Running Head: INDIVIDUAL REPORT

Individual Report

[Name of Author]

[Name of Institution]
 Individual Report 2

Individual Report

Introduction

The key issues that can be identified in Rebel and Mitchell’s case are as follows. Firstly,

when the contract between a manufacturer and a designer is signed, there are certain clauses

included in the contract with respect to any of the manufactured products. More importantly,

when a designer designs something, the trademark and copyrights of such a design are provided

to the designer only who has created respective designs. Therefore, the main issue can be found

in Rebel’s case is that she did not violated any of the terms of the contract, which must have been

signed between her and the manufacturer.

Keeping in view this point, it can be stated that the manufacturer has no right to terminate

the contract, based on the false accusations that are demonstrated and imposed through paparazzi

photographs. Firstly, the termination of the contract is not valid, as there has been no clause of

the contract breached by Rebel relating to the new collection. Secondly, the designs that are

created by Rebel cannot be used or sold by the manufacturer. If the manufacturer would use and

sell Rebel’s designs, Rebel can claim the damages for the time and money that she invested in

creating such designs.

Considering Chad’s position, the legal issues identified include the violation of the

privacy rights of his private life. The football club suspending Chad with no pay for the pictures

in which he has been seen taking drugs is a key issue. The football club, without any appropriate

proof, cannot suspend any player. The reason is because there are proper evidence required to be

present when taking such strict actions against any player.

 Individual Report 3

Analysis of Scenario/Issues

The courts in the United Kingdom have long been reluctant to recognize the specific

rights of the individual. In the absence of such rights, there are still registered trademarks. In

2002, when the case, Irvine v Talksport Ltd. Reference [2003] EWCA Civ 423, was decided,

there were several changes. Because this case was supported by Edmund Irving, Formula 1

driver, the celebrity team had a positive legal advantage (Trimmer 2015). The settlement out of

the court between developer Guinness Diageo and former British cricket star Jan Botham were

considered a good support for this decision. This has been considered one of his best

performances in Guinness’ advertising campaign in 1984. The Irving decision aims to promote

reconciliation in this case. According to Richard Haynes, in copyright law, television companies

have the right to grant rights to material reuse (Haynes 2016). While stating this point with

respect to case of Jan Botham, Haynes intended to point out that the threat of the process in

Botham’s case has highlighted surprising changes within the legal system, specifically relating to

the image rights.

Requirement to Have Image Rights

In the digital age, celebrities find it more difficult to conceal private life. Given the

enormous financial advantage of the situation, people tend to forget that although celebrities rely

on the vision of society to live, they still have their private and personal lives. In relation to the

decision provided in Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446, it has been

commented that although celebrities can voluntarily limit their personal lives, even when they

have the rest of their private space (Smartt 2015). Irrespective of his/her position in society,

he/she needs to balance his/her private and public life. It can be stated that privacy is an
 Individual Report 4

important part of human dignity. This point has been further explained in a clear and detailed

manner that confidentiality and wider rights of dignity contribute to our humanity (Smartt 2015).

On the basis of the law of Human Rights, Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595

has been considered one of the first example cases of the right to privacy that were brought

before the Court of Appeal (Chamberlain 2015). The court asserted that it is a controversial case,

which shows that the applicant has a right to privacy, the right provided under the English law

are recognized in the current time, and the protection of privacy has been deemed significant in

relevant circumstances. In addition, statement of Sedley J further cleared the view. Sedley J.

stated that the law applicable in the United Kingdom protects not only those who believe in

cruelty but also those who simply expose privacy violations. The law should no longer be

amongst the attackers and victims. Further, he stated that the law can identify the privacy itself as

a legal rule that has been drawn from the personal autonomy’s fundamental value (Jordan, R.,

2016).

Legislations under English Law related to Image Rights

According to law applicable within the United Kingdom, there is no specific legislation

on image rights. In some cases in the UK, the idea of image or personality was totally rejected.

The case of Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333 has been considered one of them. The case

turned around Tolley, a golfer, whose animated image was used by Fry's chocolate advertisement.

Tolly filed a case with a character for promotional purposes, which could leave a bad image on

reader’s mind regarding him. Thus, it could lead to defamation because Tolly’s image was being

ruined in public’s view. Statement provided by Greer L. J. clearly points out that this case shows

the act of denying the right to paint.

 Individual Report 5

He further stated that some men and women volunteer to take part in a public choice by

their nature or with the consent or disagreement of the public. In such a case, they should treat

their names, professions and reputation as a public property. There was another case, Elvis

Presley Enterprises Inc v Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours [1999] RPC 567, in which the dissatisfaction

with the image right was shown. Simon Brown LJ declined the claim to individual rights and

stated that thirty years ago, in McCulloch v Lewis A May [1947] 2 All E.R. 845, an foreseeable

weakness of the law’s result was rejected.

While refusing to solve the main issues in a case, the uniqueness must not be a priori

hypothesis that only a celebrity or its successor can sell its role. The monopoly must not be

created readily. Goodenau has properly described this situation as the lack of truth in applicants

must be based on the analogy of chaos and the principle of intimacy. These analogies and related

doctrines may include malicious falsehood, defamation, copyright, Data Protection Act 1998,

The Registered Designs Act 1949, and infringement of a registered trademark.

