DOCSLIB.ORG

Guernsey Image Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guernsey Image Rights inbrief Guernsey Image Rights Inside What can be registered? What is protected? Ownership and exploitation Infringement Exceptions Comparisons to existing protections Remedies and enforceability inbrief Introduction What can be registered? Unlike trade marks, there is no requirement Famous sportspeople, entertainers The to register the images in relation to specified The Image Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Bailiwick of Guernsey, the small British territories or particular goods or services: in Ordinance 2012, enables the registration of a essence the protection is universal (although Crown dependency in the English personality and “images” associated with the see notes below re enforceability outside Channel known as an offshore tax personality. haven, has achieved a ‘world first’ by Guernsey). There is an option to limit the scope A personality includes the personality of: of a registration by territory and/or by goods and establishing a unique registered image services, thereby allowing the original owner to rights regime. This is a bold step for • Natural persons (either alive or who have died within the 100 years prior to the registration carve up their assets, having different proprietors the tiny island, but are the new rights being filed); for different purposes. a useful tool for global personalities? • Legal persons (either existing or which have Protection will continue for as long as the ceased to exist within the 100 years prior to personality (and associated images) are registered, the registration being filed); but renewals will be required every 10 years in the case of a personality and every 3 years in the case • A “Joint Personality” (2 or more natural or of an image. legal persons who are intrinsically and publicly linked, eg Laurel and Hardy or Ant and Dec); • A “Group” (2 or more natural or legal persons Ownership and exploitation who are linked for a common purpose and The proprietor of the registered personality’s together form a collective group or team, eg image rights can be any person or entity that Coldplay or Manchester United), and note that has the right to exploit the personality’s image the members of a Group can change; or and who cannot be prevented from doing so by someone with prior rights (either under a prior • A fictional character registered image right or, for example, under trade “Images” which can be registered against the mark law or the law of passing off). The proprietor personality include not just images within their may therefore be a celebrity themselves, their natural meaning (ie photos and illustrations), image rights company, the estate of a deceased but also the personality’s name(s), nick names, star, or any other person or entity that has lawfully voice, signature, likeness, mannerisms or acquired the rights. personal attributes, as well as film footage of the The registered personality’s image rights are a personality. Images can also include “distinctive form of property that can be exploited like any characteristics” which we understand the registry other. They can be licensed, assigned or used as has accepted might include a logo or shirt security. number, or artwork created by or associated with the personality. Infringement What is protected? A protected image is infringed if an image identical or similar to it is used without the The personality isn’t protected per se, it is proprietor’s consent for “a commercial purpose the “protected images” associated with the or a financial or economic benefit”. The use must personality that are protected (but remember the create a likelihood of confusion or association with wide definition of “image”). An image will be the registered personality, OR must take unfair a protected image if it is distinctive and if it has advantage of, or be detrimental to the repute or actual or potential value. All registered images economic value of the personality, without due will be presumed to be distinctive and valuable, cause. but other images will also be protected if they meet these criteria and crucially, an image will be A person is deemed to have “used” a protected distinctive if “it is recognised as being associated image if, for example, they use it for: marketing with the registered personality by a wide or or endorsing goods, services, activities or events; relevant sector of the public in any part of the in connection with sponsorship; on business world.” papers; or by affixing the image to goods or their packaging. inbrief Importantly, there is no requirement of implied in which businesses are still able to ‘exploit’ the like Guernsey, this is possibly the most difficult endorsement. goodwill in a celebrity without compensating type of infringement for