No more unauthorized musician biographies in the UK thanks to Loreena McKennitt

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well, perhaps. And not just musicians but anyway, the core of the story:

The singer - whom I represented - objected to the publication of Travels with Loreena McKennitt: My Life as a Friend, written by Niema Ash. The writer had been a confidante of McKennitt for about 20 years. The book followed a dispute between them; besides its autobiographical material it contained a raft of information about the singer and their friendship.

Every autobiography worth reading will touch upon the writer's relationships with other people. Publishers are used to the libel implications of such material and aware of the consequences of revealing sexual adventures or medical problems.

But in his ruling, Mr Justice Eady went further, tipping the balance away from freedom of expression for the media, in favour of the "the legitimate expectation of citizens to have their private lives protected". In a world increasingly saturated with trivial gossip about those in the public eye, this has far-reaching implications.

The judge drew heavily from Princess Caroline of Monaco's recent victory at the European court of human rights over pictures, published in Germany, that were taken in a public place. In the McKennit case, the judge ruled that information does not forfeit its "private" quality simply because it concerns events that could have been witnessed in a public place or because third parties are involved. In short, it is not a trump card for authors to assert they have a right to freedom of expression by telling their life stories if that exercise involves revealing information about someone else. "Such revelation should be crafted, so far as is possible, to protect the other person's privacy," the judge ruled.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 16 February 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

Aside from "who the f is Loreena McKennit?" (she could do with some publicity, evidently), I must say this is nonsense.

― Mitya (mitya), Thursday, 16 February 2006 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

I must say I'm alright with people not writing and making money off of biographical accounts of other peoples lives.

― hopeforvicki, Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:34 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, Blighty, but that's dumb.

― js (honestengine), Thursday, 16 February 2006 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

STOP THE PRESSES!

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:00 (nineteen years ago)

B..b..but this ruling is completely consistent with existing UK libel laws. Libel charges intrinsically favour the defence in the US because of freedom of speech protection. In the UK, they favour the prosecution -- in this case, the person writing the book must show that everything they wrote is true to avoid the libel conviction.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

i thought this was beyond a libel issue though....you can't write anything that is too "personal", I guess??? however that is defined.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:06 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/16/nlaw16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/16/ixhome.html

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:10 (nineteen years ago)

"Such revelation should be crafted, so far as is possible, to protect the other person's privacy," --yes, i'm ballsy.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

The judge's ruling looks like it's designed to prevent future libel cases. At least it does to me. ILX lawyers to thread.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

Also, Loreena McKennitt is hardly "popular". I think I'm going to sue for infringement on my privacy by the assertion, whether or not it is factual, that I, as a Canadian, know or care who Loreena McKennitt is.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:13 (nineteen years ago)

Not really libel-related -- the truth of the book's content isn't in question, is it? I can understand the privacy protection the ruling is shooting for; nobody wants to become a public figure and then have everyone they've ever met crawl out of the woodwork with personal details and stories to peddle. Nobody wants to have to live her life like a politician, knowing any information you reveal to anyone may one day get dragged out in public. But this doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can prevent, at least not without unduly gagging everyone you've ever crossed paths with. This person had a friend relationship with a public figure; one question people will naturally ask of her is "what was that like?" And I can't see how you can stop her from answering that question, no more in print that you can in person. How much she respects the person's privacy is a matter of politeness (or of just not being a total asshole), but it seems too subjective, too open to interpretation, to ever adjudicate very well. (And putting the whole thing in the public figure's hands to authorize kind of makes for a tyrant.)

But yeah, I can totally understand the motivations behind it. You could even claim there's an economic aspect -- i.e., if anyone has production rights to drag a public figure's life out into public, it's the public figure! And no one likes the idea that any asshole they've ever met can play big-shot and sell their life in public -- plus no one likes the idea that they'll have to never do or say anything at all in the presence of anyone who may one day be that asshole.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:38 (nineteen years ago)

One thing that's funny about these sorts of books, though, is the format: on some level the writer has to claim that the book is THEIR story, THEIR narrative arc, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone that they're just pulling on one relationship with someone people actually care about. The result is that, if they pull it off, it seems like the relationship with the public figure was the only meaningful thing in their life. Which makes them seem like creepy obsessed embittered stalkers. Which they nearly are. So they do kinda self-correct for themselves, a little.

Also interesting in this realm: books by children of famous people! (I.e. "you all love my dad but did you know he was a jerk and I hate him?")

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:42 (nineteen years ago)

With regards to people writing books about their relationships with entertainment-based celebrities, this is a mixed sort of decision, what with celebrity-chasing being boring and unseemly and all.

Where this gets scary is: who's to say this can't be used against the publishing of personal information about public officials that's either embarrassing or at complete odds with their public policies? (Like someone signing draconian drug laws despite having been a raging coke fiend.) (Gee, where did I get that from?) (And I know that I'm talking about an American and this is a UK decision, but you see what I'm getting at.)

― Rick Massimo (Rick Massimo), Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:52 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, this is obvs. stupid. If the only thing historians have to go on is autobiographies, history is going to get a lot more empty. I doubt this'll be a real precedent.

And aha:

"The popular Canadian folk singer and composer went to the High Court in London last November to block publication of a book written about her life by Niema Ash, a former friend and employee. Miss Ash defended herself without lawyers after her insurance funding ran out a week before the trial."

― Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 16 February 2006 20:04 (nineteen years ago)

WTF -- what about her publisher?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 16 February 2006 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

If the only thing historians have to go on is autobiographies, history is going to get a lot more empty.

Exactly ... in this case, avoiding a libel suit isn't just about getting one's facts straight. Someone could write "after her 3rd album sold less than 100K copies, she was completely devastated" -- there's nothing factually incorrect there. The first part of the sentence is a verifiable fact, but the second part is interpretive. The subject could claim that she wasn't "devastated" at all and that line was merely an attempt to smear her and her music. It would be very difficult, legally, to disprove this rebuttal. Knowing this, the subject may be more encouraged to file a libel suit.

To reduce the number of potential libel suits -- without actually changing the existing UK libel laws -- one of two things can be done, 1) loosen the freedom of expression laws to favour the defendents and discourage legal action, 2) tighten the freedome of expression laws in order to stifle potentially controversial writing altogether. They've chosen #2, for now.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Friday, 17 February 2006 04:11 (nineteen years ago)

Also, Loreena McKennitt is hardly "popular".

Um... she's massively popular and has been for years.

― fortunate hazel (f. hazel), Friday, 17 February 2006 06:26 (nineteen years ago)

Sub-Enyan at best (I know, Enya is ur-Popular)

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 17 February 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

what about slash fic?

― dave q (listerine), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

Freedom of Masturbation

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

er, never mind:
"Homeland Security, folks. We're just here to bust you for your porn."

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 17 February 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

Really though, the saturation media coverage of Loreena McKennitt has gotten out of hand.

― Jason Toon (Jason Toon), Saturday, 18 February 2006 19:38 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.