ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

9 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

Only you know what your film says, and only you can judge the issues. However we do support free speech in this country so I don't see much risk an an employee venting like that.

The real issue with libel re organisations is when it comes to facts. If someone in your film states that "ABC Co has it's British employees in Arabia contracted under a Dubai contract so that if they act whistleblowers they have no recourse to Uk employment tribunals" that is very different to an employee whistleblower noting that "because I had a Dubai contract I found that I didn't have the protection of a UK employment tribunal"

The first would really require you to have statements from ex ABC legal team stating that one of the reasons they structured that way was to etc. The other simply needs said whistleblower to make the statement and allows the audience to reach their own conclusions as to why the company structures that way.

Disclaimers DON'T WORK. Repeat after me until you are blue in the face, Disclaimers Do Not Work. You can never disclaimer your way out of trouble, because you have editorial control.

TBH, if you're trying to make a hard hitting documentary and you're worried about libel, what that really means is that you haven't found a way to stick to the known facts. Which might of course mean that you could be about to hit hard at an innocent firm. Note - this is why the "we asked for an interview and they declined" works to so well - it allows you to present witnesses talking about what they can vouch for, you can then ponder why, and when the company declines to talk, audience draws own conclusions.

9 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Waiting to see if Cameron sues Ashcroft over allegations of pig poking. One might expect him to do so; if not one might presume that Ashcroft, being no callow beginner in these things, has the means to back his defamation up.

9 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Well of course I don't know enough about your film to have a definitive opinion, the devil is always in the detail, but the observations provided above ought to be quite clarifying. Limited Companies are always a good idea because they limit liabilities however the caveat is that a director, both in terms of film and corporate governance may yet be personally liable if they've failed to maintain a reasonable level of proper oversight or have been grossly negligent. But as Marlon and I have pointed out there really are quite safe ways to present things. Look how close to the wind people sail in programmes like 'Have I got news for you' and the way potentially defamatory presentations are made in news and documentary every day on TV. It's not difficult. If in doubt re-edit the risky bits as suggested above whilst still retaining the hard hitting effect you want. Film makers really ought to have a basic understanding of these thing without needing to consult lawyers; it's easy peasy common sense.

9 years, 9 months ago - Dan Selakovich

I have a very practical solution to this: buy "Errors and Omissions" insurance. To do that, you'll need an entertainment attorney to go through the film. Once they give it the OK, you'll be able to buy E and O.

9 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

Libel - if accused of libel it is not up to them to show you lied, it's up to you to show that you didn't. "Opinion" is not a defence.

But what's the worst that can happen? They go to court, you go bust. (At least I think that's the worst. Strictly civil law and monetary damages).

Most organisations remember the McLibel case and don't actually ply then libel card because it gives you and your case more publicity than you'd ever get on your own.

9 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

John - Cameron won't sue. He'd have to show that his reputation was damaged, and whatever you think about him, this was a case where the the public clearly shrugged and Ashcroft came off looking like a vengeful twit and thus Cameron's judgement in NOT giving him a cabinet role an example of good judgement by C.

A lot of smart people are with Wellington - "publish and be damned". To sue for libel as a public person you want to be sure that the victory is not Pyrrhic.

9 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

I think you've said it Wendy. Libel or slander are torts in Common Law if they result in 'defamation', harming the aggrieved party. The apparent anomaly that seems to turn Common Law on its head in that the person accused of defamation is required to prove their case is not as anomalous as it may appear. The onus upon any accuser is that they must prove their case and a defamation is an accusation even though it occurs before any adjudication of Law is initiated. Despite the moans of so called journalists and other publicists such a provision is absolutely right in every sense. If one is making any assertion that harms another then one had better be able to back it up with evedential proof. If it were not so then anyone would be able to go around making any wild accusations, which would be detrimental to all of us. So if your film is making hearsay accusations without such proof then beware. The only way to protect oneself from committing such torts where there is insufficient evidence is to refer to such matters as being only allegations (requiring explanation) of wrong doing (asserted by others); but even then it must be done with great care. "Fair and Balanced" That's why humour and satire have been so well developed in our Common Law jurisdiction.

9 years, 9 months ago - John Lubran

Marlom, the metaphor "publish and be damned” is the best response for those unable to refute the claims against them. However another one is that mud sticks unless it's washed off. It must be self evident that his reputation has been damaged. 'Still he's not going for another election, but if his successor is carved from the same stock, who knows what inferences will be made? Whether or not the public care about Cameron's actual integrity and authenticity is moot, however I don't believe there's any real evidence to suggest that the public have shrugged off its significance, I’m not aware of any poll on the issue. When a government relies on asserting its moral character in order to press ferociously contended policies, revelations of moral hypocrisy will have a significant impact. The answer to that can't be divined in the least bit by referring to commentary from the faux centerist urbanity of the establishment media. Nevertheless satirists everywhere, including those still allowed on the mainstream media, are having a field day with this story's constant repetition, with no sign of abatement yet. The so called popular mandate claimed by this government is anything but, with barely a quarter of the eligible electorate having actually voted for them. It only takes a small thing to shift public opinion.

9 years, 9 months ago - wendy Zakiewicz

or could i add text to the end of the film that identifies me as sole author in a legally indisputable way so that I could deflect any trouble away from the others involved in making the film.

9 years, 9 months ago - wendy Zakiewicz

I feel confident that the film has stuck to facts. But as said the fear of libel is not a nice idea. In particular anther member of the film is very concerned about it. Is there a way that I could make any threat minimised. For example take out professional indemnity insurance? Also if we create a limited company would that potentially limit any damages to us personally?

9 years, 9 months ago - wendy Zakiewicz

Thanks Marlom
yes, I understand it to be like that too. But surely theres a very thin line between peoples opinions and their freedom to express them and then slandering an organisation. e.g 'they would probably like to get rid of all of us.' If someone says this in my film do I have to find evidence to prove the statement of this opinion to be true in order to feel secure against libel?
Just wondering if you know if it would help if I put a disclaimer on too?

9 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

There's a practical aspect to this - can you afford to get sued, rightly or wrongly? If you cannot afford to financially (and more importantly in time/stress) defend yourself, it's moot.