The second test examines the time that has elapsed from publication to publication. The longer time elapses, between one publication and the next, the tendency will be to see each of these publications as a separate publication regarding the statutory track, and vice versa. This test assumes that when a certain publication is removed from the abyss of oblivion, and even if its content is identical to the publication that preceded it, the damage is re-consolidated in the injured party, if only because he is forced to undergo another series of damages, after the previous publication has been pushed out of consciousness to a certain extent. To this must be added the built-in assumption that the passage of time between publications may expose the current publications to new recipients who were not previously exposed to the previous publications.
From here to the third test, which examines the identity of the recipients, in relation to each of the publications. As part of this test, the 'stage' on which the publications were made will be examined. When it comes to social networks, for example, it is necessary to examine which page or forum each of the publications was published on, and which parties were exposed to them. To the extent that it is possible to prove the existence of a difference between the identity of the recipients, from publication to publication, the tendency will be to view each of the publications as a separate publication regarding the statutory track, and vice versa. (Civil Appeal Authority 2855/20 Anonymous v. Anonymous [published in Nevo] 6.10.22, paragraphs 80-82 in the judgment of Judge Noam Sohlberg)
The application of these tests enables the classification of many publications made in the case of an injured person. If for the purpose of awarding compensation without proof of damage, they can be viewed as a single tract or perhaps as many publications.
- In the present case, there is no doubt that the defendant acted to distribute the book in a variety of publications, and there is no doubt that many were exposed to the book, but this is not sufficient to determine that each publication or any disclosure constitutes separate defamation. Ultimately, all of the defendant's relevant publications relate to the book that began his writing, and in the framework of which the plaintiff also relates. Any such publication necessarily deals with the book, but not with the same character, "The Villain", and therefore not with the plaintiff either.
In this sense, all of the defendant's publications are similar to each other. All of them express an attempt to arouse interest in the book that is taking shape. A book of which the plaintiff's interest, as determined, constitutes a pillar of it, but not the focus of the publications.