Douglas and Zeta-Jones had sold the exclusive rights to publish
approved pictures of their wedding in 2000 to OK!, but Hello!
published unauthorised photos, which are the subject of the appeal
to the House of Lords.
Hello! has already paid out thousands of pounds to the couple
for distress caused by the publication of the photos, which Hello!
is no longer appealing. This case has been brought by OK!, which
argues that it had rights in Douglas and Zeta-Jones's confidential
information.
James Price QC, the lawyer representing Hello!, argued that
while wedding photographs can be private, they have never been
viewed as being confidential and therefore cannot constitute a
trade secret. Hello! may have breached the couple's privacy, but no
duty was owed to OK!
OK!'s lawyers argued that the pictures were confidential, and
that Hello!, knowing of the deal between the couple and OK!, owed a
duty of confidence to the couple and, via the deal, to OK!
"The key issue to be decided is whether a third party, such as
OK!, can have enforceable rights in someone else's information,"
said Gillian Black, a lecturer in commercial law at Edinburgh
University who attended the hearings and provided an account of the
arguments to OUT-LAW.
"If they can, then the trade in celebrity gossip and
'exclusives' will benefit from an identifiable legal basis – and
the value of such information can be expected to rise accordingly,"
said Black.
OK!'s lawyer Richard Millett QC said that he was not attempting
to establish a right of property in photographs of the wedding, but
media lawyers have said that if the ruling went OK!'s way then it
would effectively create a new law protecting the image of a
person.
The case has been running for six years. In 2003 it was found
that Hello! had caused OK! commercial damage and was ordered to pay
£1 million in damages. Hello! successfully challenged that ruling
and was awarded £2 million damages, at which point OK! sought and
was granted permission to appeal to the House of Lords, the highest
court in England.
Legal observers believe it could be March 2007 before a verdict
is given, in a case which could fundamentally alter English
confidentiality and privacy law.
