31 July 2026
DEFAMATION (AUS): Rebel Wilson defeats Australian defamation claim over Instagram posts
Rebel Wilson has successfully defended defamation proceedings brought against her by Charlotte MacInnes arising from four social media posts about the production of the film The Deb.
MacInnes alleged that Wilson had damaged her reputation by claiming she had retracted her complaint of sexual harassment against the film's producer, Amanda Ghost, in order to further her career. MacInnes denied the allegation and brought proceedings in defamation.
The dispute centred on events said to have occurred on 5 September 2023. Ms Ghost and MacInnes went swimming together at Bondi Beach. After Ms Ghost had an adverse reaction to the cold water, the pair later shared a bath (while wearing swimsuits) at the apartment where they were staying. Wilson alleged that MacInnes complained to her the following day about being asked to bathe and shower with the producer and feeling uncomfortable about the incident. Wilson further alleged that MacInnes later "walked back" her complaint. In her written evidence, Ms Ghost denied ever having been sexually interested in women.
On 22 July 2026, Justice Elizabeth Raper dismissed the claim. The Court held that the relevant imputation - that MacInnes had changed her account of events - was not defamatory. The judge also went on to consider the position in the alternative, finding that even if the imputation had been defamatory, MacInnes had failed to establish that the posts had caused, or were likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation. Justice Raper further held that, if necessary, Wilson would also have succeeded on the defence of substantial truth. Wilson was awarded her costs, although reports indicate that MacInnes intends to appeal.
The judgment illustrates the reputational risks that often accompany high-profile litigation. Although Wilson successfully defended the proceedings, the Court described aspects of her evidence as "self-serving" and found that she had shown a "propensity to exaggerate". Success in the litigation therefore did not prevent adverse judicial criticism from becoming part of the public record.
While the decision applies Australian law, the broader lessons are equally relevant for UK media organisations. Australia, like England and Wales, now requires claimants to establish serious harm before a defamation claim can succeed, and this case demonstrates that the threshold can be a significant hurdle. It also serves as a reminder that social media posts are judged by the same legal principles as traditional publications and that high-profile defamation proceedings frequently expose all parties to intense public scrutiny. Winning the legal case does not necessarily mean emerging without reputational damage.
COPYRIGHT: Fair Use (US) Tiger King ruling restores confidence in documentary fair use
The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has delivered welcome news for documentary filmmakers, reversing an earlier decision that many feared would significantly narrow the scope of fair use. The judgment, handed down on 30 April 2026 in Whyte Monkee Productions LLC v Netflix, restores a more practical approach to the use of short copyright extracts in factual programmes.
The dispute arose from Netflix's hugely successful documentary series Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness. Timothy Sepi, a former videographer at Joe Exotic's zoo, alleged that Netflix had infringed copyright by using eight clips he had filmed. While the Court confirmed that seven of those videos belonged to his former employer as works made for hire, the appeal focused on an eighth clip: a short extract from footage of a memorial service filmed after his employment had ended.
The case attracted widespread attention because of its relationship with the US Supreme Court's landmark decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith. In an earlier judgment delivered in 2024, the Tenth Circuit suggested that a documentary could only rely on fair use if it was commenting on the copyrighted work itself, rather than using the footage to explain wider events. That approach caused considerable concern among documentary producers and copyright lawyers, who feared it would make the use of short archival extracts significantly more difficult.
Following extensive criticism and a rehearing, the Court has now reversed course. It confirmed that a secondary work does not need to comment directly on the copyrighted work in order to be transformative. Netflix's use of the memorial footage was held to be fair because the extract was used for a different factual purpose, only a small and reasonable amount was taken, and the clip was not a substitute for the original work in the marketplace.
Although every fair use case remains highly fact-specific, the judgment restores some welcome certainty for documentary filmmakers. It confirms that short copyright extracts used to explain real-world events may still qualify as fair use, even where the documentary is not commenting on the original footage itself.
While the decision concerns US fair use rather than UK fair dealing, it will be welcomed by producers making programmes for international distribution and facing potential US copyright issues.
ABBAS Media Law are recognised experts in copyright law, fair dealing and archive licensing, advising producers, broadcasters and distributors on the use of copyright material in television and film. If you require legal advice on any copyright issue, please get in touch.
DISCLOSURE (US): Graham Norton secures US disclosure order to identify anonymous Facebook publisher
In June this year Graham Norton secured a significant procedural victory in the United States after a Californian court granted an application requiring Meta Platforms Inc. to disclose information capable of identifying the operators of a Facebook account known as The Westminster Wire. The order requires Meta to produce subscriber information, including names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers and access data such as IP addresses.
Norton alleges that the account has conducted a sustained campaign of false and defamatory publications since late 2025, including fabricated stories claiming that his mother had died and that he had been hospitalised. Court papers also allege that the account published AI-generated images falsely depicting Norton engaging in offensive, racist and xenophobic conduct.
