Interviews via email

[Ledrak]

Retraction of rights

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I have a magazine and I recently sent someone interview questions via email for a particular article. After the person in questions sent their responses back, they then decided they didn't want what they said to be published and contacted us saying that we were not to print their responses.

So my question is, do people have legal right to retract their statements and prevent us from publishing them once they have already been given in a situation like this?

 

[Hot Topic]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

I have a magazine and I recently sent someone interview questions via email for a particular article. After the person in questions sent their responses back, they then decided they didn't want what they said to be published and contacted us saying that we were not to print their responses.

So my question is, do people have legal right to retract their statements and prevent us from publishing them once they have already been given in a situation like this?

Of course. For a magazine publisher, you don't seem too know much about the business. You need to hire an attorney familiar with publishing rights and regulations.

 

[onthehouse]

Of course. For a magazine publisher, you don't seem too know much about the business. You need to hire an attorney familiar with publishing rights and regulations.

"Of course"? Please state a basis for your opinion. I am curious.

 

[quincy]

What is your magazine's policy on interviews and what sort of ground rules were set in place for this particular interview?

Do you know the reasons behind your interviewee's "change of mind" and is there a way you can work with or around these reasons to salvage the interview? Is the publication of this interview so vital to your magazine that you are willing to risk the potential for legal action (merited or unmerited) being taken over it?

The bottom line is that the person who was interviewed has the right to retract what s/he said in the interview and ask that the interview not be published - and you have the right to publish what you have and what you know, within the guidelines set by your magazine.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

The bottom line is that the person who was interviewed has the right to retract what s/he said in the interview and ask that the interview not be published - and you have the right to publish what you have and what you know, within the guidelines set by your magazine.

Since the responses were sent by email, wouldn't the writer still hold the copyright to the words? Or could sender have implicitly granted permission to use the words?

 

[quincy]

That is a good question.

Ledrak mentions a "retraction of rights" but it is unclear to me what rights he is talking about.

If there was a signed agreement between the magazine and the person who was interviewed, then the terms of that agreement would probably determine who is entitled to do what with the written words of the interview. But I would be surprised if there were such a written agreement. The answering of the questions in a reply email could, however, be looked at as an implied agreement between the interviewee and the magazine.

But, with or without a written or implied agreement, the magazine needs to consider whether using the interview and quoting the interviewee for the magazine, against the wishes of the interviewee, is important enough to risk a legal action.

 

[Hot Topic]

I also doubt that anything in writing was sought. The OP didn't know if the interviewee could prevent his statements from being published. Something drawn up by a good attorney should have made the question unnecessary.

Now the OP will have to decide whether or not to publish anyway and face a lawsuit.

 

[quincy]

In fairness to Ledrak, I am not sure that it is all that common to have an attorney draft an agreement between parties prior to interviews.

Generally a publication will advise the person being interviewed of the terms of the interview based on the policies of the particular publication doing the interview (ie, no opinions will be quoted, no unattributed statements of fact will be cited, no unidentified sources will be used).

It is really a matter of how important this interview is to the magazine and what lengths the magazine wants to go to to have the interview published. If the information provided in the interview can be obtained from a different source who is willing to be identified and quoted, that is certainly a safer route to take.

As a personal aside, I am not fond of the written question-and-answer interview format unless there is no alternative - there are too many ways the questions and responses can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. For the best interview, the interviewer should be able to make personal observations, make or ask for clarifications, ask follow-up questions. All information provided in an interview should be confirmed with the interviewee for accuracy prior to publication.

 

[Ledrak]

Ok, allow me to clarify some things. There was a signed written agreement the day the original interview was done (which took place in combination with a photo shoot). That agreement clearly states that we have the right to use any quotations, interviews, or biographical material attributed to the person.

What happened was we weren't happy with the original interview we had, so we sent additional questions weeks after the original production. It was made clear that the questions were to be used for the magazine. The person answered the questions, and then a day later contacted us saying that we were not to publish the responses they gave us.

Since the follow up was done by email, and there was no "new" signed agreement, I'm wondering how that affects things. Is simply mentioning in the email something to the effect of "this information will be used for the magazine" enough to grant me the rights to use that persons statements, or do I need more than that?

 

[quincy]

Again, Ledrak, it is not so much whether you can use the interview answers but whether you should use the interview answers. And this will depend on your magazine's policy.

It is my stand that you should not quote anyone who, prior to providing information, has asked not to be quoted, and then you should only use the information that has been provided if it is a matter of public record, is widely known already, is available from several sources, or it is information you know from your own experience.

If the magazine's ground rules for the interview were that anything said by the interviewee could be used by the magazine in its publication, and the magazine has a signed agreement with the interviewee stating as much, then the magazine is probably on safe legal ground if it chooses to use the answers that were provided in response to the emailed questions (although you might want an attorney to personally review the agreement and any emailed communications to be sure of this).

Even so, there are risks to publishing interview material when the interviewee has requested the interview answers not be used. Whether the interview publication (using both the spoken responses and the written responses) will lead to any action against the magazine is a question mark - it could depend on how the resulting article is written or on how litigious the interviewee happens to be.

Speak with an attorney in your area for a personal review of the matter if you are unsure whether to take this risk.

Good luck.