DOCSLIB.ORG

November 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
November 2017 Third meeting of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments – November 2017 Preliminary Document ☒ Document Procedural Document ☐ No 8 of November 2017 Information Document ☐ Note on the possible exclusion of privacy matters from the Convention as reflected in Title Article 2(1)(k) of the February 2017 draft Convention Author Cara North, with the assistance of the Permanent Bureau Agenda item Mandate(s) To facilitate discussions on the possible exclusion of privacy matters from the scope of the Objective Convention as reflected in Article 2(1)(k) of the February 2017 draft Convention For Approval ☐ Action to be taken For Decision ☐ For Information ☒ Annexes Annex: The concept of “privacy” – some points of comparison Related documents Churchillplein 6b, 2517 JW The Hague - La Haye | The Netherlands - Pays-Bas +31 (70) 363 3303 +31 (70) 360 4867 | [email protected] | www.hcch.net Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (ROAP) - Bureau régional pour l’Asie et le Pacifique (BRAP) S.A.R. of Hong Kong - R.A.S. de Hong Kong | People's Republic of China – République populaire de Chine | +852 2858 9912 Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC) - Bureau régional pour l’Amérique latine et les Caraïbes (BRALC) Buenos Aires | Argentina – Argentine | +54 (11) 4371 1809 2 I. Introduction1 1. During the second meeting of the Special Commission on the Judgments Project in February 2017, a proposal was made to exclude privacy matters from the scope of the future Convention by adding the words “and privacy” to Article 2(1)(k) of the February 2017 draft Convention, which presently excludes defamation from its scope.2 2. The proponents of the proposal explained that there is a distinction between the violation of privacy rights and defamation; the former relates to the dissemination of truthful information, whereas the latter concerns the dissemination of some falsehood.3 The rationale for this proposal was to avoid controversial questions related to balancing an individuals’ right to privacy with the public interest.4 It was emphasised that it would be desirable to broaden the category of excluded matters beyond that of defamation. 3. Some delegations, including the proponents, raised concerns about the broad definition of the term “privacy”, and whether it would be desirable to extend the non-application of the Convention to a subject matter that may be regarded as undefined and uncertain.5 It was suggested that if privacy matters were to be excluded from the Convention, boundaries would need to be included in the Explanatory Report to the Convention to inform the scope of that exclusion.6 Having discussed the proposal, the Special Commission decided to proceed on the basis that the words “and privacy” should be added in square brackets to Article 2(1)(k), reflecting the need for further discussion at the November 2017 meeting of the Special Commission. 7 4. This note is intended to facilitate that discussion by: (i) identifying challenges in defining the concept of privacy; (ii) identifying a number of categories of cases which could fall within the definition of privacy in order to gauge the parameters of privacy claims; and (iii) providing some suggested options for further discussion with a view to providing greater clarity about the scope of any intended “privacy” exclusion. 5. Finally, to inform the discussion at the November 2017 meeting of the Special Commission, a brief and basic overview of the concept of “privacy” as it is defined and applied in a select number of jurisdictions, namely Brazil, Canada, the People’s Republic of China, the EU, Israel and the United States of America has been included as Annex. 6. At the outset, it should be noted that this paper is intended to distil some points for further discussion and reflection, to assist in focusing the further discussion on the possible exclusion of privacy matters at the November 2017 Special Commission. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive global overview of the voluminous material and literature available on this complex and rapidly developing area of law. 1 This Note was kindly prepared by Cara North, Associate at Lipman Karas LLP and Consultant to the Hague Conference on Private International Law, with the assistance of the Permanent Bureau. 2 This proposal came from the European Union (“EU”) delegation. See Work. Doc. No 100 of February 2017 “Proposal of the delegation of the European Union” (Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (16-24 February 2017)) (hereinafter, “Work. Doc. No 100 from the EU”). Originally, the EU proposed an exclusion for “non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation” from scope. The EU delegation noted that only excluding defamation from the scope would mean that certain countries would not be able to balance the freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The wording of the proposal was then reformulated to “defamation and privacy”. See Minutes of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (16-24 February 2017) (hereinafter, “Minutes of the February 2017 SC”), Minutes No 2 of the February 2017 SC, para. 52 and Minutes No 9 of the February 2017 SC, para. 7. 3 Minutes No 9 of the February 2017 SC, para. 9. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., paras 12-23. 6 Ibid., para. 13. See also, Minutes No 2 of the February 2017 SC, para. 64. 7 Minutes No 9 of the February 2017 SC, para. 23. See also, Aide memoire of the Chair of the Special Commission of February 2017, para. 14. 3 II. Challenges in defining privacy 7. That defining privacy is a notoriously difficult task has been widely and readily noted by academics, judges and government law reform commissions around the world.8 One obvious difficulty in defining the concept of privacy at a global level is that what is considered “private”, or what should be kept private, differs between jurisdictions and is constantly evolving. In many jurisdictions, the concept of a right to privacy is considered a fundamental right and is often seen as a basic human right reflected in a country’s constitutional framework. 