comes to First Amendment law or ethics:
Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack Kelly, Stephen Glass.
Who knows, someone may ask you about these people on our final exam.
Also, you should closely study the SPJ Code of Ethics (which you can find online at: www.spj.org)
Again, potential final exam material. When you read the code, think about how various provisions of it might apply to feature writers.
Quick flashback item for class discussion (on invasion of privacy) before we touch on libel law:
1. As a staff member of The Johnsonian, you want to photograph a couple of students embracing each other closely on a bench near the fountain in front of Tillman Hall at Winthrop. Can you take their picture, and be legally safe from invasion of privacy, without getting the couple’s permission?
2. You’re a freelance writer and photographer walking down the beach at Myrtle Beach, S.C. (Just so happens you have your camera with you, as you should have because, once a journalist, always a journalist!) You notice a young woman (about 25-30 years old) sunning herself on a blanket. She’s lying on her back. There’s a slight breeze. She seems to be napping. Suddenly a gust of wind blows the top of her bikini off. She remains asleep. You snap her picture, hurry back to your laptop at your motel room and write an article, accompanying the picture, which you sell to a magazine at the beach. Your article is about what people might be surprised to spot at the beach. The woman in the photo sues you for invasion of privacy. Does she have a good case?
Okay, what is libel?
It’s an important dimension of First Amendment law and you should read all about it in the AP Style book (required textbook for our course.)
A quick bottom line definition of libel is this: Libel is defamatory, false, published information about a named or otherwise identified person.
In libel cases, we have a plaintiff and we have a defendant.
The plaintiff is the person who thinks he/she has been libeled or damaged by the media.
The defendant is the person who wrote the article about the allegedly defamed person; the defendant can also be the medium (newspaper, magazine, movie, Web site...) where the expression/article appeared.
When a plaintiff files a libel suit against a defendant, the plaintiff must prove four things before he/she can prevail or win in the lawsuit:
1. Publication. Means the material had to be published somewhere. Publication has been defined loosely by the courts to mean that if 3 or more people read/see material, then it is published. Does material appearing in an article in The Johnsonian constitute publication? Yes! What about an e-mail that Jamie Low sends Larry Timbs (but Larry does not share with anyone else)? That would not be “publication” because only two people saw the message. But if Larry forwards/shares Jamie’s e-mail with at least one other person, well, that’s a whole different kettle of fish, ladies and gentlemen!
2. Identification. Means that in addition to proving that material was published about her, the plaintiff has to prove that she was IDENTIFIED, by name or otherwise, in that published material.
Example: Say someone thinks they have been defamed (humiliated or embarrassed) through an article published in The Johnsonian. The article in question is about gays and lesbians at Winthrop Univ. It mentions no one’s name and in no way identifies anyone in particular. It is a general overview article about gays and lesbians at Winthrop. Someone quoted in the article says something very, very degrading against gays and lesbians. Ralph Ralphson, a gay student at Winthrop, reads the article and really becomes angry at The Johnsonian and at the student who wrote the article. Ralph sues for libel. Will he win this lawsuit against the newspaper and the writer?
CLASS DISCUSSION OF ABOVE SITUATION AT THIS POINT.
Then, again, still focusing on the element of identification, consider that The Johnsonian runs an article about cheerleaders at Winthrop. The article mentions no one’s name on the cheerleading squad, but it does assert that at least one of the Winthrop cheerleaders is a prostitute. Here’s where the situation concerning I.D. gets tricky. Small group of potential libel plaintiffs? If the group is relatively small, even though no one is named in particular in an article, careful! (How many cheerleaders are there at the ball games at Winthrop?) All of the members of the small group might sue the newspaper for libel (or maybe only one member will sue.)
There’s great risk here cause the group is relatively small.
You may be wondering what happens if the newspaper reporter accurately quotes someone (and has that someone on a recording) saying that one of the cheerleaders is a prostitute. Yes, the reporter has been accurate, but the quote still might be held as grounds for a successful libel suit. Keep reading to understand why.
3. Defamation: (rimes, curiously, with defecation) Means in essence that the published article about a person identified in the article also defames that person. Defames means that the person was greatly humiliated, hurt, embarrassed or had his/her good name or reputation damaged. Defamation also might mean the published material caused the plaintiff to lose wages or friends or business customers or even his/her job.
CLASS DISCUSSION HERE ON HOW AN ARTICLE IN The Johnsonian could possibly defame a Winthrop student. Also, how could the student PROVE that he/she had been defamed?
Remember: Probably the most precious thing we have in life is our good name or reputation. We work to protect that every day of our lives, don’t we? And then along comes a reporter who writes a defamatory article about us. Bad news all the way around!
4. Falsity: In addition, to PROVING that published material about him/her is defamatory and identifies her/him in the article, a libel plaintiff must prove, to win a libel case, that the material published is false. If, on the other hand, the published defamatory material is true, the libel plaintiff can’t win the case. But she may be able to prevail in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. (Flashback to “embarrassing facts” privacy invasion tort referred to in a previous lecture for our class.)
Summary: To win a libel case, the person suing the media and or reporter for libel must PROVE the following elements: Publication, Identification, Defamation, Falsity. Lest all those are proved by the plaintiff (person bringing suit) the plaintiff cannot win.