a business to avoid. them. This was reiterated in the recent action It’s unclear how damages will be assessed but at brought by Rihanna in the English courts for no time does the Act limit its scope to the Bailiwick unauthorised use of her image on t-shirts by Exceptions and therefore a court may assess damages with a Topshop. The Judge concluded that, due to As expected there are a range of activities global outlook. It also has the right to consider the Topshop’s prior promotional activities involving which will not constitute infringement including “flagrancy of the infringement” and can award Rihanna, her status as a style icon and fashion (amongst others): use of the personality in crowd “additional damages as the justice of the case designer/endorser, and the nature of the image shots where they are not singled out; in news may require”. used, at least some Topshop customers would reporting, commentary and satire; for education; have been deceived into believing the t-shirts were There is also the question of how to enforce any in comparative advertising; and for the purposes endorsed by Rihanna. She therefore succeeded Guernsey judgment (assuming that it’s unlikely of the arts. in her claim for passing off. However, the Judge the infringer will go out of their way to go to There is also a defence which in some respects made clear that there is no freestanding image Guernsey). Reciprocal enforcement legislation in echoes the defence to trade mark infringement right in England and in many circumstances, the the UK should mean that Guernsey judgments which allows use of a trade mark to indicate the use of a celebrity’s image on merchandise would are enforced by UK courts. And if you obtain an characteristics of the goods or services. However not amount to passing off. injunction against an infringing party in Guernsey the defence under the Guernsey image right is and have this ratified in the UK then they could Another example where it seems the English significantly narrower, only allowing use of an potentially be held in contempt of court in the UK, law offers limited protection, would be the use image “that is merely descriptive and used fairly if they continue to infringe in Guernsey. of an athlete’s image in an online advertisement and in good faith only to identify or describe promoting a betting company and the odds you something other than the [personality].” The can get on that athlete winning a race or scoring legislation indicates that use to describe or Conclusion a goal etc. identify “a place, a legacy or a style” would be Although there are still question marks over acceptable. Presumably someone advertising a The Guernsey right is very young and it is enforceability and the extent of damages likely to hotel in Edinburgh, Scotland would not then unclear how the exceptions will be interpreted be awarded, it is clear that registering image rights infringe an image right registered for Sean but it seems that the intention is that the use could usefully provide greater certainty when Connery by describing the city as “birth place of of protected images on merchandise would licensing or assigning rights, or when succession Sean Connery” along with other features of the infringe, without the need to show that there is planning. And, as a minimum, registering image city, but if they were to prominently use a picture any misrepresentation as to the product being rights in Guernsey could prove to be a useful of him, presumably this wouldn’t be “only” to endorsed or official. And while a betting company deterrent, particularly with respect to businesses describe the place and would not be considered may be able to argue the factual use of an operating across the UK and the Channel Islands “fair” use. athlete’s name in relation to quoting odds is only in cases where English law does not currently descriptive and done fairly, in good faith, could prevent use due to lack of implied endorsement. they say the same about use of a picture of the Comparisons to existing athlete? protections Although celebrities are offered varying degrees of ‘personality rights’ in many US states and Remedies and enforceability protection is high in several European jurisdictions, It seems likely that the courts of Guernsey none offer a registered regime. will accept jurisdiction if there is actual use of a registered image in Guernsey. UK based Under English law, no specific personality rights businesses with outlets in, or which distribute to, exist. Celebrities regularly rely on defamation, and/or advertise in Guernsey will therefore need to privacy, trade marks and the tort of passing off be aware of the consequences of the new rights. to protect their commercial rights, and under Broadcasters within Guernsey(and the businesses the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising, the use that advertise on their channels) will also need of living persons in television adverts without to be alert. And of course, any online activities permission is controlled.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Developing Cross-Bailiwick Restructuring Laws: the Guernsey
