Public Relations Law

Overview

This module explores key legal and ethical issues in public relations, focusing on copyright, libel, and privacy. Students will learn the basics of copyright law, including: ownership, fair use, and limitations on use. They will examine real cases that illustrate how these rules apply in practice. The module also covers essential media law concepts such as defamation, actual malice, intrusion, appropriation, and false light, helping future practitioners understand their responsibilities and protect both their work and the rights of others.

Presentation Files

Lesson Plan 1: Copyright Law and Public Relations

In a world where technology makes it so simple to “cut and paste” and download material, modern students may only have a vague sense of copyright and its implications for the work they create both as students and in their future careers as public relations professionals. The goal of Lesson 1 is to convey the importance of understanding copyright, to explain the basic rules regarding what is required to obtain a copyright, what rights ownership of a copyright conveys and how others may—and may not—use copyrighted works. It then uses actual legal cases to illustrate these points.

Key concepts:

• Basics of copyright

• Fair use

• Limitations on use

Topics:

Basics of Copyright

• It is important to convey that just as individuals and organizations can own physical things such as a book, a car or an office building, the law also allows for the ownership of particular creative expression. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. This is shown in the Betty, Inc. v. Pepsico case study.
• A copyright exists immediately upon creation of a work, and is generally owned by its creator unless it is made as part of someone’s job, in which case the employer owns the copyright.
• Copyright protection lasts for a long time. For new, published works, under current law copyright protection lasts 70 years after death for a work by a single author, and 95 years for a work created by a corporation.
• After the copyright for a particular work expires, that work is in the “public domain” and anyone can use it. But some works, such as images, may also be protected as trademarks.
• Most material online IS protected by copyright. The “Success Kid” meme cases are examples of this.

Fair Use

• Fair use allows some, limited uses of copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owner, for certain purposes
• There is a four-factor test to determine whether a use is fair use, but courts generally hold that news reporting; non-profit educational uses; criticism, parody or satire; and “transformative” uses are fair uses. There are no “magic number” limits on what is fair use.

Limitations on Use

• Just because it’s technologically easy to “cut and paste” or download a copyrighted work, does not mean that it’s legal to do so. The legality of a use is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Case Studies:

• Betty, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc.

• The “Success Kid” Meme

Discussion Questions:

• On the whole, does copyright foster development of new things by providing an economic incentive for doing so, or hinder the development of new things by restricting usage of works for extended periods?

• For music copyrights there is an entire system in which users of musical works — including cover bands and businesses that play music for their customers, including everything from retail stores and restaurants to radio stations — pay a set licensing fee to use music, with the fee distributed among creators according to how often their works are played or performed (“used”). Would a similar system make sense for other types of works, such as photos and illustrations?

Lesson Plan 2: Libel and Privacy in Public Relations

Libel (defamation) and privacy are the most commonly-made claims in lawsuits against the media. Cases making these claims have become some of the most important precedents defining and setting the parameters for free speech / First Amendment law in the United States.

Key concepts:

• Libel

• Actual malice

• Intrusion

• Private facts

• Appropriation

• Misappropriation

• Right of publicity

• False light

Libel is making a false statement about someone, to someone other than the person being spoken of, that damages the reputation of that person. In addition to people, the law also recognizes that corporations and organizations also have reputations that can be damaged by libelous statements. It was on this basis that suntan salon owner JB & Associates, Inc. sued the Nebraska Cancer Coalition.

Privacy claims are based on revelation of information about someone that that person has a reasonable expectation of keeping private, or on mischaracterizing some information about the person. Unlike libel, the person’s reputation is not an issue: the harm is in the alleged privacy violation. There are four privacy claims:

• Intrusion: Physical entry into a location where the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also used for psychological intrusion into a person’s personal, private “realm.”

• Dissemination of private facts: Public revelation of private information about the plaintiff.

• Appropriation / Misappropriation / Right of publicity: Use of someone’s image or identity for commercial purposes without permission. Michael Jordan’s lawsuits are examples of this.

• False light: Dissemination of information about plaintiff that is truthful, but is conveyed in a way or context that conveys a false impression.

For each of these claims, plaintiffs must show actual harm. Courts generally reject claims of harm when the statement is a joke or parody, since such statements are not meant to be taken seriously.

Damages for these claims depend on the harm caused, and also in large part on the person’s role in society. The law assumes that more prominent a person is, the more subject they are to public scrutiny and criticism. Public officials and public figures have to show “actual malice” to win a libel case, and usually must show it to win privacy cases as well. “Actual malice” means that the speaker knew that the statement was false, or made it with reckless disregard for the truth (they should have verified it, but did not).

Case Studies:

• JB & Associates, Inc. v. Nebraska Cancer Coalition

• Michael Jordan’s Lawsuits

Discussion Questions:

• The law presumes that celebrities have chosen to attract attention to themselves, and thus have to show “actual malice” in libel and privacy cases. But can’t it also be said that well-known people have more to lose from statements that harm their reputations?

• Does application of the “actual malice” standard — which requires that a speaker know or strongly suspect that a statement is false — allow the speakers, particularly those online, too much leeway in what they say or post, and allow them act recklessly?

Module Developer