9 It is therefore often heavily influenced by historical, cultural and political values. While in others, the right is largely protected by tort or other existing causes of action,10 if at all. 8. An added complication is that the right to privacy is not generally considered absolute, and in many jurisdictions it is balanced against, and only guaranteed to the extent that it is not prevailed over by, countervailing rights and interests.11 Such interests include public interest (e.g., state security, public safety and public order), freedom of expression or other conflicting rights held by others.12 For that reason, most jurisdictions have deliberately sought not to define clearly and exhaustively the concept of privacy; rather, they have encapsulated that right in broad terms so as to allow the law to evolve over time.13 This is further illustrated by the lack of definition of the exclusion from scope of “privacy” from the Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (the “Rome II Regulation”).14 The Explanatory Memorandum to the Commission Proposal for the Rome II Regulation does not provide an explanation of what is meant by “privacy” under the Rome II Regulation.15 9. A further difficulty in deriving a workable definition of privacy is the rapid rate at which 8 To list just a few examples: R. Gellman, “Does Privacy Law Work?” in P. E. Agre and M. Rotenberg (eds.), Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press, 1998, p. 193 who said: “Lawyers, judges, philosophers, and scholars have attempted to define the scope and meaning of privacy, and it would be unfair to suggest that they have failed. It would be kinder to say that they have all produced different answers.” In Australia, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission cautioned in its May 2007 Consultation Paper 1, Invasion of Privacy, at para. 6.8 that: “If a broad statutory cause of action along the lines of European models were to be introduced in New South Wales, the primary obstacle would be the lack of certainty that it would generate. Legislation providing only for a bald statement of the ability to bring an action for invasion of privacy or private life would make it extremely difficult to know when, and how, conduct would give rise to liability. The difficulty would be pronounced particularly if, as is likely, no satisfactory definition of privacy could be found for inclusion in legislation.” See also, J. McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy, 2nd ed., 2005, para. 5.59; D.J. Solove, “A Taxonomy of Privacy”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 154 (3) 2006, at p. 479. 9 As illustrated in the recent landmark unanimous ruling of the Indian Supreme Court recognising a right to privacy in India as forming part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in the country’s constitution. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012, para. 134. See also, M. Abrams, “Privacy, Security and Economic Growth in an Emerging Digital Economy”, Paper presented at Privacy Symposium, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 7 June 2006, p. 18, in which Abrams provides: “Privacy law is culturally based. Privacy is considered a fundamental human right in Europe, highly regarded with pragmatic interest in the United States, and is only beginning to emerge as a topic in Asia.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Personality Rights in Australia1
    SWIMMERS, SURFERS, AND SUE SMITH PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA1 Therese Catanzariti2 It is somewhat of a misnomer to talk about personality rights in Australia. First, personality rights are not “rights” in the sense of positive rights, a right to do something, or in the sense of proprietary rights, property that can be assigned or mortgaged. Second, personality rights are largely a US law concept, derived from US state law relating to the “right of publicity”. However, it is common commercial practice that Australian performers, actors and sportstars enter endorsement or sponsorship agreements.3 In addition, the Australian Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance, the Australian actors union, insists that the film and television industrial agreements and awards don’t cover merchandising and insist film and television producers enter individual agreements if they want to use an actor’s image in merchandising.4 This paper considers Australian law5 relating to defamation, passing off, and section 52 of the Trade Practices Act,6 draws parallels with US law relating to the right of publicity, and considers whether there is a developing Australian jurisprudence of “personality rights”. Protecting Personality Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects privacy. But protecting privacy is not the focus and is an unintended incidental. Protecting personality rights protects investment, and has more in common with unfair competition than privacy. Acknowledging and protecting personality rights protects investment in creating and maintaining a carefully manicured public image, an investment of time labour, skill and cash. This includes spin doctors and personal trainers and make-up artists and plastic surgeons and making sure some stories never get into the press.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Publicity: the Two Facets of Personality Rights