Okay, one more thing (and it’s a big thing that everyone should read about in the AP Style book or some other good reference book on First Amendment law.)
When it comes to public officials or public figures, these sorts of people must prove to win a libel case against the media something called “actual malice.”
These public officials or public figures must ALSO, of course, prove the same things that private (nonpublic) people must prove: Publication, Identification, Defamation, and Falsity.
So the burden of proof, to win a libel case, is higher for public officials/figures as opposed to private individuals who pretty much keep to themselves.
What, for purposes of libel law, is a private person?
What’s a public official or public person?
(Do some research and reading and find out!)
So what is “actual malice.”
Actual malice means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth. Does not have to mean both. It means knowledge of falsity OR reckless disregard for the truth.
Okay, so what does knowledge of falsity mean?
Reckless disregard for the truth?
Again, do some research–in your style book and/or elsewhere and find out. Key terms for sure.
Also, while you’re at it, look up the famous court case titled:
New York Times v. Sullivan
It’s probably the most famous First Amendment law case in history.
Enough for today.
I’m tired.
Surgery coming on Monday a.m.
Miss you all.
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.
Privacy invasion
Bill,
For my Feature Writing class on Monday, April 21 (2 p.m.-3:15 p.m.), I have in our WebCT course "Calendar" that the topic of the day will be First Amendment law.
Here's a lecture I've put together for you (or for whoever wants to read or touch on it for my class today.)
Feel free to edit, condense, expand, whatever.
You might want to print out the story from The Charlotte Observer as a separate handout, and make copies, (to help spark class discussion).
Please tell the class that our class session on Wed., April 23, will focus on libel and copyright (other areas of First Amendment law potentially of great consequence for feature writers).
Here's the lecture; remind them to take notes; if they don't take notes, they don't retain or learn:
Lecture for my Feature Writing class–for Monday, April 21, 2008
By Larry Timbs
Read and interpreted (and expanded/clarified if necessary) by Bill Click
Today, class, we will be touching on First Amendment law–especially as that law impacts feature writers.
Everyone should take good notes today. Note the key points of what you are hearing. Who knows? Some of this (or application of it) might show up on your final examination!
So, why, in our course on feature writing, are we today (and probably at our next class session) focusing on First Amendment law–more specifically, libel, invasion of privacy and copyright?
First, this is pivotal material--not only for feature writers but for anyone serious about working in the mass media of communications. (This includes hard news reporters, editors and publishers, bloggers, electronic media rank and file professionals and executives, IMC professionals, broadcast professionals, advertising professionals, public relations professionals.)
Quick disclaimer before we go any further with our lecture today: We have a separate REQUIRED course, MCOM 410, in the Department of Mass Communication at Winthrop University in First Amendment law. And it’s my guess that maybe some of you today in our class have already had that law class. That said, First Amendment law should be a thread that runs through all our courses in the mass comm./IMC majors. We cannot be overly informed about this vital area, folks.
Our lecture today is not intended to replace the excellent portions of our AP Stylebook (a required book for Feature Writing) dealing with such topics as (and jot these down, students, as I read them out loud to you):
1. Libel
2. Kinds of damages and examples of each for libel
3. The U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times vs. Sullivan
4. Standards for libel that must be proved by public officials/public figures
Important reminder: read the special sections on libel and privacy near the end of our style book; pay particular attention to what the style book says about the actual malice standard for public officials/public figures.)
Other key concepts (in the AP Stylebook section on First Amendment law) that you should familiarize yourself closely with are:
1. neutral reportage
2. invasion of privacy and the four privacy torts and descriptions/examples of each privacy invasion tort
3. copyright
REPEAT: STUDY CLOSELY THE SECTION(S) IN THE AP STYLEBOOK ON FIRST AMENDMENT LAW–ESPECIALLY THE SECTIONS ON LIBEL, PRIVACY AND COPYRIGHT.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE CONCEPTS, AS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE STYLEBOOK AND IN TODAY’S LECTURE, MIGHT WELL APPEAR ON OUR FINAL EXAMINATION.
Okay, back to today’s lecture.
To help get you into a legal framework of thinking, here’s a ticklish scenario you could encounter as a feature writer:
A candidate is running for city council or for some other elected office in your local community. You as a feature writer for the local community newspaper hear a rumor that she (the candidate) suffered a nervous breakdown 10 years ago. Upon your nosing around, the candidate’s opponent slips you a document that verifies it. Should you or should you not pursue the story, write it and have it published as an investigative news feature story in your newspaper ? If your story is published, do you think the candidate will have grounds to sue you? And if she does sue you, what would she allege or under what law or tort would she sue?
Think about the possible answers to these questions as we proceed with our lecture today–and continue discussing First Amendment law on Wednesday.)
Concerning First Amendment law for feature writers, here are a few broad but very good pieces of advice:
1) always get it right–be accurate, truthful and fair to the best of your ability as a journalist;
2) know your legal rights; and
3) know others’ legal rights.