    Developing cross-bailiwick restructuring laws: The Guernsey and Jersey Royal Courts sanction cross-border pooling of assets and liabilities of insolvent companies Publication - 01/04/2020 Overview In decisions delivered on 24 August 2015 and 7 October the Royal Courts of Guernsey Court and Jersey respectively held that where the affairs of two insolvent companies (incorporated in Jersey and Guernsey respectively) are so intermingled that the expense of unravelling them would adversely affect distributions to creditors, it can be appropriate to treat the companies as a single entity. Having concluded that there was no bar in the legislative framework of Guernsey which would prevent such an application and with the interests of creditors firmly to the fore, the Deputy Bailiff of Guernsey granted a proposal by the Joint Liquidators (from Grant Thornton) to consolidate the assets and liabilities of a Guernsey company with the assets and liabilities of a related, but separate company incorporated in Jersey subject to the sanction of the Jersey Court. The Jersey Court subsequently reached a similar conclusion in terms of its jurisdiction to grant a pooling order. This is the first time the Guernsey Court has considered and granted such an order, which has allowed a procedure which, on its face, would appear to contradict basic principles i.e. separate legal personality and that creditors can only share in the assets of the company against which they are entitled to lodge a claim. Acknowledging the inevitable rise of cross-jurisdictional corporate insolvencies, the Guernsey Court confirmed the basic purpose of a liquidation was the realisation of a company’s assets for the benefit of its creditors and held that where there was a solution whereby creditors would receive more than they otherwise would, then common sense dictated that such a solution should find favour with the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Film Producer Buys Seacole Bust for 101 Times the Estimate
    To print, your print settings should be ‘fit to page size’ or ‘fit to printable area’ or similar. Problems? See our guide: https://atg.news/2zaGmwp ISSUE 2454 | antiquestradegazette.com | 15 August 2020 | UK £4.99 | USA $7.95 | Europe €5.50 koopman rare art antiques trade KOOPMAN (see Client Templates for issue versions) THE ART M ARKET WEEKLY [email protected] +44 (0)20 7242 7624 www.koopman.art Face coverings Film producer buys Seacole now mandatory at auction rooms bust for 101 times the estimate across England A terracotta sculpture of Mary Seacole by Alex Capon (1805-81) sparked fierce competition at Dominic Winter. Wearing a face covering when Bidding at the South Cerney auction house attending an auction house in England began with 12 phones competing for the has now become mandatory. sculpture of Seacole, who nursed soldiers The updated guidance also applies to visitors to galleries and museums. during the Crimean War. Since July 24, face coverings have been It eventually came down to a final contest compulsory when on public transport as involving underbidder Art Aid and film well as in supermarkets and shops including producer Billy Peterson of Racing Green dealers’ premises and antique centres. The government announced that this Pictures, which is currently filming a would be extended in England from August biopic on Seacole’s life. 8 to include other indoor spaces such as Peterson will use the bust cinemas, theatres and places of worship. as a prop in the film. It will Auction houses also appear on this list. then be donated to the The measures, brought in by law, apply Mary Seacole Trust Continued on page 5 and be on view at the Florence Nightingale Museum.
    [Show full text]
  • Hansard Report July 2019
    O F F I C I A L R E P O R T O F T H E S T A T E S O F T H E I S L A N D O F A L D E R N E Y HANSARD The Court House, Alderney, Wednesday, 24th July 2019 All published Official Reports can be found on the official States of Alderney website www.alderney.gov.gg Volume 7, No. 7 Published by the Greffier of the Court of Alderney, Queen Elizabeth II Street, Alderney GY9 3TB. © States of Alderney, 2019 STATES OF ALDERNEY, WEDNESDAY, 24th JULY 2019 Present: Mr William Tate, President Members Ms Annie Burgess Mr Mike Dean Mr James Dent Mr Kevin Gentle Mr Christian Harris Mr Louis Jean Mr Graham McKinley Mr Steve Roberts Mr Alexander Snowdon The Deputy Greffier of the Court Ms Sarah Kelly Business transacted Tribute to Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Walter MBE, MC & Bar ........................................................... 