Overview of UKrealTV’s Celebs Stay-Inn Reality TV Show

Media and entertainment laws have provided remedies to many situations surrounding contractual terms, employment, intellectual property law. The questions raised at different levels by the English law regarding such laws can be found within past casefiles and case laws. It is with such considerations that this report regarding the case studies mentioned surrounding UKRealTv is written.

Keera is a public figure. By the virtue that she holds a gold medal and promotes clean living. She has been accused falsely by the UK national tabloid newspaper, having published things about her that weren’t truth. These publications by the UK national tabloid company has made the reputation of Keera completely tarnished and her ability for product endorsement have been tarnished.

Defamation law

Entertainment and media law

In England defamation is a crime. According to criminal code chapter 24 section 9. A minor case of defamation is chargeable by imprisonment of up to six months. When the defamation crime is much aggravated there is a maximum of two years’ life in imprisonment or a fine that is dependent on what the court shall have decided. For such case of the Keera since it involves a celebrity the action is aggravated and therefore company personnel of the UK Tabloid company involved in such defamation may be sentenced with the second legal implication as recommended in chapter 24.

Keera’s career and future endorsements is at jeopardy. The main issue is due to a falsehood report by the UK tabloid newspaper. It is for this reason that Keera should seek for justice by suing Tabloid Newspaper for defamation (Cole 2015).

Defamation law seek to protect a person from public harm and injury of any media house that targets their reputation or good name.  The statement made for defamations should be orally or in writing. In the case of Keera, she should sue for libel defamation (Naser 2017).

However much the media needs to inform the public and they are given freedom of speech and expression, they should go ahead to verify information and confirm their truth before destroying anyone’s reputation (Armour et al. 2017).

She is a public figure. According to UK laws, defamation act when a public figure is the victim, the bar is set much higher. Considering the judgement in the court case of New York Times vs Sullivan which is always reviewed each time such cases come, the favor is on the public figure if he can prove that the statement was published with malice intentions. The judgement in the New York vs Sullivan case has always been a standard mark for such cases. In the latter the judge introduced the rule of common law malice (Williamson 2017). C

Selection Process, Contracts, and Revenue Streams

The breaking of libel law in England has the same consequences that defamation ACT has. The libel law breakage according to chapter 23 subsection three attract a penalty of the same magnitude. The UK tabloid magazine should be ready to release a few of their employees to prison.

The court held that a public figure claiming defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. Justice Black explained malice as an elusive concept that is hard to disapprove. The malice action in libel law according to the Justice law is difficult to proof therefore the proof emanates from falsehood. Any signs of falsehood are proof of malice in libel law (Hay 2018).

In relation to the case at hand. Keera is not taking white drugged as alleged in the statement by UK tabloid magazine. Keera seen taking drugs and drinking Vodka for breakfast, the actual statement readings. The mere fact that the newspaper falsely alleged that the tablets were drugs that ere falsely obtained without proving it is malice. With the intentions of malice on Keera, the UK tabloid magazine might pay for reputational damages caused on Keera (LoPucki, Lynn 2018).

Additionally, the supreme court on the case of Hoeppner v Dunkirk Printing company. The justice Brennan acknowledged that the victim has to under-go visible and measurable injury. By visible and measurable injury, the judge meant that the statement caused by the alleged defamer has to cause harm to the plaintiff’s reputation in a way that can be proven in court.  In our case Keera’s reputation has suffered in a number of ways. Keera has left the Stay-inn after receiving the fewest number of public votes. The allegations have been subsequently being repeated across many media outlets.  These has led to her losing corporate sponsors and deals. Her ability to endorse future products has also been damaged. Following this reasons, it is enough proof that Keera has suffered enough reputational injury and justified to make the Tabloid Newspaper take responsibility for their actions (McCambridge, Hawkins and Holden 2014).

According to the common law statute in England the fines and legal implications are not defined and rigid. Discharged ordered for offences under this ACT are normally determined by the court. Fines are therefore the most common type that are preferred by UK court. With reference to the sentencing of the case head by Justice Black the UK court might fine the Tabloid magazine more than 50000 euros.