By now, you surely know that there is much to learn if you want to become a successful, effective professional or freelance feature writer. In our course, you’ve confronted a lot of practical advice (from my lectures, from examples, and from the textbook) on the process of feature writing--how to generate story ideas, how to structure and shape stories, how to interview sources, how to conduct research.
If all this isn’t enough to deal with, we as feature writers are faced with a number of legal and issues that can impact dramatically on our careers. The textbook and style book do a good job of introducing you to some major First Amendment legal areas or issues.
Yes, it’s good for you as students and practitioners of feature writing, to be savvy about these areas, but, as many well repected journalists also caution, feature writers constantly have to practice good, common sense judgment; often there’s no one set answer to handling the many (and often murky, sticky) legal or issues that feature writers encounter.
Take the sometimes sticky, privacy issue of being honest with your sources. Recently (and we may have touched on this early this semester) Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book that has become a popular, controversial best seller. It’s called "Nickel and Dimed," and in it, Ehrenreich investigates menial low wage jobs in America.
Dr. Ehrenreich, who is a freelance writer and is a research scientist and social activist, actually worked in the low-paying jobs she writes about in her book. Some have wondered whether she should have worked in those menial jobs without identifying herself as a journalist or academic professional working on a book.
Some journalists would see no problem in what she did. Others, however, might assert that Ehrenreich deceived her sources and that her actions were unethical and even may have constituted an invasion of privacy. The book was favorable to the working class, but it’s not inconceivable that in our litigious (overly eager to file lawsuit society) one of those workers would consider suing Ehrenreich for invasion of privacy. Would the worker have a viable (winnable) privacy invasion lawsuit against Ehrenreich and/or the publisher of the book? Please ponder the answers to these questions as we focus now on a key area of First Amendment law–invasion of privacy.
While we’re on the subject of a journalist being honest and upfront with her sources, consider the following story which ran a few years ago in The Charlotte Observer:
Dotson's attorney questions interview
Says reporter failed to identify herself as such
Associated Press
DALLAS - The attorney for Carlton Dotson, the former Baylor basketball player accused of murder, said in a written statement Thursday that the newspaper intern who got a jailhouse interview with Dotson did not tell him she was a journalist.
Shani George, the reporter, met Dotson on Wednesday at a Maryland detention center. She reported for the Dallas Morning News that Dotson suggested he acted in self-defense in a deadly confrontation with former teammate Patrick Dennehy.
"It is our understanding that she represented herself as a Christian who was there to let Mr. Dotson know that she was `praying' for him," said the statement by attorney Grady Irvin.
The newspaper defended its story, saying George gave the desk officer a copy of her press credentials and an unsealed note to Dotson identifying herself as working for the paper and requesting an interview. The newspaper's statement said Dotson asked George if she was a Christian, and she said she was.
Irvin's statement does not dispute the accuracy of the story, but says George took no notes and identified herself at the end of the meeting as a "friend of someone who worked for the newspaper."
George, an intern in Washington for the Morning News' parent company, Belo Corp., told CNN she identified herself to Dotson as a reporter. She acknowledged she took no notes.
Warden Ron Howell told The Associated Press that George did not tell guards before the interview she was a journalist, but she was not required to do so.
Visitors to the jail are not allowed to carry recording devices or cameras, though they are allowed to carry pencil and paper, Howell said.
The jail doesn't record conversations between inmates and visitors, either.
On Thursday, two local attorneys representing Dotson set a list of approved visitors for him.
END OF STORY.
DISCUSSION HERE ON WHETHER THE REPORTER WHO INTERVIWED THE PRISONER VIOLATED THE PRISONER’S PRIVACY.
Okay, this seems like a good launching point into privacy and what, concerning privacy, feature writers should be keenly aware of.
First of all, know that courts in the USA have ruled that every American has a right to a REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
Sounds pretty cut and dry, right?
It isn’t.
Privacy or the lack thereof can get plenty murky.
Here’s the crucial, ticklish, complex question: Where does one person’s right to privacy begin and/or end, and where does the feature writer’s (or journalist’s) right to report and publish begin and/or end?
Hard to know the answer to that question in many cases, since, again, privacy is a murky, still emerging area of the law–and not nearly as well defined an area of law as libel.
Here, however, are some good things to remember about privacy.
Privacy invasion has four torts (areas of the law). These torts are:
1. Intrusion
2. Embarrassing facts or information
3. False light
4. Appropriation
Let’s take a quick look at each tort, keeping in mind that feature writers should know what they can and cannot do, in terms of a person’s privacy.
1. INTRUSION: Basically this means that everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. More specifically, you as a journalist cross the line and INTRUDE UPON A PERSON’S PRIVACY (and can get into trouble legally) by taking a person’s picture and/or electronically recording/videoing them when they are in a place where they can reasonably expect to have their privacy protected. Examples of such places: their bedroom, their bathroom, other places inside their home that are shielded from public view; their office at their place of employment; a restroom, even if the restroom is located in public park; telephone or cell phone conversations they have a with another party...; the swimming pool in their backyard, especially if that yard is surrounded/screened by a high wooden or otherwise opaque fence.