3 Apologies for absence ...................................................................................................................... 3 Convener’s Report of the People’s Meeting held on 17th July 2019 ............................................... 4 Procedural – Apology regarding the last sitting ............................................................................... 4 Billet d’État for Wednesday, 24th July 2019 ............................................................................ 4 I. Alderney Football Association Lease Extension – Item approved ......................................... 4 II. Single-use plastics – Debate without resolution ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Global Practice Guides
    GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers Litigation Guernsey Law & Pracrice Elaine Gray, Julia Schaefer and Steven Balmer Carey Olsen practiceguides.chambers.com 2021 GUERNSEY Law and Practice Contributed by: Elaine Gray, Julia Schaefer and Steven Balmer Carey Olsen see p.15 Contents 1. General p.4 5. Discovery p.8 1.1 General Characteristics of the Legal System p.4 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases p.8 1.2 Court System p.4 5.2 Discovery and Third Parties p.8 1.3 Court Filings and Proceedings p.4 5.3 Discovery in This Jurisdiction p.8 1.4 Legal Representation in Court p.5 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms p.9 5.5 Legal Privilege p.9 2. Litigation Funding p.5 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document p.9 2.1 Third-Party Litigation Funding p.5 2.2 Third-Party Funding: Lawsuits p.5 6. Injunctive Relief p.9 2.3 Third-Party Funding for Plaintiff and Defendant p.5 6.1 Circumstances of Injunctive Relief p.9 2.4 Minimum and Maximum Amounts of Third- 6.2 Arrangements for Obtaining Urgent Party Funding p.5 Injunctive Relief p.10 2.5 Types of Costs Considered under Third-Party 6.3 Availability of Injunctive Relief on an Ex Parte Funding p.5 Basis p.10 2.6 Contingency Fees p.5 6.4 Liability for Damages for the Applicant p.10 2.7 Time Limit for Obtaining Third-Party Funding p.5 6.5 Respondent’s Worldwide Assets and Injunctive Relief p.10 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Digest of Asset Recovery Cases
    Digest of Asset Recovery Cases UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna DIGEST OF ASSET RECOVERY CASES UNITED NATIONS New York, 2015 © United Nations, August 2015. All rights reserved, worldwide. Information on paths and links to Internet sites contained in the present publication are provided for the convenience of the reader and are correct at the time of issue. The United Nations takes no responsibility for the continued accuracy of that information or for the content of any external website. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concern- ing the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Requests for permission to reproduce this work are welcomed and should be sent to the Secretariat to the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Governments and their institutions may reproduce this work without prior authorization but are requested to mention the source and inform the United Nations of such reproduction. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. ii Acknowledgements This Digest has been developed by the Corruption and Economic Crime Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) at the request of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Asset Recovery of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Guernsey, 1814-1914: Migration in a Modernising Society
    GUERNSEY, 1814-1914: MIGRATION IN A MODERNISING SOCIETY Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Rose-Marie Anne Crossan Centre for English Local History University of Leicester March, 2005 UMI Number: U594527 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U594527 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 GUERNSEY, 1814-1914: MIGRATION IN A MODERNISING SOCIETY ROSE-MARIE ANNE CROSSAN Centre for English Local History University of Leicester March 2005 ABSTRACT Guernsey is a densely populated island lying 27 miles off the Normandy coast. In 1814 it remained largely French-speaking, though it had been politically British for 600 years. The island's only town, St Peter Port (which in 1814 accommodated over half the population) had during the previous century developed a thriving commercial sector with strong links to England, whose cultural influence it began to absorb. The rural hinterland was, by contrast, characterised by a traditional autarkic regime more redolent of pre­ industrial France. By 1914, the population had doubled, but St Peter Port's share had fallen to 43 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Life Remembered: Chris Day CBE
