Privacy and Misuse of Private Information - Essay Example

? In regard to the case of Melinda, there is breach of human rights according to the privy law. This is due to the posting of photos to the public as well as the demeaning of Baking! Magazine by foregoing its initial plan of posting the photos which were decent, under the privy law, for there to be breach, the information should have the right quality of confidence where the question, which is underlying, is under disclosure to the public. The information under exposure should be private information concerning the plaintiff. The information in this case includes photos of Melinda, which were not appealing, and the photos were showing her private life. Thus, in the case, the photos are under exposure to the public arising to breach of human rights. Thus, basing to the case of Campbell v mirror group newspapers, Melinda has the bases for suing splat! Magazine due to the publication of her photos to the public without her consent, my advice would be in relation to the convention of human rights of Europe. According to the convention, there should be a ruling in favour of Melinda considering the tort in the English tort action relating to breaching of confidence as seen in this case. I would advise her to sue the company considering the provisions in the ECHR which upholds the rights that individuals have in relation to their family and private lives. Thus, the court should make a ruling in favour of Melinda because there is breach of privacy by the publication of the photos to the public as seen in the case of Douglas v. Hello, where Hello Company did publish wedding photos of Douglas without his consent leading to breach of human rights (Franklin, 2010). Relating to Baking! Magazine, the magazine had the right to publish Melinda’s photos. Thus by the publication of the photos by splat! Magazine, there was misuse of private information. In relation to the law, publication of private information by a third party implies that there is a breach of confidence as seen in the case under investigation. Following the law, there is a relationship between the victim who in the case is Melinda and the informer creating obligations of confidence because its existence covers anybody else who may misuse the information. I would advise Baking! Magazine to take legal action against Splat! Magazine because in case, the claimant has an expectation which is reasonable to privacy regarding the information under disclosure, Melinda expects the Baking! Magazine to publish the photos that are showing her better self but Splat! Magazine goes ahead and publishes the photos that show the unpleasant side of Melinda; thus the initial magazine considers the person’s right to privy more than the second magazine’s freedom of expression. Further, the court may rule that, Splat! Magazine is not liable because the photographs were under publication of peripherals that require publication showing the bright side of Melinda. Thus, the magazine did the publication with appreciation to the well being of Melinda’s image. Hence, I would advise the initial magazine to go ahead and sue for aforementioned confidence breach, which is under the clause of human rights rules and regulations relating to privacy. This is as seen in the case of the Prince of Wales v. Associated newspaper, where the newspaper took the diary of the prince and made a publication which was embarrassing to the Prince. In the case, it is clear that there is breach in the right of privacy of the Prince (Daniel, 2008). Under the law, for the case to be valid, there should be impacting of information in circumstances that impose the obligation of confidence. Where Melinda can sue for giving out of private information by Splat! Magazine. The information which the magazine gives out includes photos that Melinda does not know of their existence, this arises to infringement of privacy where the magazine was stalking Melinda even in the supermarket so as to get her photos. They also take Melinda’s photographs that are demeaning in that the photographs show Melinda eating and when she is sweaty. The publishing of these photos demeans the figure of Melinda to the public because Melinda is a public figure. Splat magazine uses the photos so as to attract the audience of people who would read the magazine due to the presence of the images of Melinda. This arise to misuse of private information for personal gains, which is illegal, thus relating to this situation, Melinda can sue splat! Magazine. This is in relation to the human rights act of 1998 that is also incorporation of the human rights convention which is a law in the U.K. thus using these bases there is a legal obligation in regard to Melinda (Creech, 2007). In regard to the English law, if there is an expectation which is reasonable of privy, there is permission of of publication where there is outweighing of information from the plaintiff by the freedom of expression of the defendant. Thus in this case, there is a legitimate interest in the photographs, where both magazines require the photos to attract many people to read the magazine due to the publication of photographs of Melinda. This arises to conflict of, interest though, under the law both have a right to expression, baking! Magazine has the rightful permission to publish the photographs to their own interest rather than the other magazine. The court may also take the case to arise to unfair competition where both magazines what