2. EMBARRASSING FACTS OR INFORMATION: This means that you as a feature writer can write provably or indisputably true stuff about a person and still face a lawsuit from that person. Truth in such a scenario is no defense. This is what you should remember. Are the facts or information NEWSWORTHY or are they in the PUBLIC’S INTEREST? Or are these same facts or this same information, even though it’s true, merely pandering to a person’s morbid or salacious curiosity? Put another way: Is what you are writing about the person truly in the public interest or newsworthy or is it just interesting or hurtful gossip?
Let’s go back to our earlier scenario:
A candidate is running for city council or for some other elected office in your local community. You as a feature writer for the local community newspaper hear a rumor that she (the candidate) suffered a nervous breakdown 10 years ago. Upon your nosing around, the candidate’s opponent slips you a document that verifies it. Should you or should you not pursue the story, write it and have it published as an investigative news feature story in your newspaper ? If your story is published, do you think the candidate will have grounds to sue you? And if she does sue you, what would she allege or under what law or tort would she sue?
In my opinion, applying the tort of embarrassing facts or information to this scenario, the feature writer had best ask herself some hard questions before writing about the candidate’s mental illness, which occurred a decade ago. Is this information really NEWSWORTHY in the present campaign? Or is printing it merely going to embarrass the candidate and potentially cost her the election? If it’s newsworthy, what makes it newsworthy? Has the candidate said something critical, possibly while campaigning, about her opponent’s mental fitness for office? Has the issue of mental fitness come up frequently in the campaign debates or ads? Can you, as a feature writer, make a compelling case that the candidate’s mental illness ten years ago truly is relevant to the current campaign?
3. FALSE LIGHT: This is exactly what it says–portraying someone in a false light or somehow misrepresenting someone through you (the feature writer’s) words or pictures. This can happen more easily than you may think.
Example: While living in Iowa years ago, I learned about a religious book author who had written a book about street preachers. (Street preachers being evangelists with Bibles who go out onto the streets, usually of major cities, and try to convert bystanders or walkers to Christ.)
Well, as fate would have it this one particular author had conducted research and interviews (and taken photos for his book) on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. When his book came out on the racks in religious book stores, there, on one page of the book, was a picture of a woman–we’ll call her Janie Smith, with others, listening to a street preacher on Bourbon Street. No one was named in the picture caption, but the caption read something along the lines of: "The Rev. Billy Ray Miller, noted New Orleans street preacher, takes his message about Jesus to sinners and prostitutes on New Orleans’ Bourbon Street."
It so happened that one of Janie Smith’s close friends happened along one day in a religious book store and picked up the author’s book about street preachers. The friend, thumbing through the book, noticed a picture of Janie Smith, along with the caption suggesting that she was a sinner or prostitute.
You can imagine what then happened.
Janie Smith learned from her friend about her portrayal in the book about street preachers.
Janie Smith purchased the book.
Angry, hurt and embarrassed, to say the least, was Janie Smith when she saw her published picture and the accompanying caption.
Janie Smith sued the publisher, book store and author for false light invasion of privacy, seeking millions of dollars in damages.
Did she have a case? What do you think?
DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN THE CLASS. I HAVE LONG SINCE FORGOTTEN HOW THE CASE TURNED OUT.
4. APPROPRIATION: This means, in a nutshell, that you as a feature writer are not allowed to appropriate (take or use for your own purposes as a journalist) a person’s picture, likeness, signature, words, testimony or endorsement, WITHOUT THAT PERSON’S PERMISSION, if the appropriation is for your (the writer’s) commercial gain and/or if it could deprive the source of the signature, words, testimony...of commercial benefit.
Simplistic example: It would be appropriation, and therefore a violation of Tiger Woods’ privacy, if someone put his likeness or picture or words on a T-Shirt and sold the shirts to help boost membership in your golf course.
Aother example of appropriation: It would be appropriation, and therefore a violation of Larry Timbs’ privacy, if you as a feature writer reprinted in whole or in part, without Larry Timbs’ permission, e-mails from Larry Timbs about Timbs’ heart condition, put them in an article you wrote about heart disease, and sold that article to a magazine or newspaper.
But also consider this: you take pictures of a bunch of runners, at the start of a marathon race, and one of your photos just so happens to focus on a runner who tripped and is grimacing and lying in pain on the pavement.
The photo clearly shows the runner wearing a Nike cap with the Nike swoosh symbol on it.
Can you publish this photo without Nike’s permission?
Yes, because the photo is part of a bonifide news event–the marathon race. And you as a journalist/photographer are not depriving Nike of any money by publishing the photo. Nor are you as a journalist gaining any special money (other than your normal compensation) for having the photo published.
Before we leave privacy, it’s good to mention a new aspect of privacy, still emerging, called "practical obscurity."
What’s the meaning of "practical obscurity"?
It has to do with the idea that as recently as about 15 years ago, when you wanted to research a person’s past, you as a journalist or researcher painstakingly looked through library books, scoured articles stored in dusty, moldy back issues of newspapers, perused, till your eyes almost went blind, old documents, old almost forgotten forever or misplaced forever files.
Laborious and time consuming to say the least!
Information was hard to find. Sometimes it could not be found, regardless of how hard you tried.
As a practical matter, the information was obscure.
Of course, a lot as changed today.
In 2008, with the Internet, nothing seems to be "practically obscure."
