DOCSLIB.ORG

A Problem on the Rise with the Explosive Growth of Internet-Based Services, Misappropriation of Identity Or Personality Cases May Become Even More Common in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Problem on the Rise with the Explosive Growth of Internet-Based Services, Misappropriation of Identity Or Personality Cases May Become Even More Common in Canada COUNTRY CORRESPONDENT CO-PUBLISHED EDITORIAL Canada Bereskin & Parr LLP A problem on the rise With the explosive growth of internet-based services, misappropriation of identity or personality cases may become even more common in Canada Personality rights in Canada stem from defendant’s summer camp promotional such as jazz pianist Glenn Gould. The court an individual’s publicity rights – which brochure could have impaired Athans’ in Horton similarly found that a painting are proprietary in nature – and from exclusive right to market his personality of the hockey player created for a charity the right to privacy, a personal interest. through endorsements. drive was in the public interest, with any They are protected by common law and Courts have suggested that personality commercial purpose being incidental. statute. Common law torts may be used rights survive death. Gould Estate v Stoddart Although most successful to protect personality (outside Quebec): Publishing Co ((1996), 74 CPR (3d) 206 (Ont misappropriation of personality cases misappropriation of personality and Ct (Gen Div)), aff’d (1998), 80 CPR (3d) 161 relate to famous individuals, fame is not a passing off. (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused prerequisite. A 2012 Alberta court held that The tort of misappropriation of (1999), 236 NR 396 (note) (SCC)) contained ordinary professionals can seek protection personality recognises an individual’s an aside that since publicity rights are akin under this tort: “A professional’s name and proprietary right to commercially exploit to intangible property, like copyright, they reputation is entitled to be protected from his or her own name, image, voice and should be a descendible asset. The Gould unauthorized commercial exploitation other components of personality that are court did not set a term of protection after every bit as much as a celebrity’s name associated with or identify him or her death, but suggested something similar and likeness” (Hay v Platimun Equities (Joseph v Daniels (1986), 11 CPR (3d) 544 to copyright (ie, life of the person, plus 50 Inc, (2012 ABQB 204 at para 73)). The case (BCSC) at 549; Krouse v Chrysler Canada years). A 2004 Nova Scotia court similarly involved a defendant company which Ltd (1973), 13 CPR (2d) 28 (Ont CA) at 44; held that “property rights may attach to forged a chartered accountant’s signature Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps the goodwill generated by a celebrity’s on loan documents to secure financing. Ltd (1977), 34 CPR (2d) 126 (Ont HCJ) at personality and that goodwill will survive There is no set formula for establishing 136). Central to this tort is whether some that person’s death” (Hapi Feet Promotions damages. Actual damages may be granted component(s) of the claimant’s personality Inc v Martin (2004 NSSC 254)). where the misappropriation relates to an have been used by the defendant and Permission to use one’s personality may endorsement and are calculated according whether this use took place without be explicit or implicit. The court in Horton to the amount that the plaintiff would permission and for the defendant’s v Tim Donut Ltd ((1997), 75 CPR (3d) 451 reasonably have received commercially commercial gain. The defendant’s intent is at 459–60 (Ont Ct (Gen Div))) held that a for permission (Athans at 140 (C$500); relevant, but not determinative. deceased famous hockey player implicitly Hays (C$18,000)), taking into account any This tort in Canada was first discussed assigned his publicity rights to Tim Donut corresponding benefit that he or she may in Krouse and endorsed five years later Ltd during his lifetime by allowing it to have obtained from the misappropriation in Athans. Both cases involved sports use his personality in the development of (Racine v CJRC Radio Capital Ltée (1977), 17 figures whose likenesses were used on a business, in which Horton was a partner. OR (2d) 370 (Ottawa Co Ct)). Plaintiffs may promotional materials distributed by the Further, the court found that Tim Donut be granted nominal damages where no defendants. In Krouse the court found could also own trademark registrations for actual losses were suffered, although one no misappropriation. The photograph in Horton’s name. Permission may also be court denied even nominal damages where question showed only Krouse’s back and implicitly revoked – for example, following other claims had already provided sufficient jersey number amid a crowd of players. termination of an employment contract. compensation (Trout Point Lodge Ltd v He himself was not identifiable and the The commercial nature of the Handshoe (2014 NSSC 62 at paras 29–32)). use could not be seen to endorse the unauthorised use is key. Courts distinguish Courts have also granted injunctions defendant’s automobiles. between ‘sales’ and ‘subject’ use of based on the “loss of control over whom or However, misappropriation was found personality in a new public interest work. what [the plaintiff’s] image is associated in Athans, since a line drawing used of This protects the balance between an with”, which can cause irreparable harm Athans, a professional water-skier, in his individual’s right to commercially exploit (Salé v Barr, 2003 ABQB 431 at para 14). signature pose identified him. The court his or her personality and the public’s right In Salé the court granted an interlocutory found that the use of the drawing in the to learn more about a famous individual, injunction to stop a photographer who 84 | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2015 www.WorldTrademarkReview.com took unauthorised photographs of a Jill Tonus Tamara Céline Winegust famous Canadian Olympic skating duo Counsel Associate from selling posters with those images. The court indicated that injunctions may [email protected] [email protected] be more appropriate than damages in Jill Tonus is counsel at Bereskin & Parr Tamara Céline Winegust is an associate misappropriation cases, since “the Court LLP and head of the new media/copyright at Bereskin & Parr LLP and a member cannot put a price on one’s reputation” practice group. Her practice focuses of the trademark practice group. Her (Salé at para 12). on copyright and trademark matters, practice focuses on trademarks, new The tort of passing off – and its including trademark and copyright media/copyright, licensing, marketing and statutory counterpart at Section 7(b) of registration, trademark oppositions, advertising law, in addition to litigation. the Trademarks Act (RSC 1985, c T-13) assignments of rights, due diligence and – protects against misrepresentations licensing, particularly in the entertainment, stemming from the