Picture courtesy: http://www.cafepress.com
Candy is a liar blog has a great post on copyright/privacy laws.
At many times, we have been accused of slandering, etc….Let me remind everyone that Lady Lydia is a very public person. She is an author, writer for different sites and her o wn blogs. She has commented on other blogs with links to her own blog. She is by no means a private individual, considering that you can see her on the net all the time.
Candy is a liar blog says on copyright:
Various commenters have said that C should sue for defamation, or slander. Obviously, this blog is written so slander is out. Remember, hens, sssslander is ssssspoken! According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s entry on defamation: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures? Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a “reasonable person” would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show “actual malice”—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence. Read the original article at Candyisaliar at this link.