    22 OBITUARY GUERNSEY PRESS Friday 10 March 2017 OBITUARY 23 OBITUARY A life remembered: Chris Day CBE n the New Year’s Honours List of 2002 by Rob Batiste Chris was awarded a CBE for services Ito the Crown. At the time, in a Guernsey Press HRIS DAY CBE was a legal interview, he admitted that ‘teaching Titan. was really my instinct’. But the father of three, and Away from the corridors of Crown work husband to Jose, was so much and Court Row, he let his hair down with more than that. If the strength a deep interest in sport and his two main and quality of a man can be passions, rugby and cricket. Cjudged on how easily they can fit into It was on the rugby fields that he first any area of life and immediately feel made his mark on the island. comfortable with anyone, be they royalty, He was still six months away from his judges, blockies, the disadvantaged or 18th birthday when his father gave young schoolchildren, he was peerless. written permission for him to be selected To be that sort of person you have to in the 1959 Siam Cup. have real humility and Chris had it in Young Chris, who also played for the abundance. strong Blackheath club in London, lined Wherever the former Deputy Bailiff, HM up at scrum half and with his brother Comptroller and HM Procureur, Siam Cup Philip as captain, Guernsey recorded a rugby star and opening batsman went, rare Siam Cup win. he fitted in. He was at home everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • R (Barclay) V Lord Chancellor
    Michaelmas Term [2014] UKSC 54 On appeal from: [2013] EWHC 1183 JUDGMENT R (on the application of Sir David Barclay and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor and others (Appellants) and The Attorney General of Jersey and The States of Guernsey (Interveners) before Lord Neuberger Lady Hale Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Reed JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 22 October 2014 Heard on 30 June 2014 Appellants Advocates to the Court James Eadie QC Hon Michael Beloff QC Ben Hooper Ivan Hare (Instructed by Simon (Appointed by David Ramsden, Treasury Edmonds, Treasury Solicitors) Solicitors) Intervener Sir Jeffery Jowell QC Iain Steele Jason Pobjoy (Instructed by Timothy Le Cocq QC, HM Attorney General, Jersey; Megan Pullum QC, HM Comptroller, Guernsey) LADY HALE (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Clarke agree) 1. The principal issue in this appeal concerns the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raises fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey. It also raises questions about the constitutional relationship between the courts and a representative or democratically elected legislature. 2. The case concerns an Order in Council of 12 October 2011 by which Royal Assent was given to the Reform (Sark) (Amendment) (No 2) Law 2010 (“the 2010 Reform Law”) which had been passed by the Chief Pleas, the legislature of Sark. The claimants originally applied to the Administrative Court for the Order to be quashed, and without the Order the Law could not become law.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence from Manita Khuller (PPS0078) Contents 1. Executive
    Written evidence from Manita Khuller (PPS0078) Contents 1. Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2. Question Responses -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 2.1. What is the prevalence of pension scams ------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2.2. What are the current trends in pension scams?---------------------------------------------------- 5 2.3. What are the common outcomes of pension scams for perpetrators and victims?--------6 2.4. How are existing enforcement tools being used? ---------------------------------------------------- 7 2.5. What more can be done to prevent pension scammers operating? -------------------------- 9 2.6. What more can be done to prevent individuals becoming victims of pension scams?-- 10 2.7. What role should the pensions industry have in preventing scams? ------------------------ 11 2.8. Is HMRC’s position on the tax treatment of pension scam victims correct ---------------- 11 2.9. Are public bodies co-ordinating the response to pension scams?--------------------------- 12 1. Executive Summary 1.1.Introduction 1.2.I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into pension scams. As I recently concluded successful court action vs my QROPS Pension Trustee, I have been unable to contribute to this enquiry to date. 1.3.I am an ordinary retail investor and the victim of a pension scam, where my two UK Defined Benefit Company Schemes were transferred
    [Show full text]
  • MOURANT OZANNES (GUERNSEY) LLP GENERAL TERMS of BUSINESS - Laws of Guernsey
