Codes of Ethics in Collection of Information - Assignment Example

Questions Name Institution Course Lecturer Date (1) Codes of Ethics in collection of information Introduction The Code of Ethics provides professional journalists to identify the sources of information whenever feasible. Collection of information is meant to provide the public with much information they are entitled to and possibly from reliable sources. Clause 8 of AJA Code of Ethics requires the use of fair, honest and responsible means in collecting information1. Journalists need to identify themselves and their employer before an interview for broadcast. He/she should never exploit the ignorance or vulnerability of a person of media practice. The code allows journalist to be fair, honest and be courageous when gathering, reporting or interpreting information. An overriding need from the public justifies intrusion to a person’s privacy though at times it is recognized that it can cause discomfort2. Following such requirements, there are a number of issues that are considered in line with collecting information: First, Sam had to test the accuracy of information to publish in his article. Having a cold relationship with Tom, a close friend of Carey and the current Carey’s low profile which denied him access to any more information, Sam had no choice but to disguise as Carey’s doctor. Disguise is against the requirement of an interviewer to identify. Carey’s mother was the most probable source of undistorted information3. In fact his method of collecting information had no sensitivity as he exploited the mother’s inexperience about his intention. It was hard to obtain such past information if Sam presented his real intention with Carey’s information. Second, in the process of collecting information, journalists are required by the Code of Ethics to avoid impartiality4. It was Sam’s responsibility to offer an independent scrutiny to serve the welfare of informing his readers but he did not care for his interviewee. The assertion of journalists’ privileges to be similar like other professionals especially attorneys and physicians in communication with clients or sources for reporters is quite problematic. This was the case with John Fairfax & Sons Limited v. Cojuangco about qualified privilege of the journalist. Defendant finally withdrew from reliance on a defence for qualified privilege5. Though Australia law does not protect journalists’ confidentiality, in this case, the way information was collected from Carey mother was unethical. Conclusion Undoubtedly, in regard to collection of information, Sam has breached the Code of Ethics. The code of ethics requires interviewers for broadcast news to make themselves known to their interviewee. (2) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Introduction Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is one of the the statutory regimes in Australia that provides protection involving intellectual property. The Copyright Act provides copyright owners with exclusive rights to deal with copyright material in ways of reproducing them, placing on website, transmitting them electronically or make them available to public in any other way. Copyright protect the form in which ideas and information is expressed. Anything in material form is protected where Pt III original literary is from the author. Unless an express permit by reporter, one should not reproduce, transmit, distribute or in any way exploit content or related rights. There are terms that one should abide to regarding the use of content. Contents and especially that which features on presentational website are owned by a reporter if not otherwise stated. Copyright is automatic and free upon creating a piece of work or a report. The Act recognizes that the first owner of a copyright is the author. S 32 (2) recognizes the ownership of published works with s 32 (4) recognizing the qualified person based on Australian citizenship6. In this case, Sam has got the information from first-hand source, the mother and thus he is rightly owner of it. The moral rights recognized by copyright legislation were not exercised due to lack of attribution. He would have clearly and reasonably identified Sam as author in a reasonable form and avoid false attribution. He has treated the content as his own experience or as if Sam was reporting about his past affair with Carey. In regard to that, Tom has presented the article as his own work and joint ownership cannot be established. Tom failed to ensure the integrity of Sam by treating the content in derogatory manner, that way the right and reputation of Sam was not protected. He still uses the article for automatic resale right as his intention was to attract readers to his online blog and possibly avert their attention from Sam’s blog. Any use of copyright without arrangements of payment of royalty to the author from subsequent resale or profit of reproductions breaches the copyright legislations. It is against the copyright Act to select materials that arise from other people’s creative efforts and claim the right of use7. Statutory obligations should be followed and highly avoid any incentives that generally infringe any material recognized by copyright legislations. DtMS v Telstra case involve copyright breach where Telstra, though claimed the use of Desktop Marketing systems Pty directory for compilation purposes and use for selective list, the federal court upheld the basis of DtMS efforts and expenses in compiling denying Telstra statutory obligations. The case followed the existence of sufficient knowledge as Telstra had identified