Codes of Ethics among Journalists - Assignment Example

FACULTY OF LAW Assignment Coversheet   Student ID number   Student Name Unit name  Law of communication Unit number  9424 Assignment name  End year assignment Due date 19/11/2013 Word Count 1589   Q1: Introduction The key question is whether Sam has breached any code of conduct in collecting information and content for his article. The following, will concentrate on breach of code of conducts among the journalist pertaining methods of data collection and contents of their articles. Codes of Ethics among journalists The code of conducts established by Australian Journalists act is that, all journalists must commit themselves to fairness, honesty, independence and respect of other people’s rights (such as privacy rights) in collection and contents of their works (Cunningham, 2010). The law stipulates that all media personalities such as article writers, column editors and magazine columnists should establish fair and sincere methods of acquiring their data; they should avoid misrepresentation, use of concealed surveillance devices or any other unscrupulous methods to acquire information. The law strictly requires them to interpret accurately, report honestly and fairly as well as truthfully disclose all essential facts, rather than mere fiction. Correct interpretation of the facts assists in avoidance of data manipulations, which may result to erroneous facts. Conversely, the Australian Journalists’ code of conduct discourages journalists on emphasizing on personal characteristics such as sexual orientations, race or family relations. In addition, the law accords all citizens their rights of privacy, whereby public figures have relatively reduced privacy owing to their public roles. Following the precepts of Australian journalists act, media reporting should never deny or curtail individual’s privacy rights (Cvetkovski, 2013). In this case, Sam, after failing to get latest gossip about Carey from Tom (his earlier information source) or from Carey, since she had taken to low profile, he decided to impersonate doctor’s assistant to get information from Carey’s mother. He changed his name and assumed his best British accent to maintain anonymity, after which he attained Carey’s personal information concerning her prior pregnancies. In writing his article, Sam exaggerated the facts, accusing Carey to have had numerous encounters with lawyers. This manipulation arose from the fact that, the truth would not fetch more clients as it was devoid of more skeleton. She updated that Carey had given birth to two more children during her university life, whose whereabouts were unknown. Breach of the codes of conducts occurs with the contravention of any of the set codes, governing the journalists. In collection of data, Sam impersonated Carey doctor to deceive Carey’s mother into giving Carey medical history. Pursuance to Techenguiz v, Imerman1, any person is liable for adventitiously and without authorisation collecting and using private and confidential information. If the individual employed devious ways in collecting information, especially with knowledge that the information collected is private and the owner expects it to be a secret, the collector is deemed to have infringed confidence (Heerey, 1985). Following the precepts of this case, Sam employed devious means to acquire Carey’s confidential information and availed it to the public hence breach of Carey confidential information. Sam published Carey’s confidential data, thereby breaching Carey’s right of privacy concerning her personal data. Pursuance to, Vestergaard Frandsen A/S & Ors v Bestnet Europe Ltd & Ors2, breach of privacy takes the form of exaggeration of an otherwise well written work. According to the case, confidential data is that which is presumed a secret (not for public domain) such as income matters and medical details. In this case, the jury held that a person is liable for breaching confidence if he unscrupulously collects confidential data and uses it devoid of owners’ permission(Petronio, 2002) By accessing Carey medical history using devious methods, and posting them to the public domain, with some added exaggerations, Sam breached Carey’s right of privacy (Butler & Rodrick, 2011). This is a contravention of journalists’ code of ethics concerning disclosure of confidential information. Q2: Introduction The main question is whether Tom has breached Sam’s rights based on the precepts of the Copyright act of 1968, by publishing an article similar to one written by Sam. The following deals with cases where the copyrights and patents rights in the media industry are deemed to have been breached, as well as discussing the available defence against breach of copyrights. In addition, the paper will outline the possible remedies available to Sam concerning his copyrights. Breach of Copyrights The issue for discussion is whether Tom had contravened any set guideline pertaining breach of a copyright. Subject to Copyright act3, the original writer of musical, literal or artistic works is presumed the owner of all-copyright relating to the work. The author copyright applies when his original work or part thereof, is intended to be included in a similar magazine or periodical, inclusion in a book or is intended to be reproduced into a hard copy. In this case, Tom decided to write an