This chapter examines defamation cases arising from traditional media sites and user-generated media entries. It first provides an overview of the tort of defamation, and the issue of who is responsible and potentially liable for an online defamatory statement. It then looks at the Defamation Act 2013, considering when defences may be raised to a claim in defamation, and how online publication and republication may result in defamation. Four cases are analysed: Dow Jones v Gutnick, Loutchansky v Times Newspapers, King v Lewis, and Jameel v Dow Jones. The chapter explores intermediary liability, particularly the liability of UK internet service providers, by citing recent decisions on intermediary liability such as Tamiz v Google, Delfi v Estonia, and MTE v Hungary, as well as specific intermediary defences found in the Defamation Act 2013. The chapter concludes by discussing key social media cases such as McAlpine v Bercow and Monroe v Hopkins.
Chapter
This chapter examines defamation cases arising from traditional media sites and user-generated media entries. It first provides an overview of the tort of defamation, and the issue of who is responsible and potentially liable for an online defamatory statement. The chapter looks at the Defamation Act 2013 and discusses when defences may be raised to a claim in defamation, and how online publication and republication may result in defamation. It also analyses a number of cases on tort and its defences including cases: Dow Jones v Gutnick, King v Lewis, and Jameel v Dow Jones and Riley v Murray. The chapter discusses intermediary liability, particularly the liability of internet service providers in the UK, by citing decisions on intermediary liability such as Tamiz v Google, Delfi v Estonia and MTE v Hungary as well as specific intermediary defences found in the Defamation Act 2013. The chapter concludes by discussing key social media cases such as McAlpine v Bercow and Monroe v Hopkins.
Chapter
This new chapter examines the sometimes fraught relationship between authors, publishers and distributors, and fans. While copyright law protects authors and creators, and while publishers and distributors benefit from either assigned copyright or specific copyright protection of distribution and transmission of content, fans are sometimes ‘shut out’. A flourishing online community of fan creators who produce written fanfiction, remixed music, and fan videos sometimes feel copyright law is designed to keep them at a distance from the creators and characters they love. This chapter examines where the balance should be drawn between copyright protection for original content and the interests of fans and other users in creating non-commercial derivative works. It concludes with a short discussion of computer-generated works as a form of original creation.
Chapter
This chapter examines the sometimes fraught relationship between authors, publishers and distributors, and fans. While copyright law protects authors and creators, and while publishers and distributors benefit from either assigned copyright or specific copyright protection of distribution and transmission of content, fans are sometimes ‘shut out’. A flourishing online community of fan creators who produce written fanfiction, remixed music, and fan videos sometimes feel copyright law is designed to keep them at a distance from the creators and characters they love. This chapter examines where the balance should be drawn between copyright protection for original content and the interests of fans and other users in creating non-commercial derivative works. It concludes with an expanded discussion of AI generated works as a form of original creation and AI infringement.
