How do I stand legally if publishing street photos?

jamie_robertson2 · May 6, 2011

Hi,

I have been building up my collection of street photos and I am wondering how I stand legally if I ever wanted to publish them in a book in the future. I'm from the UK so our laws are probably a bit different from the US. Obviously I can't be expected to go around asking random people to sign model release forms every time I trip the shutter.

Any thoughts?

Dieter Schaefer · May 6, 2011

Not familiar with British law - but my advise is independent of that anyway: talk to a lawyer. You might want to know the answer to that question before approaching a publisher - though I expect that they would have some experience in the matter as well.

Spearhead · May 6, 2011

Are you talking about self-publishing or using a publisher? If it's the latter, best to ask a few and find out what they expect from you. If it's the former, best to get some good legal advice from someone who can it to you.

johncrosley · May 6, 2011

It is best to understand that while a solicitor can help point you toward the letter of the law, or the general rules, no one is going to give you any guarantees about publishing, and anyway an attorney's 'guarantee' about the law has no standing in Court. It will be disregarded in almost all circumstances.

Further, assuming you are approaching or intending to use a commercial publisher, keep in mind regardless of what your 'rights' are, and how closely you adhere to the letter of the law, the publisher may want nothing to do with claims that might be made, since defending claims can be extraordinarily expensive, as it requires hiring solicitors, then barristers if the matter proceeds to trial.

Just one substantial claim can help sink a publisher, and the British Courts are a landmark destination for those seeking damages for 'defamation' (usually libel, but think of a photo that holds someone, anyone, possibly even a billionaire with a gaggle of law firms, in a 'false light').

People worldwide seek to invoke British Courts -- the courts do not always exercise jurisdiction -- but the process of even finding out can lead to astonishingly large legal bills.

London is a destination, we read, for 'libel tourists' and others, claiming defamation and it seems logical 'invasion of privacy' claims may not be far behind.

Worse, although a certain photo may pass muster under the laws of Great Britain, the same subject may be forbidden by the ultra strict privacy laws of such countries as France, Germany, etc., - members of the EU -- which places substantial restrictions on publication of photos seen as invading the 'privacy' of individuals.

'Privacy rights' in those countries are vastly different than what we know in the United States.

Newspapers and other publications on much of the Continent have a noticeable aversion (maybe even a prohibition) against publishing publicly identifiable photos of persons based not only on fear of losing a legal claim for invasion of privacy, but just on fear of a claim being made.

Finding a publisher for present-day 'street photos' may be just about impossible, unless you go to an association of like-minded photographers or self-publish -- at least in Great Britain -- even if just on the chance that the resulting publication may be exported to the Continent where it can be seen to violate privacy laws there.

Privacy in Germany, France, etc., does not always (my German lawyer informed me) prevent the 'taking' of photos, but severely restricts the dissemination of photos we know as 'street' -- or so I've been told.

Many Germans are of the opinion that you must have their permission to even take their photo, and a great many are very adamant about it - sometimes rudely and crossly so, even though I am informed that's a trifle wrong about German law - it's the publication, not the taking that is restricted for publicly taken photos, or so I've been told. (member or former PN member Alexander Ziegler once did some substantial research on this issue, but he's not an attorney, and cannot give legal advice).

I've stared down a few polizei with the argument that I'm free to take the public photos even if publication may be prohibited. . . and had them walk away after a complaint from an officious bystander (never a subject). And in Germany, not so much in France, there are plenty of officious bystanders . . . . . which gives you a general idea of how unpopular 'street' photography is viewed there.

Nothing prevents a German or French person who claims their privacy has been invaded from using their own country's courts if the publication is circulated in their country, even mininally. They might not win, but the publisher - maybe even only distributing in the UK, may be forced to go to Berlin (or another German city) to defend a court case, and hire local lawyers if some of their publications were disseminated in Germany or France, say.

Insurance against such claims may foot the bill, initially, but premiums would be expected to soar, if such insurance coverage is available at all.

