header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013 / Stephen Boyd
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Opinion , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Not in my name

rihanna

Stephen Boyd debates image rights & wrongs

“Whatever may be the position elsewhere in the world...there is today in England no such thing as a free standing general right by a famous person (or anyone else) to control the reproduction of their image” (Birss J, Fenty and others v Arcadia Group and another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch) (Rihanna v Topshop).

The utilty of passing off as a cause of action to be deployed by a celebrity whose image had been exploited without consent was brought to the fore by Irvine and another v Talksport Ltd [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch). Eddie Irvine was a well-known Formula One driver. In 1999 Talksport embarked on a special promotional campaign to mark the rebranding of the station from Talk Radio to Talksport. It sent out to media buyers a flyer bearing a photograph of Irvine. The original photograph, which showed the driver holding a mobile phone, had been manipulated to replace the mobile phone with a radio to which the words “Talk Radio” had

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll