Mitsubishi
published a print advert for one of its cars which depicted it
sitting in a field with a tree-dotted hill in the background. The
car had been digitally superimposed on the picture of the field,
which was used without the landowner's permission.
He complained to the ASA that the use of the land without his
permission infringed his privacy rights.
Mitsubishi owner Colt argued that the land was a public place
and that it was entitled to use the photograph.
"[Mitsubishi] did not believe that the ad portrayed an
identifiable possession and pointed out that the CAP Code allowed
the use of general public locations without prior permission," said
the ruling. "The distinctive features from the original
[photograph], such as farm buildings and the landscape of the
skyline, had been removed or retouched."
"They argued that, given the changes made to the photograph and
the very small portion of land owned by the complainant that was
visible, the field and not the hillside in the background, it was
not generally recognisable from the finished ad," said the ruling,
summarising Colt's position. "They further pointed out that a
public footpath ran across the land, which they believed reinforced
their view that the area shown was a public location.
The ASA rejected the landowner's complaint because the land was
not identifiably his and its Code only prohibited the featuring of
people or identifiable possessions without permission.
"We acknowledged that the complainant was concerned that the
land used in the ad was easily identifiable and, therefore, his
rights of privacy had been contravened," said the ASA. "While we
appreciated that concern, we considered that, because only a
relatively small amount of privately owned land was shown in the
ad, it was not readily recognisable. We concluded that, in this
case, the complainant's rights of privacy had not been
infringed."
The owner of the pictured land had also complained that "the ad
was likely to provoke violent or anti-social behaviour; he was
concerned that others would assume that permission for the use of
the land had been given for financial gain".
The ASA also rejected that complaint. "While we did not dismiss
that concern lightly, we noted the efforts made by Colt to remove
many of the distinguishing features and considered that readers
would not readily recognise the complainant's land," it said. "In
addition, we considered that even if a small number of readers did
recognise the view in the photograph, it was unlikely to provoke
the reaction the complainant feared."
