Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2021.1884947
D. Erdos
ABSTRACT It has been increasingly asserted that data protection can and should enable individuals to exert some control at least ex post over online data dissemination. Notwithstanding contrary suggestions, therefore, the ‘right to be forgotten’ is not solely an EU phenomenon. Post-2014 the majority of the eight national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) s operating in non-EU G20 jurisdictions with established data protection legislation have sought to implement such a right through guidance and, in three cases, also enforcement. These jurisdictions span three regions and encompass jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada with a similar outlook to the EU. In light of the profoundly globalised nature of the internet, greater transnational coordination would be valuable. Whilst the G20 is itself ill-suited to this task, the pan-regional Data Protection Convention framework overseen by the Council of Europe as well as the Global Privacy Assembly could play an important role.
{"title":"The ‘right to be forgotten’ beyond the EU: an analysis of wider G20 regulatory action and potential next steps","authors":"D. Erdos","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.1884947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.1884947","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It has been increasingly asserted that data protection can and should enable individuals to exert some control at least ex post over online data dissemination. Notwithstanding contrary suggestions, therefore, the ‘right to be forgotten’ is not solely an EU phenomenon. Post-2014 the majority of the eight national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) s operating in non-EU G20 jurisdictions with established data protection legislation have sought to implement such a right through guidance and, in three cases, also enforcement. These jurisdictions span three regions and encompass jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada with a similar outlook to the EU. In light of the profoundly globalised nature of the internet, greater transnational coordination would be valuable. Whilst the G20 is itself ill-suited to this task, the pan-regional Data Protection Convention framework overseen by the Council of Europe as well as the Global Privacy Assembly could play an important role.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2021.1884947","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46020594","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2021.1933704
Holly Hancock
ABSTRACT Drawing upon empirical research carried out by the author, this paper demonstrates that the current law in England and Wales on privacy fails to provide appropriate recourse for a person who feels aggrieved at their photograph being taken and shared, particularly where this evokes emotions of embarrassment or humiliation. Whilst some improvements to the current law are discussed to improve protection for the photographed's privacy rights, the main conclusion suggests that a greater focus on education and guidance would be a pragmatic and cost-effective solution, with this shift in emphasis concentrating efforts on the actions of the photographer. In turn, this would protect the interests of the photographed as a form of preventative measure, rather than reactionary move.
{"title":"The impact of the image on personal life: is current law out of focus?","authors":"Holly Hancock","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.1933704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.1933704","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Drawing upon empirical research carried out by the author, this paper demonstrates that the current law in England and Wales on privacy fails to provide appropriate recourse for a person who feels aggrieved at their photograph being taken and shared, particularly where this evokes emotions of embarrassment or humiliation. Whilst some improvements to the current law are discussed to improve protection for the photographed's privacy rights, the main conclusion suggests that a greater focus on education and guidance would be a pragmatic and cost-effective solution, with this shift in emphasis concentrating efforts on the actions of the photographer. In turn, this would protect the interests of the photographed as a form of preventative measure, rather than reactionary move.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2021.1933704","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60423356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2021.1963585
Karen Lee, S. Molitorisz
ABSTRACT In February 2021, following sustained brinkmanship from Google and Facebook, Australia passed into law its world-first 'News Media Bargaining Code' (Code), which seeks to address the bargaining imbalance between digital platforms and news media. Already, some have judged the Code to be a success, with other countries now considering implementing similar policy responses. In this analysis article, we highlight that while the Code is a largely welcome initiative, other jurisdictions need to be mindful of its weaknesses and the difficulties they are likely to encounter when attempting to secure passage of analogous legislation.
{"title":"The Australian News Media Bargaining Code: lessons for the UK, EU and beyond","authors":"Karen Lee, S. Molitorisz","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.1963585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.1963585","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In February 2021, following sustained brinkmanship from Google and Facebook, Australia passed into law its world-first 'News Media Bargaining Code' (Code), which seeks to address the bargaining imbalance between digital platforms and news media. Already, some have judged the Code to be a success, with other countries now considering implementing similar policy responses. In this analysis article, we highlight that while the Code is a largely welcome initiative, other jurisdictions need to be mindful of its weaknesses and the difficulties they are likely to encounter when attempting to secure passage of analogous legislation.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45386466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067
M. V. van Drunen
ABSTRACT This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.
{"title":"The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility","authors":"M. V. van Drunen","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46138150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1843326
Benjamin Wong
ABSTRACT This article addresses the application of the journalism exception in UK data protection law. A number of uncertainties arise out of the case law of the CJEU and UK courts, as well as from the changes made to the journalism exception in the new data protection regime under the GDPR and DPA 2018. Three areas within the journalism exception will be discussed: the meaning of ‘journalistic purposes’, the substantive exemption from liability, and the procedural power to obtain a stay of proceedings. This article will identify the uncertainties affecting each of these three areas, and proposes possible ways by which these uncertainties may be resolved.