    Privacy and publicity Privacy and publicity: the two facets of personality rights hyperbole. In this context, personality In this age of endorsements and rights encompass the “right of privacy”, tabloid gossip, famous people which prohibits undue interference in need to protect their rights and a person’s private life. In addition to coverage in the media, reputations. With a growing number images of celebrities adorn anything from of reported personality rights cases, t-shirts, watches and bags to coffee mugs. India must move to develop its This is because once a person becomes legal framework governing the famous, the goods and services that he or commercial exploitation of celebrity she chooses to endorse are perceived to reflect his or her own personal values. By Bisman Kaur and Gunjan Chauhan, A loyal fan base is a captive market for Remfry & Sagar such goods, thereby allowing celebrities to cash in on their efforts in building up Introduction a popular persona. Intellectual property in India is no longer Unfortunately, a large fan base is a niche field of law. Stories detailing also seen by unscrupulous people as an trademark infringement and discussing opportunity to bring out products or the grant of geographical indications services that imply endorsement by an routinely make their way into the daily individual, when in fact there is no such news headlines. From conventional association. In such cases the individual’s categories of protection such as patents, “right of publicity” is called into play. trademarks, designs and copyright, IP laws The right of publicity extends to every have been developed, often by judicial individual, not just those who are famous, innovation, to encompass new roles and but as a practical matter its application areas of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives
    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives Giorgio Resta* I. TORT LAW AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO PERSONALITY RIGHTS ........................................................................ 33 II. NEW DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PROTECTION IN PRIVATE LAW .................................................................................................... 37 A. From ‘Reactive’ to ‘Preventive’ Strategies ........................ 38 B. The Emergence of the Human Body as a Legal Object ................................................................................. 40 C. The Commercialization of Personality ............................... 41 III. WHO OWNS IDENTITY? ...................................................................... 43 IV. THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE ................................................................. 46 V. THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY: A MATTER OF PRIVACY OR PROPERTY? .................................................................... 48 A. Incorporeal Attributes and the Dominance of Property Rules .................................................................... 48 B. Body Parts and Liability Rules ........................................... 51 VI. LICENSING IDENTITY? ........................................................................ 54 A. The Human Body and the Gift Paradigm ........................... 54 B. Commercial Exploitation of Personality and the Limits of Freedom of Contract ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Image Is Everything Lowenstein Sandler’S Matthew Savare Gives a Comparative Examination of Publicity Rights in the US and Western Europe
    Publicity rights Image is everything Lowenstein Sandler’s Matthew Savare gives a comparative examination of publicity rights in the US and western Europe Comedian Steven Wright once joked, “It’s a small world, but I the person’s identity has “commercial value” versus only 10 years for wouldn’t want to paint it”. Over the last decade, the proliferation those whose identity does not. of digital technologies has not made the world smaller or easier to • Remedies – the remedies available to plaintiffs also vary from state paint, but it has significantly hastened the globalisation of content. This to state. For example, New York’s statute provides for injunctions, transformation, coupled with the developed world’s insatiable fascination compensatory damages, and discretionary punitive damages. Ohio’s with fame, has spurred the hyper commoditisation of celebrity. statute, which offers the most remedies of any state statute, permits Despite the universality of celebrity, the laws governing the injunctions; a choice of either actual damages, “including any commercial exploitation of one’s name, image, and likeness differ profits derived from and attributable to the unauthorised use of an widely between the US and the nations of western Europe. In light individual’s persona for a commercial purpose” or statutory damages of the increased trafficking in celebrity personas between the two between $2,500 and $10,000; punitive damages; treble damages continents, a brief comparative analysis is warranted. if the defendant has “knowledge of the unauthorised use of the persona”; and attorney’s fees. A primer on US right of publicity law Courts have used primarily three methodologies or some The right of publicity is the “inherent right of every human being to combination thereof to value compensatory damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment
    Protecting Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment' has explicitly been held to protect personal privacy2 since at least the mid-nineteenth century.3 Experts in many fields, including law, psychology, philosophy and sociology, believe that privacy is vitally important to all human beings,' and the Supreme Court has 1. The Fourth Amendment provides that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the states must comply with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). 2. As a constitutional concept, privacy is an elusive yet fundamental value. Although the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to privacy based upon provisions of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments and their respective "penumbras." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484-85 (1965); cf Beaney, The ConstitutionalRight to Privacy in the Supreme Court, 1962 SUP. CT. REV. 212, 215 ("The nearest thing to an explicit recognition of a right to privacy in the Constitution is contained in the Fourth Amendment".) This right to privacy is a "fundamental personal right, emanting 'from the totality of the constitutional scheme.' " Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 494 (1965) (Goldberg, J., con- curring) (quoting Poe v.