The Issue of Defamation and Impact on Celebrity’s Reputation

The Tabloid magazine might opt to find a way out of the defamation allegations through the absolute privilege journalist ACT. The same act that was used by New York times in the New York Times vs Sullivan case. However, this might not work based on the issue raised by the judge in the latter case, He mentioned that act of privileges is only awarded if the statement is mentioned or libel under oath. The second situation of ACT under privilege is statements made in judicial proceedings. Taking note that the UK tabloid magazine did not make the statement under oath, they are therefore not merited by law to use the ACT of privilege against the defamations claims (Abeza et al. 2015).

The legal implications therefore in this case is that based on the stated facts: Keera, Stay-inn, UK real TV should sue for defamation against the program and Keera who has suffered various reputational impacts (Christians et al. 2015).

Copy right laws

The Merchandise has been selling well until recently when it when another blog has taken in charge of the merchandise and selling it at lower expenses. The auction site is well known and there is proof that it sells the companies merchandise. The auction site uses the same logo and are being produced with everything same to the original production.

Legal implications of the case

Copyright infringement is a crime. When any of the copyright and trademarks law are infringed penalties are legally acquired. Upon conviction of one who has defied the copyright laws like in this case the auction site has; substantial penalties according to UK copyright laws section 14 requires that, the convict takes a term of up to 6 months or a fine of up to 50 000 euros. Upon conviction, the crown court that deals with copyright laws of company recommends a fine of up to 10 years in prison and paying the other company the losses cost. Such legal implication might fall the auction site once they are proven guilty in court.

Copy right laws according to UK laws is a legal right. It grants the original creator the exclusive rights to determine if under certain condition there can be a second user or distributor. According to copyright ACT of 1988 anyone who thinks his original idea has been infringed is right to seek legal action and justice. The copy right owner is free to seek legal action against the infringer (Lombard et al.  2015).

Defamation Law and Legal Implications for UK Tabloid Company

The UKrealtv is therefore within its legal duties to sue for copyright infringement. However, there are important factors to consider before the case is registered in full court procedures. In review of the case of Bach vs Longman the supreme court of the time then determined various facts that have to be considered to label an act, an infringement of the law under the copyright law of 1988 UK laws (Uldam 2016).

There has to be proof that the work is copied and not just simply a case on incidental inclusion. The design should be similar in design, structure and content to a degree that the court can determine that it is copied from the original. In our case, the auction site uses the same logo, name and all productions same as the one of UKrealTv at a lower price to attract customers. This is enough proof surpassing mere incidental inclusion (Van Dijck and Poell 2015).

Secondly, the judge in the Bach vs Longman determined that the case will only make sense if the work is protected by the copyright laws of the country. The UKrealTv show is protected by the films copyright act of 2018 and therefore cannot be copied by any other site. It is for this reason that the company can seek compensation from the auction site.

With reference to the Temple Island limited vs New English Teas limited, the judge Briss QC, held that there was infringement of copyrights act and therefore introduced methods of compensation for the infringed. He held that all elements were sources of copyright infringement including images, logos and even pictures. He therefore placed all these elements to compensation. In his judgement regarding compensation, he implemented that, the infringement has to stop immediately. With these considerations the auction site will stop selling the merchandise once UKrealTV visit the courts (McDonnell, King and Soule 2015).

Secondly, the accused has to remove all the advertisements regarding the merchandise and recall all the productions they made regarding the UKRealTv merchandise. Such withdrawals include, all the sold copies and any encroaching materials. Encroaching material include, the logos, exact colors and size of the original.

In addition, the judge recommended that if the accused accepts liability and doesn’t want to proceed to court trials, they can apologize and pay for the economic damages undergone by the infringed content company. If the company is willing to pay all the financial remuneration such as damages and royalties, it is advisable to contact them and explain to them the damages they have caused so that they pay. However, all these procedures should be done under the advocate of the two involved parties. UKRealTV if they have contact of the auction site might contact them under such premises. If they come to a point of agreement and satisfaction struck, then there would be no need for a legal action. Except if they deny the UKRealTV is free to seek justice by taking legal action.