I am no longer an attorney - it's been over 20 years -- and I never was one in G.B. or Europe. This is NOT legal advice and I am NOT your attorney or legal adviser -- this is general information, and not guaranteed -- just advice on where to look.

I am a street photographer and have a significant interest in the outcome of your investigation and endeavours.

I'd be personally interested, therefor, in the results of your own inquiry (my e-mail is on my bio page, and I'd welcome an e-mail about what you ultimately find or do).

In any case, whether you use a commercial publisher or self-publish, you need legal advice -- get thee to a barrister who knows about publishing law appears to be the soundest advice before you spend much effort in this quest.

Law might be vastly different in the USA, of course, as laws regarding privacy in the US are quite different, but claims can be made worldwide, and UK courts entertain claims from citizens of all countries, even if they sometimes throw out claims of 'libel tourists', sometimes after fortunes have been spent.

'Invasion of privacy' is a close cousin of 'libel' and 'slander', so it might be helpful to look at the law on those issues as well.

'Invasion of privacy' -- at least on much of the Continent -- has a much different meaning and is vastly more restrictive meaning than in the USA. relating to 'street' photography publication.

Be careful; it's a mine field.

john

John (Crosley)

Spearhead · May 6, 2011

Just one substantial claim can help sink a publisher

</blockquote>

What publisher has sunk from one claim?

steve m smith · May 7, 2011

The law in the UK is very similar to the US. there is no expectation of privacy when in a public place. This allows you to take photographs of just about anything from a public space.

This is not the same as publishing though as the taking of photographs is a separate issue from that of using them.

As far as the law is concerned, it is the person/company using the image who needs to get any releases (if necessary).

However, many thousands of images are published every day without (or the need for) a model release. You only really need a release if you are using the image commercially to advertise something. You should also not show the image in a way which is defamatory to the subject.

Other than that, you can do more or less what you like. Print them and hang them in a gallery, sell prints, put them in a book, etc.

Spearhead · May 7, 2011

it is the person/company using the image who needs to get any releases (if necessary).

</blockquote>

Very true, which is why I asked who is publishing the book.

However, many thousands of images are published every day without (or the need for) a model release. You only really need a release if you are using the image commercially to advertise something.

</blockquote>

You need a release if a publisher requires a release. That is independent of usage, and some publishers and stock agencies want a release regardless of usage, just as protection.

steve m smith · May 8, 2011

You need a release if a publisher requires a release.

</blockquote>

Whilst that is true, often it's more a case of the publisher wishing to be covered for all eventualities rather than an absolute need.

jamie_robertson2 · May 8, 2011

Thanks to all of you for your valuable input (especially John Crosley). It sounds like an absolute nightmare! All my street photos carry a big risk as the people are all easily identifiable and a couple of them are shown in less than flattering poses.

I find it incredibly frustrating that UK photographers can legally photograph just about anything in public without question, but as soon as the photographs are made public then all hell breaks loose.

I wonder how the passage of time would effect the use of the shots. For example, if my work from 2011 was published in 30 years time would it still carry the same risk?

Not only that, street photos are happily posted on the web (on here, flickr etc) without complaint (usually). But as soon as ink goes on paper the lawyers start rubbing their hands.

steve m smith · May 8, 2011

I find it incredibly frustrating that UK photographers can legally photograph just about anything in public without question, but as soon as the photographs are made public then all hell breaks loose.

</blockquote>

It really depends on what you mean by 'made public'. You can show them in an exhibition and sell prints without a release.

http://bluenoxid.co.uk/photolaw.html

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

mike_hitchen · May 8, 2011

You only really need a release if you are using the image commercially to advertise something.

</blockquote>

I agree with the general drive of your comment but you now need to be careful the context of both the picture and its use. There was a case in UK last year where someone published a photograph of a drunk girl and was successfully sued for causing embarassment. I think she was photographed passed out on the pavement or something in an article about binge drinking, but I can't find the reference at the moment.

seth_. · May 8, 2011

The laws may be different from here to there, but remember, some people don't like being photographed, even if you have the legal right to do it.