the owner of the directory. However, it was not clear for Telstra about the originality involved and legality of authorship. The purpose or usage of the data brought a contention as Telstra claimed that it was not intending to use the list for any publication but just for internal purposes8. Tom may use a defence that Sam had not issued or placed a notice as required by copyright law. Since a notice is useful for publishing the owner and the date of first publication, an omission may have led Tom to use the content. In consideration of remedy, the court will however base its decision on the fact that; where copyright notice is not used, Tom has to prove that his infringement was done by knowledge that Sam does not own the content stated. Much copyright infringement case uses fair dealing provided in s 40 to defend on copyright violation. In most cases, fair dealing is used for news reporters. An exemption in s 41 is given if the content is used for reporting news, for criticism or review purpose, research or study, parody or satire9. Tom might assert that he was using the content for reporting though for bloggers it might not be a sufficient argument as it might not sufficiently satisfy the needs in news. Channel Nine Pty v Network Ten Pty case is an example which involved fair dealing in broadcast media. Network Ten, a commercial broadcaster infringed copyright for Channel Nine by re-broadcasting extracts ‘The Panel’ that belonged to one of Nine programs. It was upheld that Network Ten had infringed on copyright rights10. However, consideration of fair dealing will depend on circumstances, nature of work, nature of use, effect of use on commercial market on that work11. There are possible remedies to follow where Tom might immediately be required to remove the article from his online blog. He might also be required to give Sam any amount of money he made from the content and any other damage that might arise as claim is brought by Carey or any other party dissatisfied by such a content as manipulated by Tom. Conclusion Tom has therefore breached Sam’s rights by using the information through reproducing the article to fit in his case while it is outright he was not the actor mentioned in the conversation between Carey’s mother and Sam. (3) Misleading and deceptive conduct Misleading conduct is an Australia law doctrine where sec. 18 of ACL is applied as Australian Consumer Law. Misleading or a deceptive conduct is well stated in section 18 (1) and (2). Any person must not engage in a misleading conduct or deception and particularly in trade or commerce. Any information that has a greater likelihood of misleading or deceiving is regulated by section 18 (1). A person is required to avoid doubt which may have an effect of creating unnecessary claims following the representation made. It is the responsibility of a person to ensure that they have a reasonable ground when making a representation. The aim of the doctrine is to offer protection to consumer as it prevents businesses from any act that might mislead its customers. All situations are extended in any activity of processes of trade or commerce. The threshold issue is created by a requirement that specifies “in commerce or trade”. Individuals as well as businesses may be liable for breach of s 18 if knowingly they are involved in a breach12. Any person who makes a promise with no intention of keeping it engages in infringing conduct. The steak knives in this case are not the valued good in the exchange but access to information. His blog is not intended for general reporting or informing but is commercially oriented. Though it would be hard to determine the new subscribers who were not attracted by steak knives and who were just interested with the news, any new subscriber can claim a right for steak knives based on the promise. Google Inc v ACCC case was brought after displaying advertiser’s address of sponsored link which falsely stated an association with another company13. Conclusion Sam committed a misleading statement by promising what he cannot offer to fulfil his commercial objectives. Part 2 (1) Which of the following statements best describes the common law? a) Law that regulates relations between individuals within the jurisdiction. (2) Which of the following would be permitted under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT)? Recording a private conversation where the other party consents to the recording. (3) Which of the following would not be capable of registration under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)? a) A sign that is a colour. References Book Butler, D. & Rodrick, S. (2011). Australian media law. Rozelle, N.S.W: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. Journals Cenite, M., et al. (2009). Doing the right thing online: a survey of bloggers' ethical beliefs and practices.New Media & Society, 11(4), 575-597. Deitz, M. (2010). Watch this Space: The Future of Australian Journalism. Cambridge University Press. Houston, G., Starykh, S., Dahl, A., & Anderson, S. (2010). Trends in Australian Securities Class Actions. Whitehouse, G. (2010). Newsgathering and privacy: Expanding ethics codes to reflect change in the digital media age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 310-327. Cases Google Inc v ACCC. High Court of Australia [2013] HCA 1. John Fairfax & Sons Limited v. Cojuangco (1987) 8 NSWLR 145. TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Network Ten Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 235. Telstra Corporation Limited v Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd [2001]. Read More