With the touch of a few fingers and with powerful search engines like Google, it takes only a few seconds to dredge up a person’s past.
Nothing, it seems, is hidden or private anymore. Everything, just about, is out there for the taking.
Make a mistake (such as breaking the law) when you were 18 years old and now you’re 30 and you want that youthful transgression to not become public? Good chance just about anyone with a computer and Net connection can read all about your early sins.
And we’ve not even began talking today about cameras on cell phones. Think about the consequences for personal privacy, or the lack thereof, for people living in our camera/YouTube cell phone society.
We’ve all read or heard about people taking pictures with their cell phones of pages of books at bookstores; of women’s underwear while they relax unawares reading or lounging; of students snapping pictures of their professors while they’re picking their noses and then putting those pictures on Web sites like rateyourprofessors.com; of YouTubers capturing video, and then posting in on the Internet, of persons taking showers in public restrooms.
CONCLUSION:
Invasion of Privacy. We as feature writers should learn as much about it as possible. We have to be smart. We have to know how far to go with our pens, cameras and recorders and when to pull back.
And we have to know that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the whole world seems to have gone anti personal privacy, we still have to respect who we are capturing with our words or images.
Enough for now.
Think deeply about privacy.
Sincerely,
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.
April 20, 2008
For my Feature Writing class on Monday, April 21 (2 p.m.-3:15 p.m.), I have in our WebCT course "Calendar" that the topic of the day will be First Amendment law.
Here's a lecture I've put together for you (or for whoever wants to read or touch on it for my class today.)
Feel free to edit, condense, expand, whatever.
You might want to print out the story from The Charlotte Observer as a separate handout, and make copies, (to help spark class discussion).
Please tell the class that our class session on Wed., April 23, will focus on libel and copyright (other areas of First Amendment law potentially of great consequence for feature writers).
Here's the lecture; remind them to take notes; if they don't take notes, they don't retain or learn:
Lecture for my Feature Writing class–for Monday, April 21, 2008
By Larry Timbs
Read and interpreted (and expanded/clarified if necessary) by Bill Click
Today, class, we will be touching on First Amendment law–especially as that law impacts feature writers.
Everyone should take good notes today. Note the key points of what you are hearing. Who knows? Some of this (or application of it) might show up on your final examination!
So, why, in our course on feature writing, are we today (and probably at our next class session) focusing on First Amendment law–more specifically, libel, invasion of privacy and copyright?
First, this is pivotal material--not only for feature writers but for anyone serious about working in the mass media of communications. (This includes hard news reporters, editors and publishers, bloggers, electronic media rank and file professionals and executives, IMC professionals, broadcast professionals, advertising professionals, public relations professionals.)
Quick disclaimer before we go any further with our lecture today: We have a separate REQUIRED course, MCOM 410, in the Department of Mass Communication at Winthrop University in First Amendment law. And it’s my guess that maybe some of you today in our class have already had that law class. That said, First Amendment law should be a thread that runs through all our courses in the mass comm./IMC majors. We cannot be overly informed about this vital area, folks.
Our lecture today is not intended to replace the excellent portions of our AP Stylebook (a required book for Feature Writing) dealing with such topics as (and jot these down, students, as I read them out loud to you):
1. Libel
2. Kinds of damages and examples of each for libel
3. The U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times vs. Sullivan
4. Standards for libel that must be proved by public officials/public figures
Important reminder: read the special sections on libel and privacy near the end of our style book; pay particular attention to what the style book says about the actual malice standard for public officials/public figures.)
Other key concepts (in the AP Stylebook section on First Amendment law) that you should familiarize yourself closely with are:
1. neutral reportage
2. invasion of privacy and the four privacy torts and descriptions/examples of each privacy invasion tort
3. copyright
REPEAT: STUDY CLOSELY THE SECTION(S) IN THE AP STYLEBOOK ON FIRST AMENDMENT LAW–ESPECIALLY THE SECTIONS ON LIBEL, PRIVACY AND COPYRIGHT.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE CONCEPTS, AS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE STYLEBOOK AND IN TODAY’S LECTURE, MIGHT WELL APPEAR ON OUR FINAL EXAMINATION.
Okay, back to today’s lecture.
To help get you into a legal framework of thinking, here’s a ticklish scenario you could encounter as a feature writer:
A candidate is running for city council or for some other elected office in your local community. You as a feature writer for the local community newspaper hear a rumor that she (the candidate) suffered a nervous breakdown 10 years ago. Upon your nosing around, the candidate’s opponent slips you a document that verifies it. Should you or should you not pursue the story, write it and have it published as an investigative news feature story in your newspaper ? If your story is published, do you think the candidate will have grounds to sue you? And if she does sue you, what would she allege or under what law or tort would she sue?
Think about the possible answers to these questions as we proceed with our lecture today–and continue discussing First Amendment law on Wednesday.)
Concerning First Amendment law for feature writers, here are a few broad but very good pieces of advice:
1) always get it right–be accurate, truthful and fair to the best of your ability as a journalist;
2) know your legal rights; and
3) know others’ legal rights.