    [Show full text]
  • Much Ado About Newsgathering: Personal Privacy, Law Enforcement, and the Law of Unintended Consequences for Anti-Paparazzi Legislation
    MUCH ADO ABOUT NEWSGATHERING: PERSONAL PRIVACY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR ANTI-PAPARAZZI LEGISLATION ANDREW D. MORTONt Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dan- gers to liberty lurk in insidiousI encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. INTRODUCTION: BALANCING THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY WITH LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT SURVEILLANCE Horror, not humor, brought actors Michael J. Fox and Paul Reiser to testify before a hearing of the United States House Judiciary Committee last summer.2 Fox described the "mercenary tactics of tabloid photographers" who turned his wedding into a "nightmare" as helicopters recklessly jock- eyed for position above the ceremony, then "fired away with high-powered cameras" on the couple's honeymoon suite.3 When Reiser's son was born prematurely, disguised journalists infiltrated the hospital with hidden cam- eras to steal a photo of the infant, and after returning home, the child was photographed in the privacy of the family's backyard by "resourceful" jour- t B.A. 1991, M.P.P. Candidate 2000, University of Maryland; J.D. Candidate 2000, Uni- versity of Pennsylvania. This Comment is dedicated to the memory of Alan Rubinstein- gifted attorney, and the father-in-law I have known only through the many whose lives he touched. I am deeply indebted to Ed Pease, Diana Schacht, the staff and members of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017)
    Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017) Privacy in the Employment Relationship by Thomas H. Wilson, Vinson & Elkins LLP and Corey Devine with Practical Law Labor & Employment Maintained • USA (National/Federal) This Practice Note provides an overview of privacy issues in employment, which may arise in various contexts, such as background checks, drug testing, email and other electronic surveillance and tracking by GPS. Invasion of privacy claims are highly fact-intensive and largely dependent on state law. This Note contains information that is general and not jurisdiction-specific. Contents Overview of Privacy Laws Background Checks Background Checks Conducted Internally by the Employer Background Checks Conducted Externally by a Third Party Employment Testing of Applicants or Employees Drug Testing Polygraph Tests HIV or AIDS Tests Medical and Physical Examinations Other Types of Testing Employee Personnel Records Employee Medical Records Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information Employee Electronic Communications Monitoring of Emails and Internet Usage Requiring Disclosure of Electronic Account Access Information Monitoring of Telephone Calls Video Surveillance of Employee Behavior on the Job Searching Employee Surroundings on the Job No Expectation of Privacy in Common Areas Employer Limits © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Privacy in the Employment Relationship, Practical Law Practice Note 6-517-3422 (2017) Employees' Lawful, Off-Duty Activities Tracking Employee Movements by GPS Privacy Concerns Consent and Notice Other Considerations Monitoring and Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act Information about Employees Relevant to Health and Safety This Note provides a general overview of the key legal principles involved in employee privacy in the private employment context.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRUSIVE MONITORING: EMPLOYEE PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE REASONABLE in EUROPE, DESTROYED in the UNITED STATES Lothar Determannt & Robert Spragueu
    INTRUSIVE MONITORING: EMPLOYEE PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS ARE REASONABLE IN EUROPE, DESTROYED IN THE UNITED STATES Lothar Determannt & Robert SpragueU TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................. ...................... 980 II. EMPLOYER MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY-U.S. PERSPECTIVE ............................ 981 A. WORK-RELATED EMPLOYER MONITORING........................................981 B. WORK-RELATED EMPLOYEE PRIVACY ................ ....... 986 1. Work-Related Rights to Privag Under the Constitution.....................986 2. Work-Related Rights to Privag Under the Common Law..................990 3. Statutog Rjghts to Privag................................. 993 a) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act ............... 995 C. INTRUSIVE WORKPLACE MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY................................................ 1001 1. Employer Access to PersonalWeb-Based Applications..................... 1007 2. Webcams ...................................... 1009 3. GPS ..................................... 1012 D. WORKPLACE PRIVACY TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES............... 1016 III. EMPLOYER MONITORING AND EMPLOYEE PRIVACY-EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE .. ................... 1018 A. LAWS IN EUROPE-OVERVIEW ................ ............. 1019 B. CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR PRIVACY AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL............................. .......... 1019 ( 2011 Lothar Determann & Robert Sprague. t Dr. iur habil, Privatdozent, Freie Universitat Berlin; Adjunct Professor, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Hastings College
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected]