    MOURANT OZANNES (GUERNSEY) LLP GENERAL TERMS OF BUSINESS - Laws of Guernsey 1. DEFINITIONS In these General Terms of Business: Agent means any person appointed by a Client as agent, advisor or other intermediary for that Client and who interacts with the Firm on behalf of that Client in connection with the Services provided, or to be provided, by the Firm to that Client; Client means any person or persons to whom the Firm has agreed to provide any legal and ancillary services and who is, or are, named as such in any Engagement Terms; a Conflict of Interest exists where the professional duties of the Firm (or a member of the Firm) to act in the best interests of: (a) two or more Clients (including, in certain instances, former Clients) in relation to the same or related matters, conflict or there is a significant risk that those duties may conflict; or (b) any Client in relation to a matter conflicts, or there is a significant risk that it may conflict, with the interests of the Firm; Engagement Terms means any terms agreed between a Client (or an Agent on behalf of that Client) and the Firm under which the Firm is instructed to provide any legal and ancillary services to that Client and includes: (a) any standard terms required by that Client which the Firm has expressly accepted; and (b) to the extent not inconsistent with those standard terms, these General Terms of Business; Firm means Mourant Ozannes (Guernsey) LLP or any successor or assignee of such Firm pursuant to these General Terms of Business which provides legal services under
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Services - British Virgin Islands
    JERSEY GUERNSEY LONDON MAURITIUS BVI SINGAPORE TERMS OF BUSINESS July 2016 Legal services - British Virgin Islands Interpretation These terms of business ("Terms of Business") apply to legal professional services and advice we are asked to provide and/or arrange ("Legal Services"). These Terms of Business and any related engagement letter explain the basis upon which we accept instructions and charge for Legal Services. These Terms of Business supersede and replace all and any terms of business in relation to any of the Legal Services previously in force. In these terms, the following definitions shall apply: (a) the words "Bedell Cristin", "the firm", "we", "our" and "us" mean, as the context permits: (i) a partnership known as Bedell Cristin Jersey Partnership of 26 New Street, St Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, JE2 3RA ("Bedell Cristin Jersey"); (ii) a partnership known as Bedell Cristin Guernsey Partnership of La Plaiderie House, La Plaiderie, St Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 1WG ("Bedell Cristin Guernsey"); (iii) a partnership known as Bedell Cristin London Partnership of 11 Old Jewry, London, EC2R 8DU ("Bedell Cristin London"); (iv) a partnership known as Bedell Cristin (Singapore) LLP of 4 Robinson Road #5-01, Singapore 048543 ("Bedell Cristin Singapore"); and (v) a partnership known as Bedell Cristin BVI Partnership of Mandar House, Johnson's Ghut, PO Box 2283, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, VG1110 ("Bedell Cristin BVI"); (b) "Client" or "Clients" means the person who instructs us or on whose behalf we are instructed
    [Show full text]
  • 40 St Saviour Q3 2018.Pdf
    StSaviour-cover idea -2 Q3-2018.qxp_Governance style ideas 24/08/2018 14:51 Page 1 Autumn 2018 Esprit de St Sauveur Edition40 Bee Happy in St Saviour StSaviour-cover idea -2 Q3-2018.qxp_Governance style ideas 24/08/2018 14:51 Page 2 StSaviour-cover idea -2 Q3-2018.qxp_Governance style ideas 24/08/2018 14:51 Page 3 Autumn 2018 St Saviour Parish Magazine p3 Front Page Picture: From the Editor By Alannah Landers Featured articles St Saviour, the P9 New number one Parish... deputies we all think so! In this issue of La Cloche we are celebrating the 40th edition, and ten years of La Cloche. P11 Blooming There are still a few members from the original committee set up under the leadership and good… editorship of the late Peter and Elaine Hanning, back in 2008. We have had three Lieutenant Governors, each of whom has been featured in La Cloche and enjoyed reading it. After all, the Parish magazine is the best form of reporting news from around the Parish, despite being a quarterly publication, and we do manage to fill all the pages. There has always been advertising to pay all the costs, so a huge thanks go to our commercial supporters. P12 Battle of The front cover picture for this 40th issue is the Gold winning painting by Alannah Landers of Year 5-6 Flowers at Plat Douet School. Further pictures and report on the Schools inting Pa competition can be found inside this issue of La Cloche. Since this is the 40th edition, about 40 years ago Patier Farm was demolished and the area developed where Jardin a Pommier and Clos de Patier estates now stand.
    [Show full text]