Skip Navigation



Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access published online on March 7, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/5/354    most recent
jpl026v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pinto, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Article

Who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow? A practical analysis of the law of privacy

Timothy Pinto 1
1 Taylor Wessing, London


  Abstract

Legal context. The House of Lords held that the medical privacy of glamorous supermodel Naomi Campbell was violated by publication of details of her drug addiction treatment and a paparazzi picture. English law is developing under the influence of Article 8 (the right of privacy) and Article 10 (the right of freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The court explained how the action for breach of confidence protects privacy. So, who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow?

Key points. Primarily, the courts control the flow of private information. They do so through the cause of action of breach of confidence and remedies. In deciding liability, the courts should ask if the benefit of publication is proportionate to the harm done by the invasion of privacy. To answer the question, they must balance the public interest in the right of privacy against the public interest in the right of freedom of expression. They may settle on a Reynolds type test by considering a number of non-exhaustive factors. The article examines seven suggested factors and the remedies which can be deployed by the courts. Judgments from the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights are considered, including: Campbell v MGN (HL), Douglas v Hello! (CA), McKennitt v Ash (HC), Peck v UK (ECtHR), Édition Plon v France (ECtHR), and Von Hannover v Germany (ECtHR).

Practical significance. There are an increasing number of privacy claims against the media. The article includes a check list of seven factors to help determine where the balance lies between privacy and freedom of expression.

This article is a longer version of a talk given on 5 December 2005 at Staple Inn Hall at the launch of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.