publicity because they publish similar articles, thus by using photographs of Melinda who is a celebrity, one gets more publicity than the other. Thus though both will get publicity, baking! Magazine will get the rightful publicity while the other magazine has no right to gain publicity using Melinda’s photos. Thus, regarding to this, baking! Magazine can sue for damages in regard to the publication of the photos which they had the rightful permission to use. Thus the ruling would have been made in regard to the case of creme holding v. Banerjee. This is where Banerjee is an accountant for the creme company and had information, that was showing the director as corrupt, the information by the accountant was rather private and she had no permission to take the information without the permission of the director. Therefore, an injunction was given to the creme holding leading to a ruling against Banerjee (clement, 2008). The photographs that splat magazine wants to publish forms a false image of Melinda who is a public figure. The publication of the photos would tarnish Melinda’s image in the eyes of the public. Thus, Melinda can sue for libel which is part of defamation. Thus, I would advise Melinda to make a legal suit against the splat! Magazine because the photographs were a woeful image of Melinda, I believe Melinda would win the case basing on the fact that under the law for libel, there should be publication of wrong information about a person, where though, the photographs belong to Melinda. The condition at which the shooting of the photos takes place is not conducive for Melinda. This is because her choice of photographs would include her in a beautiful kitchen while using high quality implements for cooking. For libel to occur there must be a third party which in this case includes people who read the magazines, where if these people see the photographs of Melinda as taken by splat magazine, they will form a negative image towards her. Also, for libel to arise there must be actual damages where in this case, the tarnishing of Melinda’s would be the damages that would incur to her. Baking! Magazine would not be able to give a conviction to the people who read the magazine that the beautiful photographs belong to Melinda due to the other photographs from splat! Magazine. Thus, I would advise Melinda to take a legal action against the splat magazine because there is actual damage arising to libel. The argument behind this is from the case of Tammer v. Estonia; where there is a court ruling that there should not be publication of the private life of the plaintiff by the defendant who is Estonia (carter, 2009). The bases of my argument and advice to Melinda would constitute the nature of information, where the law clearly indicates that if the information, which in the case under study is photographs, is just titillation, where titillation would imply mere allegations, and then the case would be null and void. In case the nature of information arises to be a serious matter, then the court considers the argument from both parties as spelt out by the English law. Thus, I would advise Melinda and Baking! Magazine to take a legal action against splat! Magazine, because there are enough indicators that there is breach of human rights, the reason why I would advise Melinda and Baking! Magazine to go ahead and have a legal suit is that there is much lurid coverage in the photographs that are under publication by splat! Magazine thus there is more restraining order against Splat! Magazine. Relating the various torts under the English law, there is breach of confidence regarding the private life of Melinda due to the publishing of her photographs thus my advice would be to proceed with the legal pursuit. Regarding to the Baking! Magazine, they also have a legal pursuit against Splat! Magazine for using information that they should not use which happens to be Melinda’s photographs, thus it would be logical for both Melinda and Baking! Magazine to sue for damages relating to the law of torts in English law due to breach of human rights as seen in the case of prince of Wales v. Associated newspaper (Andrew, 2009) References Andrew, T., (2009). New Dimensions in Privacy Law: International and Comparative Perspectives. Chicago: Cambridge University Press. Carter, T. B., (2009). Mass Communications Law in A Nutshell. St. Paul Minn: West Press. Clement, G., (2010). Gatley on Libel and Slander. New York: Sweet & Maxwell. Creech, K., (2007). Electronic Media Law and Regulation. Amsterdam: Focal Press. Daniel, O., (2008).Intelligence And Security Informatics: European Conference Springer. Franklin, M. A., Carter, T. B., & Wright, J. B. (1985). The First Amendment and The Fourth Estate: The Law Of Mass Media. Mineola, N.Y., Foundation Press. John, M., (2007). Street on Torts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 Margaret B., (2009). Clerk & Lindsell on Torts. Michigan: Sweet & Maxwell. Markesinis, B. S., Deakin, S., & Johnston, A. C. (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Mothersole, B., & Ridley, A. (1999). A-Level Law in Action. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Overbeck, W., & Belmas, G., (2011). Major Principles of Media Law. Michigan: Wadsworth Pub Co. Richard O., (2009). Essential Tort Law. Amsterdam: Routledge. Siegel, P., & Osowiecki, K. (2008). Communication Law in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Tony W., (2011). A Casebook on Tort. Atlanta: Sweet & Maxwell. Read More