- Blog Post: Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-12-27 http://ow.ly/16dULI #
Powered by Twitter Tools
Because Words (and the People Who Make Them) Can Cause (Legal) Trouble
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– January 3, 2010
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– December 27, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– December 20, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– December 20, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– December 13, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– December 6, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– November 29, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– November 22, 2009
Powered by Twitter Tools
Posted in Site News.
– November 15, 2009

In an interesting sign of the times, the New York times reports that Time Magazine was scooped by its own reporter when he twittered about Andre Agassi’s admission of drug use in his forthcoming autobiography Open. Richard Deitsch, the Sports Illustrated reporter to whom the premature tweet was attributed subsequently deleted it, but the legal protection presumably attached to the right of first publication had arguably evaporated. See Harper and Row Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) for the Supreme Court’s analysis on another case in which Time was scooped.
Time Inc., the magazine publisher owned by Time Warner, had bought the rights to run excerpts from the book in Sports Illustrated and People, a deal aimed at breaking the news to a worldwide audience. But the day before the magazines were to publish, a writer for Sports Illustrated prematurely revealed on Twitter Mr. Agassi’s admission to drug use.
It raises some potentially messy questions for news organizations going forward. Once upon a time, the centrality of the process of publication in the news business – both in terms of the apparatus of reputation and the prohibitively expensive production costs – made the magazine indispensable. This incident raises the spectre of a likely more and more frequently common quandary – your average reporter is now balancing the interests of more than one brand – the paper he’s writing for but also his own. As more reporters freelance, it’s likely to be less clear what hat is being worn when the next big piece of news is uncovered. Will work-for-hire doctrines cover be flexible enough to protect news organization’s investment while leaving free agent reporters free to earn their livelihood? Would something stronger be necessary? At the very least the mainstreaming of these technologies need to be addressed with coherent policies and any employees educated on the potential consequences of using them in particular contexts. Even then the cases can’t be far behind.
Posted in Copyright.
– November 9, 2009
Recent Comments