I'm surprised at a lot of photographer's attitudes. Some of them know the laws and that they might be able to do what they want within the law, but some of them have no respect or manners and don't care how people feel as long as they're within their rights and can justify their actions.

a._t._burke · May 8, 2011

Mr. Robertson...

Mr. John Crosley (see <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=888636">John Crosley</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 06, 2011; 10:38 p.m.) obviously spent some time, thought, and effort to give you some good advice answering your question. In the early part of his answer, he said the following:

".......and anyway an attorney's 'guarantee' about the law has no standing in Court. It will be disregarded in almost all circumstances."

In the United States, we use basic English common law, modified over time, and through some cultural differences. Also lawsuits, although they can be brought in federal court, are normally sent through state courts, citing state law. Even those many states that are signatory to the Uniform Commercial Code and other agreements that are meant to standardized the legal, criminal, and civil policies, penalties, etc., there are some differences.

With that being said, I, with no direct knowledge of the particulars of current English privacy, slander, and libel laws, would certainly consult an attorney and be sure to find out the answer to two questions, along with the specifics of my particular concern.

1. I would make sure he is current and well-covered by what we in the United States call "Errors and Omissions" insurance. This is an insurance that professionals, such as lawyers, accountants, etc., purchase so that if they get sued by giving wrong advice in their field, and it can be proven in court that they did so, their insurance will pay to the limit of the insurance policy, judgments that might be rendered against that professional. That means if I go to a lawyer who gives me bad advice, I act on it, and lose a monetary judgment, I can counter-sue the attorney who gave me the advice, and, if all works well, his insurance company will pick up all or part of my loss.

2. In California, USA, although not done much recently, there was the custom of a client receiving an Attorney's Opinion Letter. That is where the attorney states his opinion of how your conduct, writings, etc. would affect you if you perform a certain action. If you are, in fact, sued, having reasonably followed his written advice and/or instructions in that opinion letter, your attorney has the legal duty to defend you, at no cost, and would usually lose a lawsuit you would bring against him for any unpaid damages you suffered. Your ability to collect damages that occurred while acting under that letter depend upon several things, including his ability to pay, which is where the "Errors and Omissions" insurance (or its English equivalent) would come into play. If you're talking about the possibility of a large dollar risk, you may want to have a second attorney read the errors and omissions policy to see what the terms are.

Have your attorney put his "advise" in writing addressed to you.

I sued an attorney and won, hands down. He had a substantially high-limit errors and omissions policy. What I did not know is that the terms of the policy subtracted from its payout to me, monies expended by the attorney defending himself against my suit. Knowing he was going to lose, he spent like a drunken sailor, so I collected a relatively small net proceeds out of a very large insurance policy.

I know this has been a little lengthy, but having been a victim of the system, I wanted to share the experience, so you don't find yourself in a similar situation. I would also say that it's difficult to find an attorney to sue another attorney, and judges, usually ex-attorneys themselves, are reluctant to find for a client. In my case, the attorney, probably for monetary reasons (bribe) had acted against me and had left a very solid paper trail of his nefarious actions. It was a no-brainer, slam-dunk type case against him, but it still drug on and I was very fortunate to find a competent attorney willing to sue another attorney. In other words, it was difficult in the very best of circumstances.

Before you decide to publish your works, you might want to make a decision on what risks you want to take, even having done the best to cover yourself beforehand, and what type of personal assets you have to lose in a lawsuit against you. If you are a person with substantial assets or earning power, you may also be sued in a case where the plaintiff is not expecting to win a lawsuit, but is expecting you to make a settlement payoff to protect your remaining assets from the risk of a loss by suit.

Life's a bitch and then you die.

A. T. Burke

P.S. May I now apologize for my term (drunken sailor) to all the young Navy Enlisted men who might possibly be temporarily sober.

