Defamation Arising Out of Court Filings-Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., et. al.

Continuing on the topic of defamation, I thought about bringing to the notice of the readers an interesting case which brings a new dimension to the Fair Report Privilege to the statements made in the judicial proceedings.

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently handed down an important decision relating to the republication of allegations that were originally set forth in a legal complaint. In Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc., et. al., A-6715-06T1, the plaintiff, Thomas John Salzano sued various newspapers and related individuals at those entities for defamation. The statements underlying the alleged defamation consisted of newspaper articles that outlined (and arguably elaborated upon) a complaint brought against Mr. Salzano by a bankruptcy trustee. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Salzano had “‘unlawfully diverted, converted and misappropriated’ [the entity that was in bankruptcy]’s funds ‘for his own personal benefit.’” These allegations were then reported in various newspaper articles published by the defendants.
The media defendants moved to dismiss the civil complaint on the basis that the fair report privilege should apply as a defense to defamation. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court decision and held that the privilege did not apply. Hence, the case should not be dismissed.
The fair report privilege is an established exception to republication liability under New Jersey defamation law. The general rule is that absent the application of a privilege, a person or entity is liable for republishing a defamatory statement. The Court in Salzano cited the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Costello v. Ocean County Observer, 136 N.J. 594 (1994), where the fair report privilege was articulated and discussed at length. Citing Costello, the Court noted that “to republish a defamatory statement, the reporter or newspaper must verify that a statement was spoken, and also that the substance of the statement is true.” Accordingly, the Court held that the newspapers and related defendants erred in not verifying the facts of the complaint prior to republishing them in the articles.
The Court further held that the fact that the original statements were made in the context of a judicial proceeding was not enough to immunize the media entities. In so holding, the Court noted that although the fair report privilege applies to statements made in “judicial and other official proceedings,” it did not provide an exception to liability in this case. The Court noted that the fair report privilege does not apply to preliminary pleadings “‘such as a complaint or petition, before any judicial action has been taken.’” Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that the media defendants could not assert that the privilege extended to their republication merely because the statements were republished from a judicial filing. Specifically, the Court said that the fact that they were in a complaint made it clear that the privilege should not apply.
Another interesting determination by the Salzano Court was that the actual malice standard should apply to Mr. Salzano’s claims because he was, in essence, a public figure by association. This essentially means that it would not be enough to prove that the defendant was negligent in publishing the statements, but instead, the plaintiff would need to prove an intentional misstatement or willful disregard of the truth. The Court specifically noted that at the time of the articles’ publication, Mr. Salzano was not a public figure. Nevertheless, the Court noted that, as the chief managing officer of the bankrupt entity which was in a highly regulated industry, Mr. Salzano’s father was a public figure. The Court noted that the bankruptcy made the company’s business affairs a matter of public interest and concern. The Court then extended this to indicate that, through the allegations made against him, Mr. Salzano had himself become “enmeshed in a matter of public concern.” Therefore, the Court applied the more stringent, actual malice standard. (Internet Defamation Law Blog)

Defamation

Defamation is one of the most common allegation that routinely gets levelled against a media house/ media professional involved in publishing and broadcasting. Defamation law suits are filed seeking damages, public apologies etc. from the publisher/broadcaster for damage to the reputation of the person filing the suit. In the following paras, I would attempt to simplify the law on defamation from the perspective of a layman's understanding.

Whats "defamation" ?

Defamation means a false publication calculated to bring a person in disrepute. It is an intentional false communication (be it print, broadcast, Internet or any other means of communication), either published or publicly spoken, that injures another persons’ reputation or good name. Thus, the essentials of defamation claim involves two things, communication to public and a consequent damage to the reputation, good will or image of a person.

Thus to succeed in a defamation suit the following are the things that need to be present;

To succeed in a suit for defamation, the presence of the following four ingredients is necessary :

(i) The statement must be defamatory;
(ii) The statement must refer to the plaintiff;
(iii) The statement must be published by the defendant; and
(iv) The statement must be false.