article describing his short affair with Carey, to shift attention from Sam’s article. This arose from Tom’s view that he should be the one advantaging from Carey story since he was the one who provided Tom with initial information concerning Carey. However, Tom in his work, included most of Sam’s content, an infringement of Sam’s copyrights relating to the magazine article (Cunningham, 2010). Based on the precepts of CBS Records v. Gross4, a cover version, an article or any written literal or factual works are original and are protected by the copyright act. Any modification, edition, publication or reproduction to a hard copy, should be done with permission from the original author. In Cray v. Deltech5, the jury ruled that though Deltech had not published Cray, recipes in full, the information contained in the Deltech recipe was similar to Cray; hence, Deltech was liable for infringing Cray copyrights. Following the precepts of the ruling, copying literal work, or part thereof, may be considered infringement of copyright even when only few wordings are similar (Butler & Rodrick, 2011).In this view, Tom infringed the copyright laws since he used Sam’s contents in his article without prior permission from Sam. There are various defences that Tom can employ in his defence against infringing Sam’s copyright. He can argue with fair dealing, an occasion whereby journalists use other people/journalists materials without prior permission. In Fair dealing, a journalist has to change the other journalists’ own words but maintain the content. Tom can argue that, since he did not use all Sam’s content, he did not infringe Sam’s work since he was fair dealing (Butler & Rodrick, 2011). Nonetheless, Sam can still sue Tom since, in most cases, the fair dealing argument, does not adequately cover scripts copied from News materials or feature articles. In addition, the fair dealing argument does not cover scripts leaked to the public without the owners, authorisation, as is the case of Carey’s information. Since Tom copied Sam’s work without permission and the owner (Carey) had not freely given that information, Fair dealing argument cannot protect Tom, hence, he is liable for infringing Sam’s work, should Sam choose to sue him. In addition, Sam can choose to directly deal with Tom, to make him cease from further copying his work. In this case, Sam will not be compensated for previous damage, but he will have stemmed further bleeding. Sam can also seek monetary compensation if he can prove that he suffered a loss following Tom’s replication of his content. Q3: Introduction The main query is whether Sam committed any misleading and deceptive conduct by offering sets of steak knives for new subscribers but later declaring that he was out of stock after new users subscribed to his online magazine. Deceptive conducts in commerce Pursuance to the Australian Common Law (ACL)6, no person should engage in trade or commerce conducts that are misleading, such clients form misinformed purchases. Formerly TPA section 52(1), the act discourages misleading advertisements, statements, quotations or promotions that may be in the form of promises, predictions or opinions that may positively influence the clients to trade. In addition, the law daunts intentional or accidental misleading statements such as puffery or small sized disclaimers that businesses seek to advantage (Petronio, 2002). The key issue is whether, Sam, in his promises of free steak knives to new subscribers, which saw to increased subscribers, was a deceptive act, since he, in real sense, had no steak knives to give the new subscribers. In pursuance to Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co7, an advert or a promotion is considered to be misleading if the statement has the prospective of misleading a considerable segment of probable consumers and that the promotional material is so material that it influences clients purchasing decision. This is also evidenced in TPC v Cue Design Pty Ltd8, case where the retailer had stuck a price label with a high crossed out price that the garment had never sold at, seeking to advantage from the presumed price reduction. These constitutes of misleading statements even though the advertisement or the promotions are not made in classical advertising platforms (Cunningham, 2010). Following the precepts of Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola, Sam committed a misleading and deceptive conduct, since; the promise of free steak knives led to increased subscription and that the intentionally offered to give free steak knives to increase subscription, with full knowledge that she was deceiving. From the facts, Sam is liable for issuing and benefiting from misleading conduct in trade, which was in the form of deceitful promotion. Reference Butler, D. A., & Rodrick, S. (2011). Austraalian Media Law. Rozelle, N.S.W.: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. Cunningham, S. (2010). Media and communications in Australia. NSW: Thomson Reuters Professional. Cvetkovski, T. (2013). Copyright and popular media : liberal villains and technological change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Heerey. (1985). Defamation. Publishing the Defmatory Statements of others , 6-36. Petronio, S. S. (2002). Boundaries of Privavy:Dialects of disclosure. New York: University of New york Press. Read More