The order was made under 28 U.S.C. §1782, a powerful but increasingly important provision that enables US courts to order the disclosure of evidence for use in proceedings before foreign courts. Norton has indicated that he intends to bring proceedings in England and Wales, and the information obtained from Meta is expected to assist in identifying the anonymous publisher before those proceedings are commenced.
English practitioners will recognise similarities with a Norwich Pharmacal order, which enables the English courts to compel an innocent third party to disclose information identifying a wrongdoer. However, where the relevant information is held by a US-based technology company such as Meta, a section 1782 application can provide an effective complementary route to obtaining that information.
The case is a timely reminder that anonymity on social media is often more fragile than users assume. As publishers increasingly rely on US-based platforms to distribute content, section 1782 is becoming an increasingly valuable tool for claimants seeking to identify anonymous online publishers before commencing proceedings in England and Wales. However, it also highlights the practical burden faced by victims of online abuse, who may first have to incur significant time and expense obtaining disclosure orders simply to identify the wrongdoer before a substantive claim can even begin. With the increasing use of AI-generated images and other synthetic content in reputational attacks, these procedural tools are likely to become ever more important.
DEFAMATION: When fictional names become real legal problems
The Daily Mail has apologised after publishing an article under a fictitious by-line which happened to belong to a real person – a case which demonstrates that one of the oldest principles of defamation law remains highly relevant to modern publishers.
On 14 August 2025, the Daily Mail published an article entitled Why are so many mothers (me included) taking cocaine at children's house parties? under the by-line "Anna Melton". Unfortunately, there was a real Anna Melton – a director of a Derbyshire PR agency.
On 17 July 2026, Associated Newspapers published an apology confirming that the article had not been written by the real Anna Melton and apologising for the distress and embarrassment caused.
The dispute engaged the longstanding principle established in E. Hulton & Co. v Jones [1910], often referred to as the Artemus Jones case. In that case, the House of Lords held that a publisher's intention is irrelevant if an ordinary reader would reasonably understand a defamatory publication to refer to the claimant. Put simply, a name or character may be entirely fictional, but liability can still arise if a real person is reasonably identifiable.
According to the Derbyshire Times, Associated Newspapers initially pointed to a "Names have been changed" disclaimer which appeared on some versions of the article. The newspaper also reports that the publisher later anonymised the by-line, removed the name from Google search results and agreed to settle the claim. The Daily Mail previously stated that "it was entirely coincidental that some biographical details contained in the article bore similarities to an individual of the same name" and that the article was amended once the issue came to its attention.
The case provides an important reminder that disclaimers and good intentions do not necessarily prevent liability. The question is not whether the publisher intended to refer to a real person, but whether an ordinary reader would reasonably understand the publication to do so.
Although this dispute arose from a newspaper article, the same principle has obvious implications for television producers. It explains why negative character checks (“neg-checks”) are routinely carried out on scripts before production begins. Names, occupations, locations and other identifying characteristics are reviewed to minimise the risk that a fictional character or storyline could inadvertently be understood as referring to a real individual.
More than a century after Artemus Jones was decided, the principle remains a cornerstone of publication risk management. Whether publishing a newspaper article, documentary or television drama, careful clearance of fictional names and characters remains an essential safeguard against avoidable defamation claims.
DEFAMATION, DATA PROTECTION: Misleading headlines – why winning a defamation claim is no longer enough
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment clarifying that the long-established Charleston principle in defamation law does not apply to claims that personal data has been processed unfairly under data protection legislation. The decision, in Vince v Associated Newspapers Ltd, has potentially significant implications for media organisations, opening the possibility that claimants may succeed in a data protection claim even where a parallel defamation claim fails.
The claim arose from Associated Newspapers' publication of articles in 2023 carrying headlines such as "Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor" and "sex harassment donor", accompanied by photographs of businessman Dale Vince. In fact, the "sex pest" referred to a different Labour Party donor, after two separate stories became combined during the production process. Although the body of the articles made this clear, Mr Vince argued that the headlines and accompanying photographs nevertheless conveyed the false impression that he was the "sex pest donor".
Mr Vince's defamation claim was struck out applying the well-known House of Lords decision in Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd, which establishes that a publication must be assessed as a whole rather than by focusing on individual headlines, captions or photographs in isolation. Because readers of the full article would understand that the allegations did not relate to Mr Vince, the publication was held not to be defamatory.
Mr Vince also brought a claim under data protection legislation, alleging that the processing of his personal data was unfair. At first instance, Swift J struck out the claim as an abuse of process and granted summary judgment for Associated, concluding that Mr Vince had no real prospect of success given the outcome of the defamation claim.
The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned that decision. It held that the data protection claim was not an abuse of process and, more significantly, that the Charleston principle does not govern the assessment of fairness under data protection law. The Court concluded that Associated had failed to take appropriate care to avoid publishing misleading information and images, notwithstanding that the accompanying text corrected the misleading impression created by the headline and photographs.