unauthorised use of publishing and software industries. a person’s name or likeness, rather than with misappropriations. It may be used to prevent a person from misrepresenting his or her goods and services as those of proof of damage”. Under the British she sat in a public place. another, or from suggesting that those Columbia statute, a former Wal-Mart In addition to Section 7(b), Section 9 of goods and services are sponsored by or employee was granted C$15,000 in damages the Trademarks Act contains prohibitions associated with that individual (Asbjorn after Wal-Mart used his photograph in its against: Horgard A/S v Gibbs/Nortac Industries Ltd advertising without permission. Further, • the adoption, in connection with a (1987), 14 CPR (3d) 314 at 327 (FCA)). British Columbia’s statute does not require business, of any marks that falsely The Supreme Court of Canada in Ciba- that the individual be identifiable. suggest a connection with any living Geigy Canada Ltd v Apotex Inc ([1992] Other aspects of the statutes restrict individual (Section 9(1)(k)); or 3 SCR 120) set out the three passing-off the action. Intent is needed, which raises • marks that are, or may be mistaken components: the required level of culpability. Protected for, the portrait or signature of any • the existence of goodwill in the mark; aspects of personality are enumerated and individual who is living or has died • deception of the public due to a restricted to “name or portrait” (British within the preceding 30 years (Section misrepresentation; and Columbia) and “name or likeness or voice” 9(1)(l)), without his or her consent. • potential or actual damage to the (other provinces). Death extinguishes the plaintiff. right, except in Manitoba. Even with consent, Section 12 prohibits In Quebec, personality rights are trademark registrations comprising the Historically, it was difficult for protected through privacy principles in “name or surname of an individual who individuals to meet this test unless both the Civil Code of Quebec (SQ 1991, c 64). is living or had died within the preceding parties shared a common field of activity. Section 36 relates to invasion of privacy thirty years”, unless that name has become However, the tort has been expanded and caused by use of a person’s “name, image, distinctive of the applicant. the defendant’s product or business need likeness or voice for a purpose other than With the growth of internet-based only be seen as “approved, authorized or the legitimate information of the public”. services such as Twitter and Instagram, endorsed by the plaintiff” (National Hockey A second, broader action based on Section online advertising and cloud-based League v Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd (1992), 42 5 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights services storing personal information, CPR (3d) 390 at 401 (BCSC); Salé, supra). and Freedoms (RSQ c C-12) provides that misappropriation of identity or personality The public must still be able to distinguish “every person has a right to respect for his cases may become more common. The the individual in the defendant’s materials. private life”. The nexus between privacy legal ramifications of these new services A deceptive misrepresentation can occur and personality under Section 5 was and practices are already being felt.
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]
  • 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]
  • GREEK LAW and JURISPRUDENCE on INFRINGEMENTS of PERSONAL PRIVACY & PERSONALITY RIGHTS (2008) by Popi Papantoniou & Christos Gramatidis
    GREEK LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON INFRINGEMENTS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY & PERSONALITY RIGHTS (2008) By Popi Papantoniou & Christos Gramatidis I. LAWS REFERRED TO NON-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS RESULTING FROM INFRINGEMENTS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY AND PERSONALITY RIGHTS 1. Article 9 par. 1 of the Greek Constitution provides that: “The private and family life of the individual is inviolable”. 2. Article 8 par. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as enacted into Greek Law by Law 53/1974, provides that: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. 3. Article 57 of the Greek Civil Code provides that: “A person who has suffered an unlawful infringement on his personality has the right to claim the cessation of such infringement as also the non-recurrence thereof in the future. A claim for compensation, according to the provisions about tort, is not excluded”. 4. Article 59 of the Greek Civil Code provides that: “Following the petition of the person infringed and after taking into consideration the kind of the infringement, the Court with its decision may also condemn the liable person to satisfy the moral damage of the person infringed”. 5. In relation to infringement of the personality through the press, Law 1178/1981 on “Civil liability of the press”, as amended and in force today, provides for a fine of at least 30,000 Euros for the newspapers published in Athens and Thessalonica and at least 6,000 Euros for those published in the rest of the country upon a publication that infringes a person’s honour and reputation.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Novel Search Technologies: an Economic Approach Steven Penney
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 3 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Novel Search Technologies: An Economic Approach Steven Penney Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Steven Penney, Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and Novel Search Technologies: An Economic Approach, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 477 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0477 THEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97, No. 2 Copyright © 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity, Schoolof Law Printed in U.S.A. REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY AND NOVEL SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH STEVEN PENNEY* The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, which defines the scope of constitutionalprotection from governmental privacy intrusions in both the United States and Canada, is notoriously indeterminate. This indeterminacy stems in large measure from the tendency ofjudges to think ofprivacy in non-instrumentalistterms. This "moral" approach to privacy is normatively questionable, and it does a poor job of identifying the circumstances in which privacy should prevail over countervailing interests, such as the deterrence of crime. In this Article, I develop an alternative,economically-informed approach to the reasonable expectation of privacy test. In contrast to the moral approach, which treatsprivacy as a fundamental right, the economic approach views it as an (normatively neutral) aspect of self-interest: the desire to conceal and control potentially damagingpersonal information.
    [Show full text]