Types of defamation

Defamation can be classified into two types, "Libel" and "Slander". Libel is malicious defamation, expressed either in print or writing or by signs and pictures etc. which is intended to damage the reputation, good will of a person. On the other hand Slander means the same offence of defamation committed orally through spoken words used by one person against another. While therefore both libel and slander are two different forms of defamation, libel is in writing while slander is oral. Each of these give a right of action to the defamed person against the person so doing.

Legal Remedy

Legal remedy under the law can be invoked by filing complaint under section 499 & 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

Defence in a defamation suit

Accused person can seek any of the following as defences in a defamation suit

(i) Truth- That the statement alleged to defamatory is a truth;

(ii) Statements made in good faith and with a reasonable belief that they were true;

(iii) Innocent dissemination is a defense available when the had no actual knowledge of the defamatory nature of the statement or had no reason to believe that the statement was defamatory.

(iv) Privileged Statement is a defense when witnesses' testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in the court, or statements made by legislators on the floor of the legislature or in the Parliament, or statements made by a person to his/her spouse, are the cause for the claim.

(v) Opinion: If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

How 'surrogate' is 'Surrogate Advertising' ?

What is 'surrogate advertising'?
Countries world wide have laws to ban tobacco, alcohol and other narcotic products from advertising. This is obviously intended towards discouraging the consumption of such products in the overall interest of a healthy society. 'Surrogate advertising' is referred to those advertisement campaigns which are projected as ads of products or services whose advertisement is not prohibited but intended to promote the brand which in fact is of prohibited products. Eg. a popular alcohol brand advertising music cassettes and CDs, which music cassettes ans CDs you never find in your neighbourhood music store or a very popular Scotch brand advertising its 'apple juice' which you never find on the shelves of any super markets !

Why companies resort to Surrogate Advertising?
Obviously because that's the only way they can probably get away by advertising their brands which are popularly associated with prohibited products is through surrogate advertising.

What is the latest trend on Surrogate Advertising?
'Surrogate Advertising' per se is prohibited and the government often comes heavily on these advertising practices. ASCI and other advertising bodies have adopted regulations to discourage/prohibit surrogate advertising.

What the companies which make and market prohibited products are resorting to?
Companies are increasingly resorting to brand extensions wherein they will tie up with a genuine product or service providers and launch co-branded products or services. Typically one can see these tie ups happening with music publishers, travel websites etc. where the companies make an attempt portray as if the advertisement is being done for genuine product which in fact contributes to minuscule part of its revenue, if at all it has any overflows after paying the other parties.

There is also a trend where brand extension are more genuine and large scale e.g. ITC launching 'Wills Lifestyle" or Kingfisher launching the 'Kingfisher Airlines'. This serves two purposes; one is to collectively further the brand and two is to de-risk the business from the risk associated with the prohibited products.

How do one distinguish a 'surrogate advertisement' from a genuine 'brand extension'?
The emerging law on this topic seems to be taking the following factors into consideration while deciding on the surrogate nature of an ad campaign;

1. Trade Mark registration certificate/application if any made with respect to the brand extension ;
2. Arrangement with the co-branded entity; and
3. Documentary proof to establish the existence of a distribution channel for the product/service; and
4. Documentary proof to establish the availability of the product in the market where the advertisement campaign is launched;
5. Whether the creative of the advertisements clearly state the products which are being advertised in a large font;
6. Whether all the advertisements in question display the products in the creative of the advertisement. For example if the advertisement is for the Cassettes and CDs, the advertisement in addition to clearly stating the products and services also displays the picture of the cassettes and CDs.
7. With respect to the services, whether the ad clearly describes the service. For example, an ad for the ‘holiday packages; should clearly state the same.

The question of whether an ad campaign is surrogate or genuine is always a subject matter of facts and will depend on case to case. However, in the meantime, it appears that the surrogate advertising continues unabated.

Registration of Film Titles, scripts etc. with Copyright Board

As you may be aware Bollywood has Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association (IMPPA), Association of Motion Pictures and Television Programme Producers (AMPTPP) and Film and Television Producers' Guild of India and Film Writers' Association, which inter se govern the relationship of the industry participants. Producers & writers, routinely register 'titles'/scripts with these bodies to establish their priority in adoption of title and authorship of the script.