A key feature of the Court's reasoning was the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, which requires publishers to "take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text". The Court considered this obligation to be highly relevant when assessing whether the processing of Mr Vince's personal data had been fair. Importantly, the decision should not be read as abolishing Charleston. The principle continues to apply in defamation claims and, according to existing High Court authority, also remains relevant to data protection claims based on inaccuracy rather than unfairness.
The practical implications could be significant. The judgment potentially creates a route for claimants whose defamation claims fail because of Charleston to pursue instead a claim for unfair processing of personal data. Unlike defamation claims, which generally carry a one-year limitation period, data protection claims may be brought within six years, potentially increasing publishers' long-term exposure to litigation.
How far the decision extends beyond the newspaper industry remains to be seen. The Court repeatedly emphasised the importance of the IPSO Editors' Code in assessing fairness, and organisations that are not subject to the Code may not necessarily be treated in the same way. Nevertheless, the judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to broadcasters, publishers and other media organisations that process personal data in an editorial context. It also serves as a reminder that defeating a defamation claim will not necessarily dispose of a parallel data protection claim.
BUSINESS AFFAIRS: Generative AI in TV production – why the first prompt matters
In 2025, Channel 4's Dispatches attracted widespread attention with its AI-generated presenter, Aisha Gaban, while digital actress and influencer Tilly Norwood reignited debate about AI's impact on performers.
In 2026, generative AI reached another milestone when San Francisco start-up Higgsfield AI showcased Hell Grind - a 95-minute fantasy feature created from a human-written script using generative video tools in just two weeks by a team of around 15 people, reportedly at a cost of approximately $500,000. Critical reaction was mixed, and concerns about the impact on creative jobs were inevitable. Even so, the project demonstrated just how rapidly the technology is advancing. For television producers, the legal implications begin long before the finished programme - they begin with the very first prompt.
For independent producers, generative AI is no longer simply an editorial or budgetary issue; it is increasingly a contractual one. Although individual broadcaster policies differ, the broad approach across the UK industry is remarkably consistent: generative AI should not be used without prior approval, transparency and appropriate safeguards. Where its use is authorised, responsibility for ensuring that AI-generated material does not infringe third-party rights will usually remain with the producer. In other words, even if a commissioner requires or approves the use of a particular AI tool, the producer is likely to bear the legal risk if something goes wrong.
Copyright presents the most immediate challenge. Many commercial generative AI models have been trained on vast datasets that are alleged to include copyright-protected material without licence - an issue currently being tested in courts around the world. Although the technology is designed to generate new material rather than copy existing works, poorly designed prompts or inappropriate reference material can increase the risk of outputs reproducing or closely imitating protected expression.
At the same time, many standard AI platform terms provide little or no meaningful intellectual property warranty and may require users to indemnify the provider against legal claims. Unless enterprise arrangements are in place, some platforms may also reserve broad rights to use prompts, uploads or outputs to improve future models - raising obvious concerns where confidential production material is involved.
The good news is that these risks can usually be managed with sensible planning and robust procedures. In particular, producers should:
Understand and comply with your commissioner's AI policy. Broadcasters increasingly distinguish between generative AI, which creates new content, and more conventional AI tools that assist with editing, transcription or workflow. Make sure you understand where the line is drawn and obtain approval wherever required.
Follow recognised industry guidance. Align your approach with respected frameworks such as PACT's AI guidance and ensure AI is used transparently, responsibly and ethically throughout production.
Choose AI suppliers carefully. Carry out appropriate due diligence before selecting AI platforms. Review contractual terms, assess the supplier's reputation, consider any ongoing litigation and, where possible, use enterprise products offering stronger contractual protections.
Take particular care when writing prompts and using reference material. Avoid prompting models to recreate identifiable films, television programmes, artworks or the distinctive style of individual creators. Use only reference materials that you are entitled to upload and understand how the platform may use them.
Maintain a clear audit trail. Keep chronological records of prompts, reference materials, outputs and the editorial decisions made throughout the production process.
Review your insurance position. Speak to your insurer at an early stage, understand the scope of your cover and ensure any required due diligence obligations are met.
Allocate risk appropriately. Where specialist AI suppliers are engaged, ensure contracts contain appropriate warranties, indemnities and insurance obligations rather than assuming legal responsibility will automatically sit elsewhere.
Train and control your team. Update staff and freelancer agreements to regulate the use of generative AI and ensure everyone understands both the broadcaster's requirements and the production company's internal policies.
Generative AI offers producers extraordinary opportunities to reduce costs, accelerate workflows and unlock new creative possibilities. But its legal risks are equally real. A carefully drafted prompt, sensible contractual protections and rigorous internal governance can make the difference between an innovative production tool and a costly legal dispute. As with so much in television production, success depends not simply on embracing new technology, but on using it wisely.
ABBAS Media Law advises producers, broadcasters and AI suppliers on the legal and contractual issues arising from the use of generative AI in television production. If you require legal advice or assistance with AI-related contracts, please get in touch.
Abbas Media Law is a boutique law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.