My target audience that I have to consider, in my rough guide to music video, is media students who have an interest within the art of music videos, from the making/creating to the acting and history of it all.
The stronger gender that stood out my one percent higher was the males, but most likely due to the close call, I might have to consider the factor of having a bigger audience by making it a uni-sex produce.
The age that made the bigger impact; 17-18.
The relevance of this will help me sell towards this market, by all the information that I have gathered.
I did my research by creating a survey for the public (this being students in media) to gather my data, I made it easier for myself by looking at surveys online briefly to help me create it, discussing with my class members and what would be ideal for my survey. I then analysis the results to find the answers.
Within legal and ethical issues is following the guidelines of copyright, such as; crediting images, text or material.
The difference between the legal and ethical issues is all written down
in rules that everyone follows, which is guidelines. Ethical is doing the
right thing and if someone is ethical, they don't copy an image and claim it as theirs, keep copied text supply it within their work and do not credit it, or takes material from a music video scene or music audio and leaves it within their work not referenced or edited, claiming anything which is not yours is copyright.
So I need to consider that I will not become involved in copyright infringement, by making sure that I mention and take note of every reference I find and use.Also no explicit content can be allowed due to the magazine being in a educational enviroment, and will be used for teaching and students, mostly explict content may only be read or seen by over 18 year olds, and my age range for my target audience is 17 - 18, so I must be careful in this respect.
This can be due to; profane language, sexual content, voilence etc... If these are ever included within magazine content or any other media related product, you must place the Parental Advisory logo upon the product, as it's a label affixed by the Recording Industry Association of America from the USA, which lets the public/readers know its containing excessive use the above.
Its all relevant to my guide, as it needs to be strict as certain age range is reading the content as well as it be an educational guide which will be held within classrooms or library within school grounds.
A Review Example on the downside of explicit content;
An example; calling someone a dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical, lazy, incompetent, criminal, unfaithful, or financially troubled. Also what ordinary readers or viewers see or hear “between the lines”. The courts will look at the “sting” of the article. Proving the literal truth of the words won’t help if the sting is an inference.
So imagine if I wrote that you often visited brothels, I may be able to prove this as truth as well as you may visit brothels every day, making deliveries of wine. However that’s not what readers will think, is it? They'll read between the lines and then gather that I'm’m saying you frequently sleep with prostitutes. This is called the “sting” of the article. Might be quite defamatory, especially if you're married or strongly religious.
Sometimes journalists and others try to get clever with words, hinting and implying things, thinking that they're safe just because they can prove the literal truth of the words (which is wrong), what they have to prove is the meaning that ordinary readers take from their story.
The publisher didn’t intend that meaning, which doesn’t matter, what matters is that the ordinary readers or viewers what will they make of it. When Metro magazine jokingly described a gossip columnist as “permanently pssst”, for example, a jury felt this suggested she was regularly drunk and awarded damages.
Is a story safe if it doesn’t refer to people by name? Not necessarily, the identification can be a lie under the surface, just because a story doesn’t mention someone by name doesn’t mean that the person can’t sue for defamation. If ordinary readers are familiar with the person understand the article to be referring to him or her, that'll be enough.
A group of people is accused of misconduct depends.
The question comes across as will the readers or viewers understand the accusation as relating to the individual (perhaps equally with the others)? Which depends on the size of the group and the inclusiveness of the language.
For example; if a television report asserts that “one official” at a company took a bribe, and the company has only four officials, they could each argue that the allegation reflected on them.
In general, for groups bigger than about a dozen, it may be difficult for courts to find that an accusation against one person reflects on all.
On the other hand, if the language is more inclusive, the range of people who can sue expands.
For example; our station accuses “government ministers” of “having their hands in the till”, the accusations will probably be taken as reflecting on each individual minister.
If the limits extend to report accuses “all doctors” of exploiting patients, the group is too wide for individual doctors to say people will think it relates to them.
The publisher didn’t intend to refer to that person, then if thats the case the publisher names someone as responsible for a crime, for example; if some readers think it is referring to someone else who happens to have the same name? answer: the publisher liable for defamation, even if it had no idea the other person existed. How it needs to be proved “publication”the publication was conveyed to at least one other person. It doesn’t have to have been published in a newspaper or broadcast. It doesn’t need to have been recorded or written down.It can include publication on the internet.
Liability is all the people involved in producing the story: the author, the editors, the publishing organisation, and the sources if the defamatory quotes came from them.
If the publisher is just reporting on what someone else said, then the rule is: whoever reports it is liable for it. Even if it’s from an apparently reputable and knowledgeable source, such as; the police. The publisher has to prove the truth of the sting of the article. That’s what the readers or viewers will take it to mean. It’s not enough for the publisher to prove that it has reported the accusation accurately. It must be able to prove that the accusation itself is true.
If the publisher writes “alleged”, then its just a fancy way of saying “I'm reporting what someone else has said” – so the same answer applies. Sprinkling a story with the word “alleged” or “rumoured” doesn’t insulate the publisher from a defamation lawsuit. Means the publisher is still passing on someone else’s allegation or gossip.
Then the publisher is reporting about suspicions, this becomes a very tricky area. As the precise meaning of what was said will often be contested, courts may take a report of suspicions to convey an impression of guilt or more subtly, find that the report suggests there are “reasonable grounds” for believing or investigating wrongdoing. In that case, the publisher wouldn’t have to prove guilt, but would have to prove there is good reason to suspect guilt.
