Hey guys,

Music to write by: “In My Head“ by The Queens of the Stone Age

Seeing as how I was recently accused of libel by a reader(actually, liable… but see the comments of the post ), I thought I’d pass along this handy-dandy link to the Legal Guide for Bloggers sent to me by Stephen Smethurst of ABlueStar fame.

Most interesting to our discussion was the section on Online Defamation Law. According to the site, in order to prove libel, the accuser must establish the following four points.

1) a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2) a false statement of fact;
3) that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4)If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Seeing as how the person accusing me is a public figure, they would have to prove that I intended actual malice against them… and they are also a friend, so its plain that malice wasn’t involved. I heart the law!

Now, I’ve said before that everything I post on the blog is simply my opinion, but is that a legal defense? According to the site:

No — … merely labeling a statement as your “opinion” does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it’s likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion (“I really hate George Lucas’ new movie”) rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion (“It’s my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database”).

So I must, in future, be a liddle more careful. Just to be perfectly clear though, I believe that Trinity was the hacker who broke into the IRS database.

You’ll notice that this blog makes extensive use of large block quotes (like the ones above). Can I do this? Um. Here’s another block quote:

What is fair use?

There are no hard and fast rules for fair use (and anyone who tells you that a set number of words or percentage of a work is “fair” is talking about guidelines, not the law). The Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to look at (17 U.S.C. § 107):

1) The purpose and character of the use. Transformative uses are favored over mere copying. Non-commercial uses are also more likely fair.

2) The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the original factual in nature or fiction? Published or unpublished? Creative and unpublished works get more protection under copyright, while using factual material is more often fair use.

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used. Copying nearly all of a work, or copying its “heart” is less likely to be fair.

4) The effect on the market or potential market. This factor is often held to be the most important in the analysis, and it applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, it’s unlikely to be a fair use; uses that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely fair. Linking to the original may also help to diminish the substitution effect. Note that criticism or parody that has the side effect of reducing a market may be fair because of its transformative character. In other words, if your criticism of a product is so powerful that people stop buying the product, that doesn’t count as having an “effect on the market for the work” under copyright law.

The rest of the article is Highly Recommended Reading.

So now you know. And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!