By now, you surely know that there is much to learn if you want to become a successful, effective professional or freelance feature writer. In our course, you’ve confronted a lot of practical advice (from my lectures, from examples, and from the textbook) on the process of feature writing--how to generate story ideas, how to structure and shape stories, how to interview sources, how to conduct research.
If all this isn’t enough to deal with, we as feature writers are faced with a number of legal and issues that can impact dramatically on our careers. The textbook and style book do a good job of introducing you to some major First Amendment legal areas or issues.
Yes, it’s good for you as students and practitioners of feature writing, to be savvy about these areas, but, as many well repected journalists also caution, feature writers constantly have to practice good, common sense judgment; often there’s no one set answer to handling the many (and often murky, sticky) legal or issues that feature writers encounter.
Take the sometimes sticky, privacy issue of being honest with your sources. Recently (and we may have touched on this early this semester) Barbara Ehrenreich wrote a book that has become a popular, controversial best seller. It’s called "Nickel and Dimed," and in it, Ehrenreich investigates menial low wage jobs in America.
Dr. Ehrenreich, who is a freelance writer and is a research scientist and social activist, actually worked in the low-paying jobs she writes about in her book. Some have wondered whether she should have worked in those menial jobs without identifying herself as a journalist or academic professional working on a book.
Some journalists would see no problem in what she did. Others, however, might assert that Ehrenreich deceived her sources and that her actions were unethical and even may have constituted an invasion of privacy. The book was favorable to the working class, but it’s not inconceivable that in our litigious (overly eager to file lawsuit society) one of those workers would consider suing Ehrenreich for invasion of privacy. Would the worker have a viable (winnable) privacy invasion lawsuit against Ehrenreich and/or the publisher of the book? Please ponder the answers to these questions as we focus now on a key area of First Amendment law–invasion of privacy.
While we’re on the subject of a journalist being honest and upfront with her sources, consider the following story which ran a few years ago in The Charlotte Observer:
Dotson's attorney questions interview
Says reporter failed to identify herself as such
Associated Press
DALLAS - The attorney for Carlton Dotson, the former Baylor basketball player accused of murder, said in a written statement Thursday that the newspaper intern who got a jailhouse interview with Dotson did not tell him she was a journalist.
Shani George, the reporter, met Dotson on Wednesday at a Maryland detention center. She reported for the Dallas Morning News that Dotson suggested he acted in self-defense in a deadly confrontation with former teammate Patrick Dennehy.
"It is our understanding that she represented herself as a Christian who was there to let Mr. Dotson know that she was `praying' for him," said the statement by attorney Grady Irvin.
The newspaper defended its story, saying George gave the desk officer a copy of her press credentials and an unsealed note to Dotson identifying herself as working for the paper and requesting an interview. The newspaper's statement said Dotson asked George if she was a Christian, and she said she was.
Irvin's statement does not dispute the accuracy of the story, but says George took no notes and identified herself at the end of the meeting as a "friend of someone who worked for the newspaper."
George, an intern in Washington for the Morning News' parent company, Belo Corp., told CNN she identified herself to Dotson as a reporter. She acknowledged she took no notes.
Warden Ron Howell told The Associated Press that George did not tell guards before the interview she was a journalist, but she was not required to do so.
Visitors to the jail are not allowed to carry recording devices or cameras, though they are allowed to carry pencil and paper, Howell said.
The jail doesn't record conversations between inmates and visitors, either.
On Thursday, two local attorneys representing Dotson set a list of approved visitors for him.
END OF STORY.
DISCUSSION HERE ON WHETHER THE REPORTER WHO INTERVIWED THE PRISONER VIOLATED THE PRISONER’S PRIVACY.
Okay, this seems like a good launching point into privacy and what, concerning privacy, feature writers should be keenly aware of.
First of all, know that courts in the USA have ruled that every American has a right to a REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
Sounds pretty cut and dry, right?
It isn’t.
Privacy or the lack thereof can get plenty murky.
Here’s the crucial, ticklish, complex question: Where does one person’s right to privacy begin and/or end, and where does the feature writer’s (or journalist’s) right to report and publish begin and/or end?
Hard to know the answer to that question in many cases, since, again, privacy is a murky, still emerging area of the law–and not nearly as well defined an area of law as libel.
Here, however, are some good things to remember about privacy.
Privacy invasion has four torts (areas of the law). These torts are:
1. Intrusion
2. Embarrassing facts or information
3. False light
4. Appropriation
Let’s take a quick look at each tort, keeping in mind that feature writers should know what they can and cannot do, in terms of a person’s privacy.
1. INTRUSION: Basically this means that everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. More specifically, you as a journalist cross the line and INTRUDE UPON A PERSON’S PRIVACY (and can get into trouble legally) by taking a person’s picture and/or electronically recording/videoing them when they are in a place where they can reasonably expect to have their privacy protected. Examples of such places: their bedroom, their bathroom, other places inside their home that are shielded from public view; their office at their place of employment; a restroom, even if the restroom is located in public park; telephone or cell phone conversations they have a with another party...; the swimming pool in their backyard, especially if that yard is surrounded/screened by a high wooden or otherwise opaque fence.
