Page 93 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
rights to the letters of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The letters were printed in the Daily
Mail. The Sun subsequently published the whole of one letter and part of another. The court
granted the claimant an injunction preventing further publication on the grounds that there
was no interference with free speech because the aim of the Sun had been solely to increase
readership. The defendant’s argument that the publication was for the purpose of criticism,
review or to report current events, failed to impress the court.

The motive of the publisher is also relevant. The court is willing to look behind spurious
arguments of the public interest in free speech, when all that a newspaper is interested in is
‘spoiling’ an ‘exclusive’ by a competitor.

A genuine review of a work and genuine reports of current events are permitted. The
reporting by newspapers of matters obtained from advance copies of magazines is routine
practice and is acceptable because the magazine gets free publicity, as long as there is an
acknowledgement of the source. However, the amount of material taken must be reasonable.
The lifting of a whole article including verbatim quotations could result in an action for
breach of copyright. ‘Current event’ will be generously interpreted to include all varieties of
news. In 1991 the court ruled that the use of BBC film footage of World Cup football
matches by its satellite station rival, British Satellite Broadcasting, was fair dealing. BSB
illustrated its spoken match reports with BBC clips of goals and other highlights of play. It
acknowledged the source and confined itself to short, informative excerpts. The court held
that contemporary World Cup football matches were ‘current events’ and dismissed the
BBC’s copyright claim (BBC v British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd (1992)).

In circumstances where a book is published and one media publication has obtained
exclusive serialization rights, it is likely to pursue actions against other publications that
publish details of the same book. Particular care should be taken by another publication
before any extracts are published. Similarly, if an advance copy of a book is shown to a
publication to enable it to decide how much to offer for the serialization rights, the
publication should not reproduce extracts if it does not buy the rights.

The fair dealing defence permit the reporting of matters of public interest. In Hubbard v
Vosper (1972), the founder of the ‘cult’ of Scientology applied for an injunction to stop
publication of a book ‘exposing’ Scientology written by a former Scientologist. The book
quoted from books written by Hubbard and from other writings, including internal
memoranda. The court refused an injunction because the defendant showed that he might
have a good defence of fair dealing at trial. Although substantial amounts of material
were quoted, this did not deprive the defendant of his defence. He was entitled to
criticize the philosophy set out in the works, and was not limited to criticizing their
literary style.

The fair dealing defence is relevant to investigative reporting in circumstances where
documents are obtained. Government documents, local authority reports and private papers
are the subject of copyright. However, this defence may justify quotations from them.
56