P.P.S. The P.S. above is obviously said in jest and good humor. Despite what our personal feelings and political philosophies may be about the conflicts out two countries are engaged in, many fine young men and women are making sacrifices they feel are on our behalf and with the best of intentions. They have my most sincere respect and deserve a tip o' me Irish hat.

jamie_robertson2 · May 9, 2011

Steve Smith,

Thanks for those 2 links. They are enormously useful. It was also very interesting that you say I could exhibition my work without model releases. Sounds good.

Mike Hitchen,

Thanks, yes I realise the risk varies from photo to photo. I have a feeling the case you referred to may have been against Google for one of their street view images.

Seth,

Very true. The same could be said of a war photographer photographing someone's grief.

A. T. Burke

Thanks for your detailed response. It is an absolute minefield and some of your advice had never crossed my mind. I certainly puts me off publishing any photo showing a member of the public. The lengths I would have to go to outweigh my determination to publish.

steve m smith · May 9, 2011

I'm surprised at a lot of photographer's attitudes. Some of them know the laws and that they might be able to do what they want within the law, but some of them have no respect or manners and don't care how people feel as long as they're within their rights and can justify their actions.

</blockquote>

Yes. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. however, the OP's question was about the legality of publishing rather than the ethics of it. Ethics will vary from person to person whereas the law is the same for everyone.

Before you decide to publish your works, you might want to make a decision on what risks you want to take, even having done the best to cover yourself beforehand, and what type of personal assets you have to lose in a lawsuit against you.

</blockquote>

Just look at every picture and consider what possible valid reason the subject could have for making a claim against you. Anyone making a claim will have to prove some sort of defamation or loss. In almost every case it will be none whatsoever but a bit of due dilligence before publication can be a good thing.

certainly puts me off publishing any photo showing a member of the public. The lengths I would have to go to outweigh my determination to publish.

</blockquote>

I think that's a pity because practically all pictures of members of the public, taken in public, can be shown and/or published without any problems at all.

johncrosley · May 9, 2011

I looked at the previous post and considered the question, apparently supposed to be dispositive (of utmost and possibly defining importance).

"Just look at every picture and consider what possible valid reason the subject could have for making a claim against you. Anyone making a claim will have to prove some defamation or loss. In almost every case it will be none whatsoever but a bit of due diligence before publication can be a good thing.'

In truth and fact, the vast majority of claims, according to those I know who have defended publications, are never provable, but are made for the effect of either preventing publication or harassing the publisher (or other equally meritless reasons).

You need PROVE NOTHING to make a claim - you only need to make an assertion, and the assertion may even be quite legally defective on its face, but it will require, once served on the defendant, or possibly once the claim is sent to the publisher, the publisher must notify any insurer who has issued a policy protecting against defamation/invasion of privacy claims.

If there is insurance against such damages, there almost certainly is a requirement under almost any conceivable such policy of insurance that the insurer take over the defense of the claim, hire adjusters to examine the claim, and hire attorneys (at their expense and under their control) to evaluate and possibly pay the claim.

Unless the policy has a clause in it (rarely found) which requires insured's approval of settlement, most likely it will be disposed of regardless of the requirements of the publisher and almost certainly despite the wishes of the author/photographer (if payment is made) -- who will take a back seat in all this and have literally NO control.

Before the question is raised, I am an insurance expert, and have been for several decades (internationally too). I personally have read and interpreted thousands of insurance policies and have (in the distant past) handled hundreds or thousands of such cases before courts and other tribunals.

Now from time to time, I butt heads with insurance companies or advise attorneys currently in practice how to do that (however, I haven't practiced for over two decades). My advice is considered worthwhile by those who seek it. However, I am not giving anyone here professional advice and am not your adviser for anything. Seek an attorney for that; do not rely on what I write.

A claim is a claim and needn't be provable or justifiable. At one time every attorney in California statistically, including the public service attorneys such as district attorneys and public defenders who were mostly immune from being liable for such suits, had a lawsuit against them.

It was part and parcel of the practice of law.

People forgot there are two attorneys on each side of each dispute (at least) and many mistook that the attorney's expressed hope that the case was 'good' for a 'guarantee' of a positive outcome which no attorney in his right mine would issue.