2. EMBARRASSING FACTS OR INFORMATION: This means that you as a feature writer can write provably or indisputably true stuff about a person and still face a lawsuit from that person. Truth in such a scenario is no defense. This is what you should remember. Are the facts or information NEWSWORTHY or are they in the PUBLIC’S INTEREST? Or are these same facts or this same information, even though it’s true, merely pandering to a person’s morbid or salacious curiosity? Put another way: Is what you are writing about the person truly in the public interest or newsworthy or is it just interesting or hurtful gossip?
Let’s go back to our earlier scenario:
A candidate is running for city council or for some other elected office in your local community. You as a feature writer for the local community newspaper hear a rumor that she (the candidate) suffered a nervous breakdown 10 years ago. Upon your nosing around, the candidate’s opponent slips you a document that verifies it. Should you or should you not pursue the story, write it and have it published as an investigative news feature story in your newspaper ? If your story is published, do you think the candidate will have grounds to sue you? And if she does sue you, what would she allege or under what law or tort would she sue?
In my opinion, applying the tort of embarrassing facts or information to this scenario, the feature writer had best ask herself some hard questions before writing about the candidate’s mental illness, which occurred a decade ago. Is this information really NEWSWORTHY in the present campaign? Or is printing it merely going to embarrass the candidate and potentially cost her the election? If it’s newsworthy, what makes it newsworthy? Has the candidate said something critical, possibly while campaigning, about her opponent’s mental fitness for office? Has the issue of mental fitness come up frequently in the campaign debates or ads? Can you, as a feature writer, make a compelling case that the candidate’s mental illness ten years ago truly is relevant to the current campaign?
3. FALSE LIGHT: This is exactly what it says–portraying someone in a false light or somehow misrepresenting someone through you (the feature writer’s) words or pictures. This can happen more easily than you may think.
Example: While living in Iowa years ago, I learned about a religious book author who had written a book about street preachers. (Street preachers being evangelists with Bibles who go out onto the streets, usually of major cities, and try to convert bystanders or walkers to Christ.)
Well, as fate would have it this one particular author had conducted research and interviews (and taken photos for his book) on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. When his book came out on the racks in religious book stores, there, on one page of the book, was a picture of a woman–we’ll call her Janie Smith, with others, listening to a street preacher on Bourbon Street. No one was named in the picture caption, but the caption read something along the lines of: "The Rev. Billy Ray Miller, noted New Orleans street preacher, takes his message about Jesus to sinners and prostitutes on New Orleans’ Bourbon Street."
It so happened that one of Janie Smith’s close friends happened along one day in a religious book store and picked up the author’s book about street preachers. The friend, thumbing through the book, noticed a picture of Janie Smith, along with the caption suggesting that she was a sinner or prostitute.
You can imagine what then happened.
Janie Smith learned from her friend about her portrayal in the book about street preachers.
Janie Smith purchased the book.
Angry, hurt and embarrassed, to say the least, was Janie Smith when she saw her published picture and the accompanying caption.
Janie Smith sued the publisher, book store and author for false light invasion of privacy, seeking millions of dollars in damages.
Did she have a case? What do you think?
DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN THE CLASS. I HAVE LONG SINCE FORGOTTEN HOW THE CASE TURNED OUT.
4. APPROPRIATION: This means, in a nutshell, that you as a feature writer are not allowed to appropriate (take or use for your own purposes as a journalist) a person’s picture, likeness, signature, words, testimony or endorsement, WITHOUT THAT PERSON’S PERMISSION, if the appropriation is for your (the writer’s) commercial gain and/or if it could deprive the source of the signature, words, testimony...of commercial benefit.
Simplistic example: It would be appropriation, and therefore a violation of Tiger Woods’ privacy, if someone put his likeness or picture or words on a T-Shirt and sold the shirts to help boost membership in your golf course.
Aother example of appropriation: It would be appropriation, and therefore a violation of Larry Timbs’ privacy, if you as a feature writer reprinted in whole or in part, without Larry Timbs’ permission, e-mails from Larry Timbs about Timbs’ heart condition, put them in an article you wrote about heart disease, and sold that article to a magazine or newspaper.
But also consider this: you take pictures of a bunch of runners, at the start of a marathon race, and one of your photos just so happens to focus on a runner who tripped and is grimacing and lying in pain on the pavement.
The photo clearly shows the runner wearing a Nike cap with the Nike swoosh symbol on it.
Can you publish this photo without Nike’s permission?
Yes, because the photo is part of a bonifide news event–the marathon race. And you as a journalist/photographer are not depriving Nike of any money by publishing the photo. Nor are you as a journalist gaining any special money (other than your normal compensation) for having the photo published.
Before we leave privacy, it’s good to mention a new aspect of privacy, still emerging, called "practical obscurity."
What’s the meaning of "practical obscurity"?
It has to do with the idea that as recently as about 15 years ago, when you wanted to research a person’s past, you as a journalist or researcher painstakingly looked through library books, scoured articles stored in dusty, moldy back issues of newspapers, perused, till your eyes almost went blind, old documents, old almost forgotten forever or misplaced forever files.
Laborious and time consuming to say the least!
Information was hard to find. Sometimes it could not be found, regardless of how hard you tried.
As a practical matter, the information was obscure.
Of course, a lot as changed today.
