Alternative to 'Without Prejudice'?

another question

I am writing a letter, the contents of which are irrelevant, it's nothing serious. I just want to know if there is something like 'Without Prejudice' that I can state on it to prevent any of it being published publicly.

I understand that 'without prejudice' generally means that the contents within are non admissible in a court but I am looking for something that will mean that the contents cannot be published, apart from copyright etc.

Peregrinus

"Confidential" should do the trick. But this is more likely to be respected by the recipient of the letter if there is, in fact, some basis for claiming that the contents are confidential.

Benbulnen64

Without Prejudice wouldn't be the caveat to use in these circumstances as it relates to civil law actions.

Maybe use a brief adapted version of the non reproduction caveat found on the publication page of any book, e.g.,

No reproduction, copy or transmission of the foregoing may be made without written permission...

Peregrinus

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Without Prejudice wouldn't be the caveat to use in these circumstances as it relates to civil law actions.

Maybe use a brief adapted version of the non reproduction caveat found on the publication page of any book, e.g.,

No reproduction, copy or transmission of the foregoing may be made without written permission...

That wouldn't really cover it, since it would leave open the possibility that the recipient of the letter could, without breaching this restriction, simply show the letter to another person, or for that matter have it laminated and pinned to his gatepost for the world to see. Making copies is not the issue here, which is why the OP rightly sees that copyright is no help to him.

If a simple "confidential" isn't going to cover it, then you could expand it to something like "the contents of this letter are confidential, and may not be disclosed to any person other than the recipient".

Of course, the recipient may argue that he has a right to disclose the contents to others - e.g. to his solicitor, to obtain legal advice, or to the guards, if the contents contain an admission of a crime. You can't unilaterally impose a confidentiality obligation effective in 100% of circumstances simply by telling someone that information is confidential. The extent of the obligation imposed upon him will depend on what the information is, why it is being disclosed to him, and what is the basis for the claim of confidentiality. But you do undoubtedly strengthen your position by making an explicit claim of confidentiality first thing. (And you would strengthen it further if you got him to agree to treat the information as confidential as a condition of your disclosing it to him.)

Benbulnen64

Peregrinus

If you read the post again, I think you will find that s/he says that s/he wants a proscription on it being published APART from copyright, which is ambiguous. More information needs to be provided as to what precise protections are being sought and in what circumstances...

Peregrinus

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

Peregrinus

If you read the post again, I think you will find that s/he says that s/he wants a proscription on it being published APART from copyright, which is ambiguous. More information needs to be provided as to what precise protections are being sought and in what circumstances...

I understood the OP to mean that they wanted something, other than a claim of copyright, which would prevent the contents of the letter from being disseminated.

A claim of copyright may hamper the dissemination of the contents of the letter, since (if successful) it prevents copies being made, but it won't prevent it entirely, since you can disseminate its contents in ways that don't involve making copies. Hence the need for something more than a claim of copyright.

What you suggest, extended lanaguage saying, basically, that no copies can be made is a claim of copyright (copyright being, unsurprisingly, the right to make copies). The OP is looking for something apart from that. At least, that's how I read it.

Benbulnen64

How YOU read it. Yes, as I said, it is ambiguous. So how about we wait and see if the poster provides more information, rather than you attempting ( futilely) to persuade me that I'm incorrect when the question posed requires more clarity...

Peregrinus

I'm not sure how you understand the OP? Can you set out what you think he is asking?

Benbulnen64

Can you maybe be less pedantic and more patient and give him/her a chance to clarify the question posed?

It is not about what I think ( or what you do) it is about answering the actual question, which currently is ambiguous.

Peregrinus

But I'm not seeing any ambiguity. I'm obviously missing something that you're seeing. I'm hoping you can point it out to me.

ResearchWill

It seems obvious to me that the OP wants to write a letter and does not want the person he writes to divulge the letter or its contents to anyone.

Well only safe way is not to write the letter. If there is a contractural relationship between the parties then maybe a statement in the letter to the effect its private non disclosure etc. or the OP could write a letter asking the person to sign a NDA and then send the real letter.

But in reality while certain relationships have a high espectatuon of privacy, client to lawyer for example most normal communications while having an expectation of privacy it would be very hard to enforce.

IRLConor

Peregrinus wrote: »

If a simple "confidential" isn't going to cover it, then you could expand it to something like "the contents of this letter are confidential, and may not be disclosed to any person other than the recipient".

Out of curiosity, what would happen if the recipient ignored this and divulged the contents to someone else? Is there anything the OP could do? My gut feeling (as someone who's not legally trained in any way) is that the recipient hasn't done anything wrong. Is there a specific law that states "if someone gives you information in confidence you're required to keep it secret except [exceptions] or else [punishments]"? Or is it more subtle than that?

To take a very hypothetical scenario and to bring it away from the OP's situation for a minute, imagine if Mr A sends a letter to Mr B saying "Don't tell anyone, but I cheated on my wife". Mr B then goes to Facebook and posts "A cheated on his wife" to all and sundry. There's no breach of copyright there that I could see (derivative work? sounds like a stretch) and no defamation (at least B has a pretty good defence if he keeps the message from A). Is it safe for B to do so? What kind of risk is he exposing himself to?

Benbulnen64

Like the wacky hypothetical...

another question

WOW! A lot has been said since I was last here. Thanks for your interest and comments everyone.

'Confidential' was what I went with in the end as it was the only solution available to me yesterday before I sent the letter. The basics of the letter didn't hold any legally damaging information or information that would require one to seek any legal advice. I was more afraid of the letter being published as 'an example of a persons life in the recession' similar to those printed daily in The Irish Times, current life stories if you will. I was outlining my current situation to a CEO hoping that he would change his mind on a deadline date that I had missed for an application and in doing so had included examples of my current poor job etc. If for any reason I was 'on quote' as saying my job was 'a dead-end job' as I did so in the letter and my boss were to find out, I wouldn't have it for much longer.

I was just a little paranoid before I actually committed to sending it and didn't want it to be printed anywhere. The likely-hood of which is more or less non-exist as after spending nearly 2 hours writing it in the first place, I received an automated response by email this morning.

Feel free to argue it out though because I would be interested to see what in fact would actually be the correct term to use in the future for the above situation.

Thanks again.

Benbulnen64

AQ, all the best with your application extension request...

234

IRLConor wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would happen if the recipient ignored this and divulged the contents to someone else? Is there anything the OP could do? My gut feeling (as someone who's not legally trained in any way) is that the recipient hasn't done anything wrong. Is there a specific law that states "if someone gives you information in confidence you're required to keep it secret except [exceptions] or else [punishments]"? Or is it more subtle than that?

To take a very hypothetical scenario and to bring it away from the OP's situation for a minute, imagine if Mr A sends a letter to Mr B saying "Don't tell anyone, but I cheated on my wife". Mr B then goes to Facebook and posts "A cheated on his wife" to all and sundry. There's no breach of copyright there that I could see (derivative work? sounds like a stretch) and no defamation (at least B has a pretty good defence if he keeps the message from A). Is it safe for B to do so? What kind of risk is he exposing himself to?

It's called breach of confidence and it's actionable in Ireland. That said it really has to involve some exploitation of the information for profit or an attack on a public interest.