Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas denny
I would contend it is most likely the same case law, as the use and copyright of photographic images: that providing a person has agreed to the taking of a photograph and its use by someone else, the copyright and exclusive use passes to that someone else, - the owner of the photo.
Is not the whole thing about this video of West a storm in a teacup?
-
|
Interesting points DeD. However, I do not think the issue can be described as a storm in a teacup - the basic principle broken here, putting aside all legal niceties, is one of trust.
Effectively, UKIP was going through a 'recruitment process' of sorts and it is reasonable and fair to expect such a process to not permit material involving the assessment of a candidate to be put into the public domain.
If a business did that during recruitment to a candidate, and posted a video on U-yube entitled 'how not to perform at interview' or similar, they'd be fried by a good lawyer.
Whatever you or I may think about JW, he had a reasonable expectation of trust and privacy regarding the material he contributed to during the selection process. That expectation and that trust was broken REGARDLESS of what JW may or may not have done in the eyes of the party previously.
The problem UKIP has with this issue is that members of the party involved and at more senior level have publicly stated all of the 'wrong things' that JW did and yet no action was brought by the party against him. Then the video was released. I think UKIP may have a hard time persuading people that the leak was not deliberately intended to hurt JW as some form of retribution.
Not a good place to be, regretfully. So, not a storm in a teacup, I think.