posted
Hello ... I am completing a book manuscript based on the oral history of a volunteer, non-profit, high-profile organization. Now that the manuscript is almost completed, the executive of the organization is asking to review everything so their group looks good, and also to see what past members say about current members. I am inclined to deny this request as their review was not invited. What are your thoughts on saying "aye" or "nay" to their (somewhat pushy) request?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
A question at issue is the concern raises intellectual property law considerations and, for which, best practice, an intellectual property lawyer should be consulted.
If the narrative is the oral history of an organization entity, the entity owns copyrights to any original or derivative works, period.
If the narrative is an oral history about an organization entity, the entity owns trademark rights.
If the narrative is a "tell-all" insider account and more so substantively about the entity's esoteric culture than about personal experience, social commentary (satire), and of an obvious subjective position, the entity is central to the personal narrative, perhaps intellectual property rights attach to the entity; or not if the entity is incidental to the personal experience, etc., and lodge in their entirety to the writer.
If the narrative or substantive portions thereof portray the entity in a negative light, irrespective of if satire and personal experience and if provable true or otherwise fiction or dramatic license, and the negative light is not a widely known public reputation, litigation is certain to ensue, includes rights infringement, defamation, slander, libel, even fraud, and otherwise indefensible Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation suits, SLAPPs, any or all litigation to deny publication or forestall publication by litigation, such that the writer, finances, and reputation are ruined.
If a publisher is interested in publication acceptance of the narrative, such a publisher, legal counsel thereof, will competently determine whether the narrative infringes rights, defames, slanders, or libels. And the publisher holds legal acumen and resources, and decides whether the narrative justifies the bar of SLAPPs, that a writer does not possess.
The review request has a legal leg to stand on and, even though unstated, entails implied litigation threats thereof if unaccommodated.
posted
The first question I have is how did this person find out about your manuscript? Unless there's some other relationship or contractual limitation, I don't think you're under no obligation to show them your manuscript.
The second thought I have is that this may be a case where you need more expert help than you can get here. I obviously don't know which organization this is or how fiercely they're willing to defend their reputation. Or even if your book would give them anything to defend. However, if there's any question that you'd be stepping over the line of some trademark or other law, you need to consult with an intellectual property attorney.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it an authorized account? If it's unauthorized, anything goes---but if they did let you have access to files and data if you showed them the finished MS, they might have a right to see it and, if you agreed, ask for changes.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello, again .... Thanks for your replies to date. Based on the questions appearing, I should provide additional information. The organization as an entity did not provide access to any documents or files. All my data came from interviews/narratives of current and former members. They learned of the manuscript from some current members who were interviewed. I was never invited to generate the manuscript by the organization, it is my independent project. Does this information change any of the earlier inputs? Thank you.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the project investigative journalism? Balanced, unbiased, objective, professional, competent, honest report? That would then as well entail a quid pro quo agreement proposal to the executive reviewer for a response added to the extant content, "on the record" both prior to and after the typescript review for thoroughness' sake and to ensure reciprocal participation.
If the executive declines to comment or initially does then retracts the comment, those must be respected, out of professional journalism ethics. Reciprocal coordination for the latter initial comment decline then withholds the typescript from the executive's review until a comment or no comment response on the record comes forth, a leveraged focal point of negotiation. Courteously couched for all negotiation phases, of course.
Further leverage, proposed inclusion in the published edition in the event of comment refusal or retraction, full disclosure to the executive in advance, "Executive So-and-so offered 'no comment'"; or "offered comment, advance reviewed this report, then retracted comment." Or in the event of comment, "requested and was granted advance review of this report, objected to A, B, C, etc., pages X, Y, Z, etc.; allowed as valid D, E, F, etc.; no position stated, G, H, I, etc."
Bare, objective, factual summary paraphrase of the comments, comment retracted, or no comment only, no response commentary to the executive's commentary, no verbatim cites, unless an express written use license duly signed and executed, akin to a 30(b)(6) authorized corporate representative witness statement. For that matter, a signed use license grant from each interviewee cited or paraphrased, anonymously or on the record, is as well prudent.
SLAPPs are still stakes at risk for an independent "guerilla" journalist, less so for an established bureau and correspondent. Lean pockets or deep pockets on each and all accounts? (Rhetorical questions above.)
Wiser to request approval at the outset than to beg trespass forgiveness after the fact -- than perpetual denial from start to infinity.
Hardball, honorable, respectable, prudent Marquess of Queensberry journalism rules! Please see The Associated Press Stylebook: 2017, "Briefing on Media Law," pages 481 to 494, and overall.
posted
Then they have no right to see it. But they probably have rights to anything trademarked or copyrighted. And the content of letters would belong to their writer.
If you intend to use any of that, you might need their cooperation.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make sure your facts are straight and consult a lawyer.
Don't show them anything but offer them an in depth interview of questions that they can get their side on the record. Record all interviews. Ask for the top dog. If they deny your request(s) state that in the manuscript. You don't owe them Sh*t, but a chance to get on the record.
But you do owe yourself to track down the facts of each statement given you. If you can't prove your facts are correct and are just hearsay, you could be held liable for slander. And big organizations will be quick to get their lawyers all over you. Hence, consult a lawyer.
Before you tackle a big corp. please, please, make sure all your own skeletons are out of the closet. because in a legal battle they will come out and be twisted way out of proportion to get you to cave.
Be prepared for what you might be getting yourself, your family, your friends, into. Especially if it ends up attracting the news. Then everyone is going to be up your *** with a twelve foot spyglass.
posted
A point of information about tell-alls and investigative journalism few readers and more than a few writers thereof apprehend: if cites and paraphrases of interviewees are reported bald and faithful to their expression, those are subjective per individual and, collected, are the objective fact of subjective positions -- why balanced report is essential.
Those are true to individual truth and personal opinion. Might or might not be esoteric truth to an overall entity's culture, or true for a cohort, or true for a broader or global sense, expressly the one truth tier of individuals true to themselves. The worst falsehoods are those told to the self and believed true.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