Some days back I read an article where the IMPAA president Anil Nagrath says, “All registrations done by producers at IMPAA, AMPTPP, Guild or Writer’s Association are null as there are no legal sanctions on the same. These will not be accepted in the court of law and hence works have to be registered at the Copyright Board of India.” The same article quoted Rohini Vakil (a lawyer) endorsing Anil Nagrath's view.

This made me ponder for a second over what these guys were exactly saying. Not sure if I got why they were insisting for a registration with the Copyright Board. Lets analyse this a bit;

1. "Title"- Title of movie is essentially a "trade mark/name" through which a movie is identified, promoted and released. 'Title', per se (unless its an artwork), do not qualify the definition of a 'copyrightable' work (Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957). Hence, the protection is available under the Trade Marks Act, if one registers his "Title" or under the common law, if one is able to prove that he has been prior in adoption and has already created goodwill in the Title.
2. Under the copyright law, a literary work i.e. a script, story etc. gets the copyright protection the moment they come into existence. Under the law, it is not compulsory for a copyrightable work to be registered with the Copyright Board for being eligible to protection. For example, if you write a script, you don't need to do anything (I mean anything) to be able to claim the copyright protection. However, if some one copies your script and there is a dispute on the authorship of the script, the onus is on you to prove that you are the original author.
3. Now, if you have registered your script first with the Film Writers Association, you will be on a better footing and the onus shifts on the person who has copied your script to prove that he is the original author.
4. Therefore, contrary to what has been stated by the IMPAA President;

• If you want protection of your title, it may be a best idea to take a search at the Trade Mark Registry and then, if the title has not been taken by anybody, apply for registration;
• You will have to continue registering your title with IMPAA as thats the industry Self Regulatory Organisation (SRO)
• With respect to your scripts, whilst it is not mandatory for you to register the same with the Copyright Board, its highly advisable to continue the existing system of registering with Film Writers Association.

I hope the industry participants understand the correct position of law on this topic and take the right steps to protect their valuable IPRs.

MySpace to let users put some copyright-protected videos on their pages, with ads

Here is an interesting development which I came across on a financial website. Myspace, which hitherto adopted a policy to remove all copyrighted contents from its website, now, instead of trying to take down all copyright-protected videos that its members post, will let certain clips stay -- and give the creators of the original content a cut of the revenue from advertising that will be attached to the snippets.

MySpace and online video ad technology company Auditude (develops intellegent softwares which are capable of analysing the nature of contents that get posted) planned to announce a partnership Monday with Viacom Inc.-owned MTV Networks that will let ads be placed in clips of the network's shows that users upload to MySpace. These include Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" and MTV's reality show "The Hills."

MySpace generally tries to keep such clips off its social network along with other copyright-protected content that users post. The News Corp.-owned site removes clips at the request of the videos' copyright owners. Google Inc.'s YouTube has a similar policy, although Viacom is suing YouTube for allegedly profiting from clips of Viacom shows posted online.

Now MySpace will take a different approach with videos produced by partners it makes in its new ad deal.

Under this first partnership, MySpace users will be allowed to upload videos of MTV Networks shows. Technology from Auditude will detect and identify the clip, and overlay an ad on it. Revenue generated from the ads will be shared by MySpace, Auditude and the content copyright holders.

The system will now tag videos with a semitransparent bar across the bottom of a video that give viewers information like the episode's original air date and a link to buy the episode.
One of these are expected to appear for about 10 to 15 seconds near the start of a video, and be followed by an ad.

The arrangement is expected to take shape over the next few weeks and the overlays and ads are expected to start showing up on MySpace in the coming fortnight, and MySpace and Auditude predicted that new ad formats and ad partners will soon follow.

This is an interesting development towards taking the piracy head on. However, the success of this arrangement will largely depend on the accuracy of Auditude's software and the transparency in the eventual revenue share with the copyright owners.
(I read this news on yahoo finance)