In fact, an attorney who issues a guarantee for his advice soon will be out of business, and rightly so.

It is not even justifiable claims or claims that you can foresee, that can be troublesome, and cause a publisher great trouble.

I knew one man who was dislexic, and because he had such trouble in school, when he made it big in business, he hired attorneys and sued everyone for just about anything that troubled him, justified or not, just to throw around his muscle.

There are certain political organizations that will drop a lawsuit or claim of one at the drop of a hat to terrorize those who might call attention to their own hypocrisy, or failure to meet their own standards -- e.g., to mock them in a protected way.

If you're sued, even wrongly, you gottta protect yourself, and that means hiring attorneys, and that's their strategy -- they make claims to cost you attorney fees defending their false, wrongful or meritless claims.

California has had to enact special laws to protect its citizens against claims from such individuals, but at last hearing the vast majority of US jurisdictions had not, and so far as I understand, the UK has no such legislation or laws.

In Ukraine, where I am now, the UK libel courts were just used in an attempt to settle a libel dispute that appeared solely Ukrainian, between Ukrainian companies/individuals, and after years and probably millions of dollars in legal fees, the UK courts eventually (on appeal) threw the claim out - it was a 'libel tourist' claim, as I wrote about at the outset here. But it cost everyone a small (or larger) fortune for the trip to the UK courts.

At the same time, a domestic Ukraine dispute over a a huge natural gas contract has been taken by a leader of the former government into the US Federal Court system in an attempt to get an international arbitration thrown out, claiming it was the result of collusion between the defendant and the followup government.

I express no opinion on the merits of the claim - the former government leader (a woman and a beautiful one at that), had been under house arrest pending a criminal investigation, and her sally into US courts seems one part of her defense in the criminal matter. It's not a libel/slander/defamation matter, but it shown here to illustrate how courts are not always used for purposes one might imagine, and a case that appears solely Ukrainian has suddenly blossomed into a US court case. There must be a real US judgment either upholding the matter or throwing it out -- there can be no other outcome.

It may cost the litigants millions of dollars and have nothing to do with the underlying grain contract that was in dispute.

Those who think matters end up in court for only the reasons that appear just and right are regrettably not in tune with the times or the uses for which attorneys are paid huge sums for devising complex strategies.

A photographer with a publication could be inadvertently caught in such a complex web.

Where elephants play the grass is sure to be trampled.

I don't take photos of politicians or celebrities, but those who do report they have had fictitious claims made against them - when outside the USA for politicians and even in the USA on behalf of certain celebrities, particularly in the 'Rat Pack' days but also including not long ago one very famous LA private eye, who recently was prosecuted for a variety of misdeeds involving the VERY RICH AND FAMOUS trying to suppress 'bad publicity.' Source, LA Times.

An attorney charges as much to defend a claim that was made up for political, strategic, or other reasons (such as trying to protect a reputation) as against a justified claim.

You might not have known that photo of the interesting fellow walking down the street kissing his girl was a billionaire walking in front of his mistress's apartment kissing her, and his wife has seen it and gone crazy with jealousy, threatening his worldwide empire, and that may trigger some reaction against you and the publisher.

There is little at the outset that can protect you against unreasonable claims.

I was photographing tonight some older men watching fireworks.

A hand appeared in front of my lens.

The man holding up the blocking hand was just one more vigilante, unrelated to the men being photographed and telling me 'no photos', all for no more particular reason than that he was personally offended, possibly for no more reason than that he had a little too much to drink or imagined himself some sort of official (which he was not).

You can't protect against all claims; the vast majority of claims never ripen into collectible claims.

Eventually almost all are thrown out of court, and few ever even reach a jury.

But in the meantime often tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars are expended in attorney fees to get that claim thrown out, however unjustified it was.

Attorneys don't do work for free. and if an insurer pays the bill, either the premiums will skyrocket on renewal, or the policy will be dropped -- a publisher will worry about being uninsurable.

Publishers know this and act conservatively because of that.

