1. What is defamation?

2. What is the difference between slander and libel?

3. What are common defenses to defamation?

4. In accordance with the podcast, in case the person cannot be identified

in the images of the show, is he/she likely to win a defamation suit?

5. What is deemed as invasion of privacy?

6. A case of misappropriation of image is mentioned. Explain it.

 WRITING

Draft a legal opinion in order to tell your client how to

proceed in one of the following situations:

- your client´s companies was libeled by Diogo

Mainardi in his weekly column in Veja magazine;

- your client was slandered by an attorney during a

hearing;

- your client was recorded in an unpleasant situation

and it was spread into the Internet.

IMPORTANT: Don´t forget that it is a legal opinion and

therefore, formal style is required.
 Teacher´s Copy – Episode 16

Developer´s suggestion: this podcast can be done if you are teaching VL Trial Proceedings (there´s a card in which
slander and libel is mentioned) and MLLaw Unit 15 (last exercise of the unit).

Card 1 – ask your std to take a look at the following questions and try to predict the answers. After that, check by listening
to the podcast.

1. What´s defamation? It is disclosing a false fact that has a tendency to injure somebody´s reputation.

2. What´s the difference between slander and libel? Slander is a form of defamation, generally spoken. Libel is
generally written.

3. What are common defenses to defamation? The defense of truth and consent.

4. In accordance with the podcast, in case the person cannot be identified in the images of the show, is he/she
likely to win a defamation suit? No, if his/her face is blurred out it is unlikely to win a defamation suit.

5. What is deemed as invasion of privacy? Intentionally and highly offensive intrusion to a reasonable person.

6. A case of misappropriation of image is mentioned. Explain it. A case of a face which was used in a television
show is able to sue.

Hello, and welcome to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful Life.
But first, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute
for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Further, I do not intend to
create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.
Today’s topic is television libel and slander. Steve from Massachusetts wrote:
Some friends and I last night saw an episode of Cops where they purport to show real life video of people being chased
and arrested. Is this legal? If you're arrested, do the cops have the automatic right to video while you're being questioned
and show that video on TV? Couldn't that be considered libel or slander, especially since the people on [Cops] haven't
even been accused of a crime, yet?
Thanks Steve. The short answer is that a person depicted on a television show being arrested does not likely have a good
defamation case against the television station. The person might have a case for invasion of privacy, but not likely. The
quick and dirty tip is simply to assume that all encounters with the police are being recorded.
To successfully win a claim for the tort of defamation, you must prove the unprivileged publication of a fact that is false
and has the tendency to injure your reputation. Defamation can be in the form of slander, which is generally spoken, or
libel, which is generally written. Statements that accuse a person of a crime are always deemed to be slanderous.
However, there are two main defenses to a claim of defamation. The first is the absolute defense of truth. If the statement
made is true, then the suit for defamation will fail. The second is consent. If you consent to a statement being published
about you, and the statement is published within the scope of that consent, then you cannot later maintain a suit for
defamation.
Both defenses would apply to the broadcasters of the show Cops. Where a television show depicts a person being
arrested, and that person was in fact arrested, then the depiction is true. Further, I understand that Cops places a
disclaimer at the beginning of the show stating that the people depicted in the show are innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law. This statement more specifically clarifies for the viewer that the person depicted did not necessarily commit
the crime, but had merely been arrested for it.
As to consent, I understand that Cops often obtains release forms from the people being depicted. This release form
constitutes consent, and so the person depicted has no legal recourse for defamation so long as the television station acts
within the scope of the release.
Also, anyone depicted on the show whose face is blurred out is unlikely to win a defamation suit. This is because the tort
of defamation also requires that a person watching the show can identify the subject.
Another related defense to defamation is newsworthiness. For example, if a suspect is driving erratically because he is
drunk, and the video of the chase is later played as a news story about the dangers of driving under the influence, then the
television station can invoke a defense of newsworthiness.
Steve specifically asked whether the police have the automatic right to record a video while you are being questioned and
show that video on TV. This question falls under other torts that involve invasion of privacy. You can sue for invasion of
privacy if the police intentionally intrude into your privacy and that intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person. Whether or not your privacy has been invaded depends on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
When you are confronted by the police in a public place, it is not generally considered reasonable to expect your
encounter to be private. This is because police are supposed to record their encounter with you for the purposes of law
enforcement. So, when you are pulled over by police, you should expect that the officers are recording the encounter. By
contrast, if the police secretly recorded you in your home, and then broadcast the tape, you would more likely prevail.
Last, a person whose face is used in a television show for commercial gain might be able to sue for misappropriation of
his image.
Thank you for listening to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful Life.
Hello, and welcome to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful Life.
But first, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute
for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Further, I do not intend to
create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.
Today’s topic is television libel and slander. Steve from Massachusetts wrote:
Some friends and I last night saw an episode of Cops where they purport to show real life video of people being chased
and arrested. Is this legal? If you're arrested, do the cops have the automatic right to video while you're being questioned
and show that video on TV? Couldn't that be considered libel or slander, especially since the people on [Cops] haven't
even been accused of a crime, yet?
Thanks Steve. The short answer is that a person depicted on a television show being arrested does not likely have a good
defamation case against the television station. The person might have a case for invasion of privacy, but not likely. The
quick and dirty tip is simply to assume that all encounters with the police are being recorded.
To successfully win a claim for the tort of defamation, you must prove the unprivileged publication of a fact that is false
and has the tendency to injure your reputation. Defamation can be in the form of slander, which is generally spoken, or
libel, which is generally written. Statements that accuse a person of a crime are always deemed to be slanderous.
However, there are two main defenses to a claim of defamation. The first is the absolute defense of truth. If the statement
made is true, then the suit for defamation will fail. The second is consent. If you consent to a statement being published
about you, and the statement is published within the scope of that consent, then you cannot later maintain a suit for
defamation.
Both defenses would apply to the broadcasters of the show Cops. Where a television show depicts a person being
arrested, and that person was in fact arrested, then the depiction is true. Further, I understand that Cops places a
disclaimer at the beginning of the show stating that the people depicted in the show are innocent until proven guilty in a
court of law. This statement more specifically clarifies for the viewer that the person depicted did not necessarily commit
the crime, but had merely been arrested for it.
As to consent, I understand that Cops often obtains release forms from the people being depicted. This release form
constitutes consent, and so the person depicted has no legal recourse for defamation so long as the television station acts
within the scope of the release.
Also, anyone depicted on the show whose face is blurred out is unlikely to win a defamation suit. This is because the tort
of defamation also requires that a person watching the show can identify the subject.
Another related defense to defamation is newsworthiness. For example, if a suspect is driving erratically because he is
drunk, and the video of the chase is later played as a news story about the dangers of driving under the influence, then the
television station can invoke a defense of newsworthiness.
Steve specifically asked whether the police have the automatic right to record a video while you are being questioned and
show that video on TV. This question falls under other torts that involve invasion of privacy. You can sue for invasion of
privacy if the police intentionally intrude into your privacy and that intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person. Whether or not your privacy has been invaded depends on whether you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
When you are confronted by the police in a public place, it is not generally considered reasonable to expect your
encounter to be private. This is because police are supposed to record their encounter with you for the purposes of law
enforcement. So, when you are pulled over by police, you should expect that the officers are recording the encounter. By
contrast, if the police secretly recorded you in your home, and then broadcast the tape, you would more likely prevail.
Last, a person whose face is used in a television show for commercial gain might be able to sue for misappropriation of
his image.
Thank you for listening to Legal Lad’s Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful Life.