The Smithman e-fits

[slartibartfast]

For what ?

Seems to be breach of contract...which he didn’t sign?

[Robittybob1]

Well it seems you can name and publish pictures with impunity.

It was only personal opinion definitely.

[misty]

For what ?

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/privacy-confidence-and-data-protection/legal-protection-of-confidential-information

snippedd
How Confidential Information is Protected
If a broadcaster publishes confidential information without authorisation, then the individual or organisation whose confidence has been betrayed may be able to sue the broadcaster for damages. In addition, if the individual or organisation becomes aware of the intention to divulge the confidential information before broadcast, they will often apply to the court for an interim injunction i.e. a temporary order preventing broadcast until the matter can properly be decided at a later trial. Note: a pre-transmission injunction based on the law of confidence is one of the easiest ways for an individual or organisation to stop programmes being broadcast.


If an interim injunction is granted, even against some other media organisation, all media organisations who are aware of the injunction will be similarly bound by it. To breach an injunction is to commit contempt - a criminal offence.

[slartibartfast]

http://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/privacy-confidence-and-data-protection/legal-protection-of-confidential-information

snippedd
How Confidential Information is Protected
If a broadcaster publishes confidential information without authorisation, then the individual or organisation whose confidence has been betrayed may be able to sue the broadcaster for damages. In addition, if the individual or organisation becomes aware of the intention to divulge the confidential information before broadcast, they will often apply to the court for an interim injunction i.e. a temporary order preventing broadcast until the matter can properly be decided at a later trial. Note: a pre-transmission injunction based on the law of confidence is one of the easiest ways for an individual or organisation to stop programmes being broadcast.


If an interim injunction is granted, even against some other media organisation, all media organisations who are aware of the injunction will be similarly bound by it. To breach an injunction is to commit contempt - a criminal offence.

Broadcast?

You wonder how wiki leaks keeps going.

[misty]

Broadcast?

You wonder how wiki leaks keeps going.

Gatton states his occupation as a director/producer/journalist. Would he risk his credibility in a FOC venture to expose a report prepared back in 2008 by a con-man?

[slartibartfast]

Gatton states his occupation as a director/producer/journalist. Would he risk his credibility in a FOC venture to expose a report prepared back in 2008 by a con-man?

A NDA would usually only cover information provided by the parties involved.

[faithlilly]

Gatton states his occupation as a director/producer/journalist. Would he risk his credibility in a FOC venture to expose a report prepared back in 2008 by a con-man?

It was compiled by Exton.

[Mr Gray]

Don’t worry about me Davel I still get plenty of joy from the SC judgement 

really...is that what brings joy into your life...nothing in this case brings me any sort of joy

[misty]

It was compiled by Exton.

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the argument Gatton has seen the report in its entirety?

[misty]

A NDA would usually only cover information provided by the parties involved.

From my previous link....
snipped
Historically, the courts required that a 'relationship' of confidence existed between the person seeking to disclose information and the person seeking to protect it e.g. employer/employee. However, the relationship of confidence has been greatly expanded and now, as long as the surrounding circumstances denote that the information is confidential, this will suffice for the purposes of seeking the protection of the law.


Often, particularly in current affairs programmes, programme-makers and broadcasters will come by information that is clearly confidential and the question arises whether or not there is justification to publish that information to a wider audience.

Wherever a programme may reveal confidential information, advice must be sought from the programme lawyer at an early stage

[Alice Purjorick]

Can you produce the court verdict?

Does such a beastie exist?
Except in terms of "the parties agreed that"....................whatever it was that was agreed ?.

[faithlilly]

Doesn't that somewhat defeat the argument Gatton has seen the report in its entirety?

No.

[Robittybob1]

A NDA would usually only cover information provided by the parties involved.

a non-disclosure agreement.   

[Miss Taken Identity]

Just  wee reminder the McCanns broke the law by asking a company to investigate something - and report to them not the police I wonder why that would be? I also wonder why they were not arrested for doing this.

Employing a Spanish company to investigate while the case is still live is a really strange get up. Two laws broken!

And of course there  were very good reasons for not employing a Portuguese company.

[Lace]

Just  wee reminder the McCanns broke the law by asking a company to investigate something - and report to them not the police I wonder why that would be? I also wonder why they were not arrested for doing this.

Employing a Spanish company to investigate while the case is still live is a really strange get up. Two laws broken!

And of course there  were very good reasons for not employing a Portuguese company.

I believe the PJ knew the private investigators were in Portugal.    The private investigators had to hand everything they found out to the PJ,   that included the Smith's e-fits,   it was up to the PJ what they did with them.

IMO