Publishers have little problems with books of landscape photos, books of troubles in Darfur, books of war photos from Somalia, or other war torn place, portraits where there are releases, or celebrity photos taken in public places (celebrities have fewer rights), but take a few 'street photos' in Paris or even the UK, and try to have them published by a major publisher in the UK and see what the publishers' reaction is going to be. I bet I can guess the reaction.

I was at Photo Paris Exposition two or three years ago.

I saw thousands of wonderful photos - but the only 'street' photos were from long decades ago, and there were only less than a half dozen of them, taken by Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Not one current 'street photo' was exhibited or for sale.

In Paris for that exhibition, at least, 'street' might as well not have existed. I suggest the same would hold true for the Arles exhibition, but I have yet to go.

It's all very sad for me to write this, too, as a 'street' photographer.

john

John (Crosley)

Spearhead · May 9, 2011

What about the publisher who was sunk by one claim?

Spearhead · May 9, 2011

I'm surprised at a lot of photographer's attitudes. Some of them know the laws and that they might be able to do what they want within the law, but some of them have no respect or manners and don't care how people feel as long as they're within their rights and can justify their actions.

</blockquote>

The question is about the legality of publishing. Attitudes have nothing to do with it.

rfader · May 9, 2011

No one has mentioned taking street photos of minors here. Would showing "them in an exhibition and sell(ing) prints without a release" apply as well?

seth_. · May 9, 2011

Jeff: QED

simon_crofts · May 9, 2011

I find it incredibly frustrating that UK photographers can legally photograph just about anything in public without question, but as soon as the photographs are made public then all hell breaks loos

</blockquote>

You should be able to print them without a problem. It's possible to think up one or two extreme scenarios where there could be an issue, but if they are fairly normal street photos and aren're for examples breaching privacy (peaking into private houses) or misrepresenting what people are doing in the pictures (making it look like someone was coming out of a brothel when they weren't) then just go ahead and publish them.

If you were going to use them in an advert or a commercial context eg. to endorse a product, it would be a different matter.

johncrosley · May 9, 2011

Jeff Spirer,

You have mischaracterized my remark.

You have changed 'just one claim can help sink a publisher' to a claim that one claim actually has sunk a publisher. (even though I have little doubt that it has).

Frankly, from my extensive reading over five decades, particularly my extensive reading of the law of libel and slander and history of libel/slander in English law courts, I am absolutely certain that one or more than one publishing house has been brought to its knees by a libel/slander claim in the UK where libel/slander awards are noted for their generosity, and for a court system that is unwilling to bring them to a stop before they reach a jury, provided all sides are paying the huge legal bills it take to bring such a matter to fruition -- e.g., a verdict.

Nevertheless, I did not make that claim, however true it might be. I said that such a claim 'can HELP sink a publisher' and indeed it can. I'm not going to go do legal research (and a Google search would be inadequate) on the subject, but I cannot believe that more than one publisher has not been absolutely sunk by either defending a libel/slander claim or invasion of privacy claim in the UK.

In any case, a tactic is to bring such claims and prosecute them to punish rival publishers, and publishing in the UK is a cutthroat business.

I do note that the Carroll Burnett libel award and what it revealed about the willing falseness of 'The National Enquirer's' reporting. did result in a huge libel award, though for the National Enquirer, the nation's biggest (weekly) newspaper, it was not completely crippling.

However, one result was that over a rather short time period, the National Enquirer revamped its fact checking methods, and has now seldom been caught off base with facts (though it has been caught stealing hospital records, bribing clerks including hospital clerks and doctors, etc.).

So, although I did not state it was so, and I do not have a specific case in mind at the time I wrote, I have little doubt that the claim YOU made actually is true too.

I have no intention for this to become a law review article (I did work for law review in law school) I already was a hugely successful writer with millions of words in print and NOT ONE RETRACTION for overstepping or printing wrong facts, ever before I went to law school (or since).

I also am qualified to teach in law school the law of libel and slander as well as invasion of privacy, but would want time to freshen up if i were to do so. I also am qualified to teach other law courses as a professor, it I were hired and chose that as a 'retirement' career.