Humour can be defamatory, such as; satire, sarcasm, cartoons and spoofs that make fun of people can be defamatory, by holding people up to ridicule unfairly. Although it can be difficult to predict whether a court will say “although dressed up as a joke, the barb is defamatory and damaging” or “no-one would take this seriously, it’s obviously just a bit of fun”. Decisions have gone both ways.
Defamatory to falsely suggest that someone is gay, social standards are changing, so it's still likely to be regarded as defamatory. At the very least, by wrongly calling someone gay, a publisher is almost certainly also effectively accusing them of lying to their friends and partners.
However, a dead person cannot be defamed, but coverage about the wrongdoing of a dead person that reflects badly on friends or associates who are still alive may defame them.
Corporations bodies and companies can sue for defamation, but only if they can show that it has caused them (or is likely to cause them) financial loss.
The defences to a defamation lawsuit, main ones; are truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege.
The defences to a defamation lawsuit, main ones; are truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege.
Privilege is what some statements are protected against liability for defamation even though they're
false and harmful. Parliament and the courts recognise that some speech is so important to society that we can’t have people worrying about being sued for it. So the law protects what it calls “privileged” statements. These are classic examples that are statements made by MPs on the floor of the House of Parliament, and witnesses in court proceedings. They cannot be sued for their statements, even if they are defamatory.
There are two main branches of privilege:
- firstly this one comes from statute law.
The Defamation Act contains protection for reports about particular events and occasions (court hearings, Parliament, public meetings, government inquiries, etc).
Which means that the publisher has a defence even if it’s repeating something that was said at the meeting, etc, that was defamatory – but generally only if the story is fair and accurate and made in good faith. In some cases means, that the story must also relate to a matter of public interest, and the publisher must be prepared to run a right of reply.
- Secondly branch comes from the common law.
In general, this protects statements made by someone with a social, moral or legal duty or interest to tell someone something, and they have a corresponding interest in receiving it.
For example; a person who phones the police to tell them the neighbour is selling drugs will not be held liable for defamation if the accusation turns out to be wrong, as long as it was made in good faith.
This can only sometimes be a common law defence that'll be used by the media (or someone else) for a story that’s published to a wide audience, courts have stretched to this defence to include speech about the character and conduct of politicians in the course of genuine political discussion. The idea is that the speech which directly concerns the functioning of representative government is so important, that the law shouldn’t discourage it by allowing politicians to sue for defamation. It may be expanded to include stories about other significant figures, such as; senior civil servants, business and union leaders and prominent journalists.
Furthermore this protection doesn’t apply to stories about their private lives, unless the stories tell us something about the way politicians discharge their public duties. For example; it's probably legitimate to report that a politician who advocates family or religious values is having an affair.
The defence will excuse factual errors about these people that are defamatory, but only if the journalist has behaved “responsibly” in publishing the story. It’s not entirely clear what “responsibly” means. Generally, the more serious the allegation and the more widespread its publication, the more care needs to be taken. So, for example; a publication with a small circulation that accuses an MP of getting a parking ticket will not have to check the story as thoroughly as a major national television channel claiming an MP has accepted a bribe.
The courts will look at factors, such as:
- most importantly, did the publisher get and report the other side?
- did the publisher rely on biased or unreliable sources?
- did the publisher overlook obvious sources?
If the court finds the publisher didn’t act responsibly, this defence will be lost.
- did the publisher overhype the story?
If someone or myself were to unfairly attack my reputation or I attack theirs, you'd have to respond in another form of privilege which allows a person to respond to a defamatory attack on them, even if the response itself contains defamatory material, as long as it’s relevant to the attack. If the original attack was widely circulated, this defence will also be protected in the media when they publish the person’s response to the same audience.
The remedies for defamation, are awards of damages. However, damages awards haven't usually been large in New Zealand. A moderately severe defamation published to a wide audience would probably be worth about £30,850 to £43,184. There have been a few defamations awards over £61,660. These damages are measured by a combination of two things; first, whatever financial loss the plaintiff can show is directly attributable to the defamation. Secondly, “general damages” compensate for the harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove this harm – it is presumed when the defamation is proved.
Injunctions are available, but courts are reluctant to award them up front, due to the fact if the defendant asserts that a defence is available, a court will only grant an injunction restraining defamatory material if convinced that there is no tenable defence.
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273 - Defamation
Quality Factors
Putting together a magazine is a great way to share your vision in print. You can make a handmade magazine, or use computer software to design and print a professional-quality magazine.Must have these factors:
- professional looking; BE FOLLOWING INSPIRATION OF DESIGNS FROM RESEARCH I'VE DONE WITHIN OTHER MAGAZINES
- proof reading work ensures no grammatical errors; DOUBLE CHECK WILL BE MADE IN THE PRODUCTION OF MAKING THE MAGAZINE
- barcode? Or it will be a free guide? FREE GUIDE
- Disclaimer acknowledging copyright laws and ability to contact; I WILL COVER THIS SECTION BY CREATING A TERMS AND CONDITION PAGE WITH A BIBLIOGRAPHY
with the following list below:
Eligibility
Content Disclaimer
Honor Code
User Content
User Status and Statement of Accomplishment
Choice of Law/Forum Selection
Disclaimer of Warranty / Limitation of Liabilities
Copyright Complaints
Privacy Policy
What Information this Privacy Policy Covers
General
Rough Guide Logo
I can easily access these resources, due to college and home locations.
- printer – inkjet,Epsom college and home
- macs college
- library – books, mags college and local library in Tunbridge wells
- paper college and home
- pc’s college and home
- internet college and home
- photoshop college
- indesign college
- illustrator college
- word college and home
- publisher college and home
- tutorials college
- ink – cmyk college
No comments:
Post a Comment