Variations on Defamation

Zillah

So here's a hypothetical (or a vague account of something that happened me):

I put a video I made on Youtube. It is in high definition, very good quality. It is something I have made in a professional context. Another website, say a news organisation, takes my video and uploads a slightly edited and much lower quality version onto their own website.

Put aside any issues of copyright. Is there an argument to be made for them being civilly liable for impugning my professional reputation by publishing a poor-quality version of what I have created? It is reasonable to think that a person seeing the video would think less of my abilities if the video is of a poor standard, no?

I don't think you could call it defamation, as that involves a false statement, but is there any other term or legal vehicle for such a case?

I have no intention of pursuing this but it did occur to me and I was wondering.

234

The issue would be solved as a matter of copyright. If you don't like the version that they are posting, then require them to take it down, asset your copyright.

if by uploading to youtube you have lost these rights (I'm not familiar with their terms of use), then tough luck, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Zillah

I said put aside any issues of copyright.

Bepolite

Zillah wrote: »

I said put aside any issues of copyright.

That's fine but this is a copyright issue. Defamation is as big a stretch as passing-off but if you want to try and shoe horn it into something else when there's another option for you. That said it's a copyright issue.

Tom Young

The torts of deceit and possibly malicious falsehood might fit ... but not properly.

itsirishfarmer

fair use

Tom Young

S.42 of the Defamation Act, 2009 will guide you through the legislative basis for a MF action. Proving specials would be a headache.

Victor

Is there a case for either passing off (difficult if your name is stuck on it) or parody (yes, I'm being harsh)?

Kilgore__Trout

You could consider contacting them and asking them to remove it.

Peregrinus

I'm assuming the degraded verson of the video is identifiably yours - i.e. your name, logo etc still appears on the video, so that anyone seeing that version of the video, and only that version, would think you produced it.

Copyright aside, there might be a case in passing-off. They have produced a cheap, poor-quality knockoff of your video, and are circulating it under your name and brand, presenting it to the world as yours. That's passing off, which is a tort.

It would be a novel action, I'd have to say. And the defendants would certainly respond by saying that people understand that they, not you, are responsible for the technical qualities of their website. If you saw a black-and-white photograph of the Mona Lisa in the Irish Independent, you wouldn't assume that the original was also in black-and-white, and this is basically no different. So I'm not convinced that you would win the case, but it might be an avenue worth exploring.

Zillah

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you saw a black-and-white photograph of the Mona Lisa in the Irish Independent, you wouldn't assume that the original was also in black-and-white, and this is basically no different.

Ah, but, the Mona Lisa is the most well-known painting in the world, no one with a TV or computer could be reasonably expected to be confused by a low quality reproduction of it. A video from an unknown filmmaker is a different issue altogether; the public have no means by which to tell if the original is poor-quality of if the reproduction is to blame. It would be reasonable to fear that my reputation as a filmmaker would be impugned by their likelihood of thinking the former.

Peregrinus

Well, you can run the argument. As I say, it will be a novel case, so nobody can predict the outcome with any certainty.

Plus, you say in your OP to disregard the issue of copyright, but perhaps that's not very realistic. If you have licensed the newspaper (or the world at large) to make reproductions of your work, and you then complain about the quality of the reproduction, the newspaper will certainly say that if you were concerned about that you should have addressed it in the licence you gave. Whereas if the newspaper has reproduced your work without authority, the court will be more sympathetic to your argument that they have reproduced it in a way which may damage your professional standing.

Zillah

They had no permission, it could have been easily resolved on copyright grounds, I was just wondering about the the other issue in a hypothetical sense. If we imagined that their use had come under fair dealing, for example.

Peregrinus

Copyright, unsurprisingly, is the right to make copies, or to control or prevent the making of copies. If, under fair dealing or whatever, they have a right to make a copy, there's no established law that says it has to be a good copy. Your reputation is only damaged if they hold out their (bad) copy as the original, in which case the tort of passing-off is the one that would come closest to covering your situation. But it would be a very novel application of the tort. Your first problem would be showing that they were holding out their copy as the original.

Zillah

Does it need to be an explicit claim, or can it be through a reasonable possibility that others will assume it to be original?

schemingbohemia

Zillah wrote: »

Ah, but, the Mona Lisa is the most well-known painting in the world, no one with a TV or computer could be reasonably expected to be confused by a low quality reproduction of it. A video from an unknown filmmaker is a different issue altogether; the public have no means by which to tell if the original is poor-quality of if the reproduction is to blame. It would be reasonable to fear that my reputation as a filmmaker would be impugned by their likelihood of thinking the former.

If you're unknown you don't have a reputation to impugn, you might win but the damages would be limited and likely less than your costs.

Peregrinus

Zillah wrote: »

Does it need to be an explicit claim, or can it be through a reasonable possibility that others will assume it to be original?

I think that to succeed in your claim you'll have too produce. A witness who diid[/ii] think I it was the original. And yoou'll have to show that yoou suffered looss as a result -e..g. Your witness will have to be, e.g., a commissioning editor or producer who decided nooot to retain you because he thought your work. Was bad. And your problem here is that, whatever about the general public, presumably people in the business, people whose opinion matters to you financially, know how these thing work, and they know that the condensed, degraded product on the website is noot. Indicative of the product of your work.