But when you transoform my statement that one claim can 'help sink a publisher' to the claim that it is a fact that such a claim actually has sunk a publisher, that is standing what I actually wrote on its head.

If I had intended to write that such a claim had actually sunk a publisher, I would have written it AND backed it up with examples.

Publishers, according to friends and former colleagues, firms that I was friendly with that did libel/slander defense, etc., all have told me the costs of defense were/are so enormous it was a given from my law school intern days to present that just one very large claim's defense costs -- unless covered by insurance -- could be so large they could sink a less than very well-heeled publisher.

I gained my insight from the law firm or firms that covered major Bay Area newspapers, when I interviewed with them, and don't recall if those newspapers were covered by insurance. I was told that by the staff members of New York Times, the New York Daily News and Time/Life Publishing, all of whom I sold to, although they all said they were too large themselves for a libel award to sink them. They were deathly afraid of libel awards, and justifiably so. Their stock in trade was the truth, and a justified libel award meant they had been found disregarding it. Nonetheless, it only took an ill-founded claim to start the lawyer bills.

I also worked for a wire service-- Associated Press -- as a newsman, editor, photographer, and world service editor/manager eventually based in New York City and taking part in each day's worldwide news planning (its 'budget' with the general manager and major department heads, just as you saw in 'All the President's Men at the Washington Post), and it was a part of our training (and thus a given) that if we printed or reprinted a libel, the legal costs could and might be so large they could sink a member newspaper.

The Associated Press in the United States is and was a cooperative of newspapers and it is/was owned by US members -- foreign publications at that time were subscribers who were not owners of the cooperative and just paid for their news (that may have changed now, as I have not updated ages old information).

I was also well informed; I was asked by AP General Manager Wes Gallagher if he could back me to be his replacement as Associated Press General Manager (candidate).

I was only 25 at the time and the attention was unprecedented), and if so, he would mentor me, get me the proper assignents, including those abroad, language training, and ensure I was well placed to assume the helm of AP at some future time.

And if I didn't actually 'follow' him directly, I would be groomed to follow his replacement. I HAD to know the economics of libel and slander (we broadcast too, hence slander).

In order to attain such a high position, I had to be in on the economics and realities of both wire service and newspaper publishing, including publishing things that were libelous and slanderous, and their ultimate cost.

This entire subject, therefore, is part of my lifetime experience and study.

I decided against Mr. Gallagher's offer, went on to quadruple my salary with another publication group, as an editor/writer/photographer and was told the same thing about a libel/slander claim's expense.

I was told there directly that a major libel claim could sink the firm, though it was well financed. (I cannot for reasons of confidentiality reveal the name of that firm.)

Even if they had 'insurance' to cover libel/slander and/or invasion of privacy, they were sure their premiums would become unaffordable if a major, well-founded claim were made,, and since it was a privately held venture, it would have unduly exposed huge family wealth to claims if they published their various publications, without libel/slander/invasion of privacy insurance, and that was a risk they might easily have re-evaluated -- the family was rich enough it did not need to publish, was my understanding, and they published partly out of tradition.

Also, depending on insurance is a fool's errand. Premiums can raise on renewal, it can be cancelled on renewal, and some insurances have huge deductibles or deductibles can be raised absurdly on renewal if a good and large claim is made.

I am sorry, that you have misrepresented what I wrote.

I am happy to explain my bona fides on this matter and feel I have had to now that you made a point of it twice.

I have a 40-year history of involvement with journalism and journalism ethics as a vocation and avocation -- my interest in journalism did not end with my leaving working journalism.

The same with law. My interest and qualifications in law did not end in the late 1980s when I stopped practicing law -- I still advise attorneys on litigation from time to time.

I am qualified to be a law professor to teach the subjects on which I write as well as other legal courses/subjects.

I hope that answers your question. I am not sure the challenge was necessary, but I am happy to answer.

john

John (Crosley)

johncrosley · May 9, 2011