Page 105 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

96 David Rolph

inadequate protection of privacy. The evolving position, allowing the right to
privacy to be asserted even when a photograph is taken of a person in a public
place, is less certain but more sensitive to claims of personal privacy. Whereas
the application of a general ―right to photograph‖ did not discriminate between
the acts of looking, seeing, photographing and publishing, taking the view that
none attracted legal liability, now distinctions are being drawn between these
acts and a more nuanced approach to the legal liability for invasions of privacy
by photographic means is emerging.

REFERENCES

Cases

A v B plc [2003] QB 195.
Argyll v Argyll [1967] Ch 302.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208
CLR 199.
Australian Consolidated Press pty Ltd v Ettingshausen (unreported,
CA(NSW), Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Clarke JA, 13 October 1993).
Bathurst City Council v Saban (1985) 2 NSWLR 704.
Bernstein v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479.
Campbell v M.G.N. Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457.
Cruise v Southdown Press Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 125.
D v L [2004] EMLR 1.
Donnelly v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 570.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125.
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1030.
GS v News Ltd (1998) Aust Torts Reports 81-466.
Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804.
H.R.H. Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] Ch 57.
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62.
Lincoln Hunt (Australia) Pty Ltd v Willesee (1986) 4 NSWLR 457.
McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73.
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EMLR 20.
Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2008] 3 WLR 1360.
Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 536.
Raciti v Hughes (1995) 7 BPR 14,837.