Malice, Falsehood and Proof in Libel Law

Important to note is that the auction site is dealing through online content. When dealing through online content it is also important to involve the service provider hosting the auction site. They should be let known of the infringement. It is very likely that the networking sites normally liaises with the infringing party. If the provider is not aware of the deal, they are likely to pull down the auction site. It is therefore legally confined that the UKRealTV seek the internet provider of the auction site and inform them through a well-documented letter of the actions of the auction site as a way of cutting off the auction site from proceedings with any more sales (McDonnell, King and Soule 2015).

Trademark laws have also been infringed in this case study. Under the UK Trademark Laws Amendment act of 1946, it is illegal to use another companies, organization and persons trademark without their knowledge. The intent to use principle introduced in the ACT established procedures and expanded the rights of trademark holders. It barred anyone from using trademarks that are already in use in order to reduce confusion. This ACT therefore serves as a perfect model for the UKRealTv case. The auction site has infringed trademark laws and therefore is liable to legal action. By copying all the pictures, images and selling merchandise at lower prices, they are infringing trademark law (Hall?Lipsy and Malanga, 2017).

Lastly, in the case the legal advice concerning the best courts to visit in such a case, is the property enterprise court or the patent court. The property enterprise court deals with intellectual, film properties like the one of UKRealTV which have been disputed due to trademark or copyright law (Crosbie and Glantz 2014).

The was a corporate advertisement deal struck between the sponsor and the UKRealTv. One of the competitors has flouted the commercial endorsement leading to withdrawal of the sponsor before the deal is cleared. The sponsor therefore refuses to pay (Rolph 2016).

Corporate law is a law defined under common law. Therefore, being a common law in the UK, the presiding judge in the case gives penalties and legal implications depending on the complains of the two groups. This is action to section 14 of the UK common law. The judge is therefore able to determine the economic losses suffered by the contract and make a penal decision.

The advertising sponsoring company has seemingly terminated an earlier agreed contract while refusing to pay. Under English laws termination of contract by the sponsoring company is viable. The company has done this through rescission process. They feel the UKRealTv is not giving their bargain share of the agreement by allowing Kim, the actress to wear another designer’s cloth but not theirs. They therefore seek a contract with another TV show (Miletzki, Janna and Nick 2016).

Impact of Defamation on Celebrities and Product Endorsement Contracts

The new contract with the new TV station by action of the English law rescission renders the contract with UKRealTv show a nullity. The Rescission law states that, the contractual rights and obligations remain in place until an innocent third party opts to rescind the contract, in which point the rescission operates to render the contract null and void. The presence of a third party is facilitated by the new sponsorship in the contract limiting the action by UKRealTv. They have justified their move under the renunciation law (Vaver 2018).

However, the remedy for UKRealTv can emanate from common law. The common law under this fact states that, where the breach is repudiatory, the damages suffered up to the day of can be regained, unless the contract expressly provided otherwise.   UKRealTv can prove innocence on the case by Kim through claiming a repudiator breach. Repudiatory breach is one that seeks to terminate contract but regains losses and damages caused. If UKRealTV prove innocence, they will be awarded the five weeks pay for advertising by the sponsoring company. The pay has to be the loss covered up to the day the termination was executed. However, UKRealTv has to prove that they have nothing to do with the actions of Kim. The common law under this fact states that, where the breach is repudiatory, the damages suffered up to the day of termination can be regained, unless the contract expressly provided otherwise.  

There has been a quarrel between the two contestants regarding a few issues they don’t agree on. They quarrel leading to huge public viewing and one of them is offended. The heated argument ends up in a fight and one contestant is willing to withdraw from the competition regarding his comments on twitter. The UKRealTv however has contracts with him on the issues of photo shoots and clothing sponsors even though Faisal isn’t willing.

Contract law

Legal implications

Termination of a contract by an employee is a criminal act according to the UK laws. UK labor laws requires that employees treat employers well even when terminating their contract, an employee who goes against this act according to employment rights act 1966 regardless of the length of serving will pay the employee as the court of law determines. However, the law does not cater for employees who terminate contract without the employer knowledge. However, the court provides for a 90 day free will for employees who are then dismissed without providing for discriminatory ACT.