In 2008, with the Internet, nothing seems to be "practically obscure."
With the touch of a few fingers and with powerful search engines like Google, it takes only a few seconds to dredge up a person’s past.
Nothing, it seems, is hidden or private anymore. Everything, just about, is out there for the taking.
Make a mistake (such as breaking the law) when you were 18 years old and now you’re 30 and you want that youthful transgression to not become public? Good chance just about anyone with a computer and Net connection can read all about your early sins.
And we’ve not even began talking today about cameras on cell phones. Think about the consequences for personal privacy, or the lack thereof, for people living in our camera/YouTube cell phone society.
We’ve all read or heard about people taking pictures with their cell phones of pages of books at bookstores; of women’s underwear while they relax unawares reading or lounging; of students snapping pictures of their professors while they’re picking their noses and then putting those pictures on Web sites like rateyourprofessors.com; of YouTubers capturing video, and then posting in on the Internet, of persons taking showers in public restrooms.
CONCLUSION:
Invasion of Privacy. We as feature writers should learn as much about it as possible. We have to be smart. We have to know how far to go with our pens, cameras and recorders and when to pull back.
And we have to know that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the whole world seems to have gone anti personal privacy, we still have to respect who we are capturing with our words or images.
Enough for now.
Think deeply about privacy.
Sincerely,
Larry Timbs
Mountain City, Tenn.
April 20, 2008
Work and fun at the Wells Fargo Championship in Charlotte
Lush, green, magestic fairways framed with towering pines and oaks.
Greens as gorgeous, slick and challenging as those at August National.
A gentle, refreshing breeze with sun-drenched cool (and then warming) days.
Spectators by the tens of thousands.
The Goodyear blimp hanging in a blue sky with a few wispy clouds.
Ice cold bottled water, soft drinks or frosty beer and delicious food.
2,300 ambassadors (volunteers).
Tiny white balls projected like missiles from a tee. Putters gently brushing the greens. Wedges lifting balls, like magic, from bunkers. Gasps of wonderment from the onlookers.
The best golfers on the planet.
All of them seeking the first place prize—$1.3 million.
An unassuming (Asian looking) guy by the name of James Hahn (a former shoe salesman, no less) whom hardly anyone knew. He won the sudden death playoff hole, beating the likes of Phil Mickelson, Rickie Fowler, Rory McIlroy, Bobby Castro, Webb Simpson and Justin Rose.
James Hahn, former shoe salesman, winner of $1.3 million!
It was great working another Wells Fargo Championship at the beautiful Quail Hollow Club—the ninth one I’ve been a part of.
Well, actually, my assignment this year (as with last) was at the Will Call trailor at Carowinds—about 10 miles from Quail Hollow.
Good people on the Will Call team. We meshed well. Worked hard. Got excellent leadership from our committee chair, and at the end of the day felt we’d done our part to make the 14th Wells Fargo Championship a success. Way to go, Will Call team!
It wasn’t all work. For I got out on the course a few days and took in all the beauty, fun and excitement at Quail Hollow. Got to see Mickelson make a bogey. Saw Rory score a birdie.
Next year the Wells Fargo Championship will be played at a golf course in Wilmington, N.C.
Onward to Wilmington, and then, in 2018 (God willing) back to Quail Hollow in Charlotte!
Work and fun at the Wells Fargo Championship in Charlotte
Lush, green, magestic fairways framed with towering pines and oaks.
Greens as gorgeous, slick and challenging as those at August National.
A gentle, refreshing breeze with sun-drenched cool (and then warming) days.
Spectators by the tens of thousands.
The Goodyear blimp hanging in a blue sky with a few wispy clouds.
Ice cold bottled water, soft drinks or frosty beer and delicious food.
2,300 ambassadors (volunteers).
Tiny white balls projected like missiles from a tee. Putters gently brushing the greens. Wedges lifting balls, like magic, from bunkers. Gasps of wonderment from the onlookers.
The best golfers on the planet.
All of them seeking the first place prize—$1.3 million.
An unassuming (Asian looking) guy by the name of James Hahn (a former shoe salesman, no less) whom hardly anyone knew. He won the sudden death playoff hole, beating the likes of Phil Mickelson, Rickie Fowler, Rory McIlroy, Bobby Castro, Webb Simpson and Justin Rose.
James Hahn, former shoe salesman, winner of $1.3 million!
It was great working another Wells Fargo Championship at the beautiful Quail Hollow Club—the ninth one I’ve been a part of.
Well, actually, my assignment this year (as with last) was at the Will Call trailor at Carowinds—about 10 miles from Quail Hollow.
Good people on the Will Call team. We meshed well. Worked hard. Got excellent leadership from our committee chair, and at the end of the day felt we’d done our part to make the 14th Wells Fargo Championship a success. Way to go, Will Call team!
It wasn’t all work. For I got out on the course a few days and took in all the beauty, fun and excitement at Quail Hollow. Got to see Mickelson make a bogey. Saw Rory score a birdie.
Next year the Wells Fargo Championship will be played at a golf course in Wilmington, N.C.
Onward to Wilmington, and then, in 2018 (God willing) back to Quail Hollow in Charlotte!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)