{"title":"The journalism exception in UK data protection law","authors":"Benjamin Wong","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1843326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1843326","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article addresses the application of the journalism exception in UK data protection law. A number of uncertainties arise out of the case law of the CJEU and UK courts, as well as from the changes made to the journalism exception in the new data protection regime under the GDPR and DPA 2018. Three areas within the journalism exception will be discussed: the meaning of ‘journalistic purposes’, the substantive exemption from liability, and the procedural power to obtain a stay of proceedings. This article will identify the uncertainties affecting each of these three areas, and proposes possible ways by which these uncertainties may be resolved.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1843326","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42063968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141
C. Paul Sellors
ABSTRACT In Norowzian v Arks Ltd. (No.2) the Court of Appeal determined that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects films as dramatic works. What, conceptually and in practice, this means is not clear. This article examines and compares the history of film with the definitions of film in the Berne Convention and UK copyright laws to argue that practical and legal definitions of film were already diverging when the Copyright Act 1911 was enacted. It contends the continuing divergence between film and its legal classification in copyright law develops from the underscoring aesthetic theory on which classifications from the 1911 Act onwards depend. Establishing the classifications in CDPA 1988 on an alternative aesthetic theory could better accommodate filmic expression.
{"title":"Too much drama defining film in UK copyright law","authors":"C. Paul Sellors","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Norowzian v Arks Ltd. (No.2) the Court of Appeal determined that the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects films as dramatic works. What, conceptually and in practice, this means is not clear. This article examines and compares the history of film with the definitions of film in the Berne Convention and UK copyright laws to argue that practical and legal definitions of film were already diverging when the Copyright Act 1911 was enacted. It contends the continuing divergence between film and its legal classification in copyright law develops from the underscoring aesthetic theory on which classifications from the 1911 Act onwards depend. Establishing the classifications in CDPA 1988 on an alternative aesthetic theory could better accommodate filmic expression.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1831141","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45229322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486
P. Cavaliere
ABSTRACT This article claims that the practices undertaken by digital platforms to counter disinformation, under the EU Action Plan against Disinformation and the Code of Practice, mark a shift in the governance of news media content. While professional journalism standards have been used for long, both within and outside the industry, to assess the accuracy of news content and adjudicate on media conduct, the platforms are now resolving to different fact-checking routines to moderate and curate their content. The article will demonstrate how fact-checking organisations have different working methods than news operators and ultimately understand and assess ‘accuracy’ in different ways. As a result, this new and enhanced role for platforms and fact-checkers as curators of content impacts on how content is distributed to the audience and, thus, on media freedom. Depending on how the fact-checking standards and working routines will consolidate in the near future, however, this trend offers an actual opportunity to improve the quality of news and the right to receive information.
{"title":"From journalistic ethics to fact-checking practices: defining the standards of content governance in the fight against disinformation","authors":"P. Cavaliere","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article claims that the practices undertaken by digital platforms to counter disinformation, under the EU Action Plan against Disinformation and the Code of Practice, mark a shift in the governance of news media content. While professional journalism standards have been used for long, both within and outside the industry, to assess the accuracy of news content and adjudicate on media conduct, the platforms are now resolving to different fact-checking routines to moderate and curate their content. The article will demonstrate how fact-checking organisations have different working methods than news operators and ultimately understand and assess ‘accuracy’ in different ways. As a result, this new and enhanced role for platforms and fact-checkers as curators of content impacts on how content is distributed to the audience and, thus, on media freedom. Depending on how the fact-checking standards and working routines will consolidate in the near future, however, this trend offers an actual opportunity to improve the quality of news and the right to receive information.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17577632.2020.1869486","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43762487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-30DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1760473
N. A. Moreham
(2020). Police investigations, privacy and the Marcel principle in breach of confidence. Journal of Media Law: Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
(2020)。警方调查，隐私和马塞尔原则违反保密。《传媒法学》，第12卷第1期，第1-12页。
{"title":"Police investigations, privacy and the Marcel principle in breach of confidence","authors":"N. A. Moreham","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1760473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1760473","url":null,"abstract":"(2020). Police investigations, privacy and the Marcel principle in breach of confidence. Journal of Media Law: Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-12.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138503643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-11DOI: 10.1080/17577632.2020.1776560
Charlie Sewell
ABSTRACT
This article empirically analyses the judicial construction of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 within the first five years of the serious reputational harm threshold coming into operation. The relevant judgments considering serious harm have been carefully examined and dissected with a qualitative analysis approach, in which prominent themes and factors discussed in judicial interpretations have been distilled and evaluated. To this pursuit, the analysis investigates the evolution of judicial opinion in the development of section 1(1), exhibiting the merits of a multi-circumstantial approach in assessing the existence or likelihood of serious reputational harm in line with the leading Supreme Court construction of the serious harm test.
{"title":"More serious harm than good? An empirical observation and analysis of the effects of the serious harm requirement in section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013","authors":"Charlie Sewell","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2020.1776560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1776560","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p> <p>This article empirically analyses the judicial construction of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 within the first five years of the serious reputational harm threshold coming into operation. The relevant judgments considering serious harm have been carefully examined and dissected with a qualitative analysis approach, in which prominent themes and factors discussed in judicial interpretations have been distilled and evaluated. To this pursuit, the analysis investigates the evolution of judicial opinion in the development of section 1(1), exhibiting the merits of a multi-circumstantial approach in assessing the existence or likelihood of serious reputational harm in line with the leading Supreme Court construction of the serious harm test.</p>","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138503642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
*A number of recent English decisions have supported the idea that, in general, a person will have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of a police investigation into his or her conduct (...
{"title":"Police investigations, privacy and the Marcel principle in breach of confidence","authors":"N. Moreham","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3547209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3547209","url":null,"abstract":"*A number of recent English decisions have supported the idea that, in general, a person will have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of a police investigation into his or her conduct (...","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43766491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：