Tort of Passing Off

Goodwill, damage and distortion of information are the three key elements in

counterfeiting. In cases where a judgment is given on the basis of counterfeiting, it is necessary

to make a false statement and return the applicant's goodwill. Irvine v Talksport Ltd. Reference

[2003] EWCA Civ 423 has been considered an important case that tests the application of a

violation. This is the first time the court system has adopted false approval. It was in the

announcement of the radio station where the defendant used the Formula 1 driver image without

his consent. His photo was changed and the radio station he held was replaced. For radio stations

with the business name of the defendant, the judge described it as a distortion of communication.
 Individual Report 6

In other words, it gives the public the wrong impression that successful Formula 1 drivers are

part of the promotional product. It is believed that it cause damage to the celebrities because it

affects the goodwill of celebrities in the area of approval.

Action for Breach of Confidence

As described by the courts in Coco V AN Clarks (Engineers) Ltd., the purpose of the

point related to the breach of trust and confidence of an individual has been to provide protection

with respect to the confidential information. Therefore, if privileged information has been

provided, it is the cause of the action in the case of trust and unauthorized use of information that

damages privileged information. However, it is important to note that the duty of trust depends

on the quality of the information and the quality of the relationship between the parties. Although

privacy breaches are increasingly used to protect privacy, there are differences in trust and

confidentiality.

Murphy (2017) has stated that confidentiality can be described as monitoring interest in

the collection and dissemination of personal information. Furthermore, based on the basis of

privacy, individuals determine as to who would comprehend their personal lives. The key to

protecting confidentiality is the nature of the information as well as understanding the fact that

the breach of trust is important to mitigate confidence in confidential information. When privacy

requirements are not met, confidentiality violates privacy.

However, one of the main obstacles while determining this point is the basis for the abuse

of trust. As mentioned earlier, it is necessary to show the existing trust relationships that already

pass on certain confidential information. However, the situation is different in terms of

confidentiality. As a result, behavior that violates self-esteem is more tolerant and it safeguards
 Individual Report 7

privacy of individuals. In any case, with regard to privacy, trust is verified on the basis of the

person who has received certain information if it is comprehended that the information has been

confidential and the information is deemed to have been used without authorization.

This information was published without the consent of the interested party. Meggray J

has stated in a clear manner in Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1969] RPC 41 that if the

situations are such that any reasonable person has been standing in the recipient’s shoes of

information, and such a person realizes that, based on the reasonable grounds, the information

provided to him was confidential. Shelley Films Ltd v Rex Features Ltd [1994] E.M.L.R. 134,

the same statement was provided that was elaborated with interesting words. It was stated that

where the information has been obtained by an individual through entering the private property,

besides the signs that demonstrated such an entry was not allowed (Richardson and Ricketson

2017). Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 has been deemed as a key example case of a

breach of confidence. As discussed in this report earlier that this case was concerned with the

celebrities; Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas.

There were exclusive rights to publish their photographs of marriage as Douglas signed a

contract with OK Magazine to make a big deal of money for their couple. However, the marriage

was released by an independent professional, who took several photographs and sold such

photographs to Hello magazine (Chen 2016). Lord Hoffman stated that there are reasons for

behavior that violate the confidence and trust. This is based on the existence of three key

elements:

 Information must be reliable;

 It must be trained with confidence;
 Must be used without permission to harm the community.

Conclusion
 Individual Report 8

The legal position of both Chad and Rebel is believed to be strong considering their

private life rights’ violation by the paparazzi. In addition, Chad being suspended by the football

club and Rebel facing the termination of the contract by the manufacturer, both these points

make their case strong against the paparazzi. Damages can be sought by them keeping in view

their positive legal position.

Recommendations

Considering both Chad and Rebel’s case, it is recommended to them, in the long term,

that they should file the claim of defamation against paparazzi, seeking compensation for the

damage that is caused to their physical appearance in public. On the other hand, in the short term,

Chad should file a complaint against the football club and file an application for stay on him

being suspended based on the photographs that were made public by paparazzi. In other words, it

is advised that both Chad and Rebel can file a claim of defamation against the paparazzi as well

as they can get compensation for the loss suffered by them in terms of their financial status.
 Individual Report 9

References

Chamberlain, P., 2015. Misuse of private information: Google Inc v Vidall-Hall & Ors [2015]

EWCA Civ 311. Communications Law, 20(3), p.93.

Chen, T., 2016. PJS and the tort of misuse of private information. Journal of Intellectual

Property Law & Practice, 11(12), pp.892-900.

Coco V AN Clarks (Engineers) Ltd. [1969] RPC 41

Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595

Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc v Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours [1999] RPC 567

Haynes, R., 2016. BBC Sport in Black and White. Springer.

Irvine v Talksport Ltd. Reference [2003] EWCA Civ 423

Jordan, R., 2016. The Appropriate Balance between Privacy and Freedom of Expression under

UK Law: Just Where Does It Lie When Considering the Actions of the Press. QMLJ, 7,

p.16.

McCulloch v Lewis A May [1947] 2 All E.R. 845

Murphy, R.S., 2017. Property rights in personal information: An economic defense of privacy.

In Privacy (pp. 43-79). Routledge.

Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446

Richardson, M. and Ricketson, S. eds., 2017. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in

Media and Entertainment. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Smartt, U., 2015. 'Why I was right to name the teacher's teen killer'1: naming teenagers in

criminal trials and law reform in the internet age. Communications Law, 20(1), p.5.

Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333

 Individual Report 10

Trimmer, B., 2015. Top Shop's appeal is rejected, but Rihanna's passing off claim was ‘close to

the borderline’. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(6), pp.399-400.