The document discusses the case of TravelRants, an online travel blog. Darren Cronian, the blogger, published a negative comment left by a reader about the travel agency DialAFlight without verifying its accuracy. DialAFlight sued Darren for libel in the UK High Court, seeking £50,000 in damages. Darren temporarily stopped blogging due to the stress and eventually settled out of court for £1,500. The document goes on to provide information on UK defamation law, the Defamation Act of 2013, and ways bloggers can protect themselves from legal issues.

1. +
Traverse
Newcastle,
February 22, 2014
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

2. +
Keeping it legal
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

3. +
Once upon a time…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

4. +
George Carman QC
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

5. +
The case of TravelRants
May, 2009….
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

6. +
The case of TravelRants

Online travel agency DialAFlight finds that an identical
comment, written under an apparent pseudonym, is posted on
seven travel-related sites. The comment alleges improper
conduct over a customer service issue.

DialAFlight argued in its subsequent legal action that the
malicious and libellous comment was written by a competitor.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

7. +
The case of TravelRants

A legal action was filed in the High Court against Tripadvisor,
Grumbletext, Caio (Germany) and TravelRants. Not against
three other sites that immediately removed the comment.

The action against TravelRants sought up to £50,000 in
damages, £780 in court fees, and an injunction barring the
defendant from continuing to publish the defamatory words.

Darren temporarily ceased blogging in June, 2009, due to the
stress. He issued an unreserved apology and deleted the
comment, eventually, having acknowledged he had not taken
action when contacted by DialAFlight earlier.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

8. +
The case of TravelRants
―Hearing a knock on the door, and
being handed a libel claim for
£50,000 from the High Court in
London is not an experience that I
want anyone to have. I ended up
settling outside of court, and was
£1,500 worse off as a result, but it
could have been much worse.
Darren Cronian
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav
What I had done was stupid, and a
very simple mistake to make. I had
published a libelous comment left
by a reader, and it wasn‘t a
pleasant experience.‖

9. +
Life after TravelRants…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

10. +
Defamation – libel and slander

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of
fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published
"with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel
is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
www.eff.org - a legal guide for bloggers
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

11. +
What is actionable
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

12. +
Ignorance is no defence

What if you publish another person's statement
(i.e. someone comments on your posts)?

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is
just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original
speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the
defamation.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

13. +
Changes in the law
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

14. +
Defamation Act 2013

Key areas

Includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have
suffered serious harm before suing for defamation. Which means
that…

There should be fewer trivial, time-consuming complaints that
usually go nowhere. Fewer cases will go to court

Libel actions against web-only publications are likely to fail if the
page did not attract many clicks

Businesses can now sue only if a statement caused, or was likely
to cause, serious financial loss. They will probably have to provide
documentary evidence, but not to the extent of producing accounts
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

15. +
Defamation Act 2013

Key areas

The one-year time limit for starting web libel actions now starts
when an article is first published online. It does not re-start
every time an article is viewed, or downloaded, as has been the
case up to now.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

16. +
Defamation Act 2013
Key areas
Websites no longer have to pre-moderate comments

The act introduces a section 5 defence. This is a ‗report and
remove‘ system that people can use if they believe they have
been defamed on a website message board.

The system enables website operators to deal with all initial
correspondence in-house. This will save legal fees.

As a result of the new guidelines, website operators should…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

17. +
Defamation Act 2013

Have a robust, written complaints
policy. Designate and train all staff (!)
to deal with complaints correctly, and
within new timescale. Timing is
critical

Acknowledge and deal with
complaints promptly – preferably by
email, in order to comply with the 48hour deadline (excluding weekends
and Bank Holidays…)
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

18. +
Defamation Act 2013

If the poster can be identified
and served with legal
proceedings, it provides a
complete defence for the
website operator and the
claimant will need to pursue the
poster.

So, for example, in the case
brought by Lord McAlpine
against Sally Bercow, Twitter
would have had a complete
defence under Section 5, even
if it decided not to take down
the offending tweet.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

19. +
Defamation Act 2013

If the poster is anonymous, the website operator will have
the option of following the Section 5 procedure set out in
the Regulations but it can only keep publishing the content
complained of and still rely on the defence if:

The poster consents to be identified to the complainant; or
…

The poster provides full contact details (including a postal
address) to the website operator which can be disclosed
pursuant to a court order.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

20. +
Defamation Act 2013

Which is highly unlikely…

So, unless you decide that you want to defend the content
on one of the other available grounds of defence - such as
truth or honest opinion – you will need to remove the
content complained of
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

21. +
Defamation Act 2013

Give website users clear
instructions on how to
complain, and who to. This
may mean providing a Report
Abuse button

Update your website terms
and conditions to reflect the
new arrangements
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

22. +
Defamation Act 2013

A site providing message boards is advised to register users
before they are allowed to make a post. Registration should
include taking their names and contact details

Users should be told, before they accept site terms and
conditions, that the operator may divulge their details if they post
anything defamatory. Keep written records of complaints, with
the dates and times of actions taken
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

23. +
Protect yourself

The Media Bloggers
Association in New York
encourages bloggers and
other web-based writers to
protect themselves in the
case of a lawsuit. The MBA
created a programme to
educate digital journalists
about their legal rights as
writers and provide insurance
targeted directly at them.

The basic policy costs $540 a
year, but certain factors can
raise the price
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

24. +
Unions

Consider joining the
National Union of
Journalists (NUJ) or British
Association of Journalists
(BAJ).

Both have free legal advice
available as part of
subscription – also have tax
advice.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

25. +
Let‘s talk about photo theft…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

26. +
Let‘s talk about photo theft…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

27. +
Let‘s talk about photo theft…
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

28. +
Over to Macca

The £28k payout
from Flight Centre
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

29. +
The story with Kash – via Twitter


Kashyap Bhattacharya
Anyone got a good legal contact who I could seek advice from?
My image has been used without my permission by a noted
language online teaching company. Thanks to Jane Meighan, I
found out. Be great if there was someone I could speak to
about this. Thanks.
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

30. +
Creative Commons licence
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

31. +
Creative Commons licence
There are different types of Flickr licences:
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

32. +
Creative Commons licence
There are different types of Flickr licences:
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

33. +
Creative Commons licence
There are six different types of Flickr licences:
The most popular?
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

34. +
Creative Commons licence
There are six different types of Flickr licences:
The most popular?
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

35. +
One final thought..
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav

36. +
Thank you
@stevenkeenan @socialtrav