Future Recommendations for UKrealTV

There is an arrangement between the two parties. The UKRealTV and Faisal have a contract term that last a duration. With this consideration the UKRealTv can sue Faisal to make him bound to come back and proceed with the initial plans. This assumption can be referenced from the contractual case of Kesha vs Dr. Luke 2014. She had sued Dr. Luke for gender based crimes and emotional distress. It is the same cause that Faisal is claiming the show and the company put him up to. He claims through twitter that he was bitten and was cause to harm. In retaliation the company through their lawyer counter sued Kesha for defamation and breach of contract. The presiding judge, Judge Shirley Kornreich after listening to trials refused to remove Kesha from her contract. The judge took this position with considerations that she had sworn an oath that no harassment had taken place considered she entered the agreement under oath. Faisal in the UKRealTv case is under contract and should be able to come back even after claiming embarrassment

Reference:

Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., Séguin, B. and Nzindukiyimana, O., 2015. Social media scholarship in sport management research: A critical review. Journal of Sport Management, 29(6), pp.601-618.

Armour, John, Holger Fleischer, Vanessa Knapp, and Martin Winner (2017). “The UK’s recent vote for Brexit has sparked a fierce debate over the implications for the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the rest of the EU. So far, however, there has been relatively little discussion of the implications of Brexit for legal persons–that is, corporate citizens of the EU, which may also be profoundly affected by consequent changes. The ECJ’s 1999…” European Business Organization Law Review 18, no. 2: 225-249.

Christians, C.G., Richardson, K.B., Fackler, M., Kreshel, P. and Woods, R.H., 2015. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, CourseSmart eTextbook. Routledge. pp.130-146

Cole, S.A., 2015. A surfeit of science: The “CSI effect” and the media appropriation of the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(2), pp.130-146.

Crosbie, E. and Glantz, S.A., 2014. Tobacco industry argues domestic trademark laws and international treaties preclude cigarette health warning labels, despite consistent legal advice that the argument is invalid. Tobacco control, 23(3), pp.e7-e7.

Hall?Lipsy, E. and Malanga, S., 2017. Defamation lawsuits: academic sword or shield?. EMBO molecular medicine, 9(12), pp.1623-1625.

Hay, D., 2018. Working Time, Dinner Time, Serving Time: Labour and Law in Industrialization (No. _164). University of Oxford, Department of Economics. , p.255

Lombard, M., Biocca, F., Freeman, J., IJsselsteijn, W. and Schaevitz, R.J. eds., 2015. Immersed in media: telepresence theory, measurement & technology. Springer. pp.234-236

LoPucki, Lynn M (2018). “A Rule-Based Method for Comparing Corporate Laws.”. 225-250

McCambridge, J., Hawkins, B. and Holden, C., 2014. The challenge corporate lobbying poses to reducing society’s alcohol problems: insights from UK evidence on minimum unit pricing. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 109(2), pp.199-205.

McDonnell, M.H., King, B.G. and Soule, S.A., 2015. A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review, 80(3), pp.654-678.

Miletzki, Janna, and Nick Broten, 2017. Development as freedom. Macat Library .Pp 1123-1125

Naser, M.A., 2017. Revisiting the historical origins of the Jordanian trademark system: the UK legacy. QUEEN MARY JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 7(2), pp.211-225.

Rolph, D., 2016. Reputation, celebrity and defamation law. Routledge. Pp 112-114

Uldam, J., 2016. Corporate management of visibility and the fantasy of the post-political: Social media and surveillance. New Media & Society, 18(2), pp.201-219.

Van Dijck, J. and Poell, T., 2015. Making public television social? Public service broadcasting and the challenges of social media. Television & New Media, 16(2), pp.148-164.

Vaver, D., 2018. Towards a Distinctive Trademark Law for the 21st Century. Intellectual Property Journal, 30(2), pp.183-203.

Williamson, M., 2017. Class, Culture and Exploitation: The Case of Reality tv. Considering Class: Theory, Culture and the Media in the 21st Century, p.273.