The Court of Appeal has considered an appeal by Associated Newspapers against a High Court decision that publication of photographs of the well-known musician Paul Weller out shopping and at a café with his 16 year old daughter and ten month old twin sons in Los Angeles, California, infringed the children’s right to privacy.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court was right to hold that the children had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that their right to privacy outweighed Associated Newspapers’ right to freedom of expression.
The judgment further clarifies the approach to be taken by the courts when considering an application to prevent the publication of photographs of children in a public place, based on their right to privacy. The case confirms that there are several considerations relevant to children which may mean that a child has a reasonable expectation of privacy where an adult does not, and that, where a child’s has a right to privacy, it is likely to require very powerful freedom of expression rights to outweigh them where a child’s interests would be adversely affected.
The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court’s decision on an agreement that purported to assign the copyright in songs written by Bob Marley from his record company at the time, Cayman Music Inc (Cayman), to Island Logic.
Marley had misattributed 13 songs (including the hit No Woman No Cry) to other artists as a way of preventing the relevant copyright and royalties from going to his record company under a recording agreement. The key question before the court was whether the songs were included within the agreement.
The High Court held that the songs were “compositions” within the terms of the agreement, so that the rights in the songs were transferred under that agreement, even though the agreement did not expressly refer to the songs. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The case shows how important it is to draft contracts precisely, particularly in the context of a complex set of background facts.
In March 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed that three individuals resident in England could bring claims in England against US-based Google Inc for misuse of private information and breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), arising from Google cookies tracking their on-line behaviour without their knowledge or consent.
Google sought permission to appeal on three grounds and the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on two of them but not the third.