    Mr. Bruno Gencarelli Head of Unit for International Data Flows and Protection European Commission [email protected] 26 July 2019 Re: Access Now Responds to Privacy Shield Review Questionnaire - Third review Dear Mr. Gencarelli, Thank you for your invitation to provide information and observations on the European Commission’s third annual review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield arrangement, the mechanism to facilitate the transfer and processing of the personal data of individuals from the European Union to and within the United States. Access Now is an international organisation that defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk around the world.1 By combining innovative policy, user engagement, and direct technical support, we fight for open and secure communications for all. Access Now maintains a presence in 13 locations around the world, including in the policy centers of Washington, DC and Brussels.2 Access Now regularly analyzes data transfer arrangements under EU law, including the Safe Harbor arrangement that was invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, and the Privacy Shield which replaced it.3 Users benefit from a free, open, and secure internet that is enabled by legal certainty for stakeholders to operate. Robust data transfer frameworks which ensure a high level of data protection in the free flow of data are key to deliver these benefits for all actors. The Privacy Shield continues to be inadequate to protect fundamental rights. Since negotiations began in 2016, Access Now has provided detailed analysis and recommendations to the EU Commission on how to improve the Privacy Shield.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrity in Cyberspace: a Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes
    Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes Jacqueline D. Lipton* Abstract When the Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts fought for control of the <juliaroberts.com> domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the <name.com> space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law. Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. This Article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity * Professor, Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, Associate Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author would particularly like to thank Professor Mark Janis whose comments on a previous paper proved to be the inspiration for this one. The author would also like to thank Professor Diane Zimmerman, Professor Mark Lemley, Professor Cynthia Ho, Professor Mark McKenna, Professor Brett Frischmann, Professor Lawrence Solum, Professor Amitai Aviram, Professor Ann Bartow, Professor Paul Heald, Professor Ilhyung Lee, and Professor B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right of Publicity in the United Kingdom
    Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 18 Number 3 Symposium: International Rights of Article 7 Publicity 3-1-1998 The Right of Publicity in the United Kingdom Hayley Stallard Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hayley Stallard, The Right of Publicity in the United Kingdom, 18 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 565 (1998). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol18/iss3/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Hayley Stallard I. INTRODUCTION This Article discuses the limited scope of the right of publicity as it exists in the United Kingdom.' Unlike in the United States, the law of the United Kingdom ("U.K.") does not recognize a right of publicity or even a distinct right to protect a person's image or likeness from unauthorized use. Despite the common practice of merchandising and endorsement within the United Kingdom, there is no easy or straightforward way under U.K. law to protect a personality from unauthorized commercial exploitation. As in many other countries, however, a person can find a limited amount of protection from other bodies of U.K. law, including various intellectual property laws and personal and business torts.
    [Show full text]
  • Photographers' Guide to Privacy
    Photographers’ Guide to Privacy What every cameraman, photographer and videographer should know about invasion of privacy standards in the 50 states and D.C. Fall 2007 A primer on invasion of privacy The question of when the coverage and agrees that a news organization has omitted by reporting a misuse of taxpayer money. reporting of news becomes an invasion or played down facts that put a truthful state- (Harris v. City of Seattle, 152 Fed.Appx. 565 of privacy is a difficult one, especially for ment in its proper context. In 2003, a Florida (9th Cir. 2005)) photographers and videographers. jury awarded $18 million to Joe Anderson, The invasion of another’s privacy is a Reporting news stories in a way that the owner of a road-paving company who “tort,” meaning a civil wrong against another serves and informs the public will often entail sued over a Pensacola News Journal article that results in injury. publicizing facts or displaying images that that truthfully reported he had shot and A privacy tort occurs when a person or will embarrass or anger someone. killed his wife. However, the fact that an entity breaches the duty to leave another To make privacy matters even more diffi- investigation determined that the death was person alone. When journalists intrude on cult for journalists, courts constantly redefine a hunting accident was not mentioned until a person’s privacy and cause emotional or what is private based upon interpretations two sentences later, which Anderson said cre- monetary injury, they may be forced to pay of the elusive legal standard of a “reasonable ated a false impression that he murdered his damages.
    [Show full text]