Page 90 - Courting the Media Contemporary Perspectives on Media and Law

The Mechanical Eye: Looking, Seeing, Photographing, Publishing 81

Press Agency purchased the right to publish photographs from Fall, acting on
the basis that he had the exclusive photographic rights. Baskerville was a
lawful entrant to the dog show. Although he was warned not to take
photographs at the dog show, there was no term or condition attached to his
entry which restricted his right to photograph. Sports and General Press
Agency claimed that the Ladies‘ Kennel Association‘s possession of the venue
carried with it the right to control the taking of photographs. At first instance,
Horridge J held that the right to restrict the taking of photographs was not a
property right attached to the possession of land but arose purely by virtue of
contract. In the present case, the Ladies‘ Kennel Association had failed to
12
achieve this by means of contract. Thus, Our Dogs‘ use of Baskerville‘s
photographs was permitted. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was
13
unanimously dismissed.
14
Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Pty Ltd v Taylor is
frequently cited as authority for the proposition that the common law of
Australia does not recognise an enforceable right to privacy. For decades, it
was considered to be an obstacle to the recognition of such a right. In that
case, Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds brought proceedings
principally for private nuisance against George Taylor, Cyril Angles and the
Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation. Taylor occupied a property
adjacent to the Victoria Park racecourse. He entered into an agreement,
whereby the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation constructed a viewing
platform on Taylor‘s property. On race days, Angles would sit on the viewing
platform and, using a specially constructed telephone system, would call the
races live on radio station, 2UW. Victoria Park Racing and Recreation
Grounds claimed that this conduct interfered with its use and enjoyment of its
land, as a result of which attendances (and therefore takings) were likely to be
reduced. By majority, the High Court of Australia rejected the claim. They
affirmed that freedom from view or inspection – privacy – was not an incident
15
of the possession of land protected by the tort of private nuisance. A person

12
Sports and General Press Agency Ltd v “Our Dogs” Publishing Co. Ltd [1916] 2 KB 880 at
883-84 per Horridge J.
13
Sports and General Press Agency Ltd v “Our Dogs” Publishing Co. Ltd [1917] 2 KB 125 at
127-28 per Swinfen Eady LJ, at 128 per Lush J.
14
(1937) 58 CLR 479.
15
Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Pty Ltd v Taylor (1958) 58 CLR 479 at 493-96
per Latham CJ, at 507 per Dixon J, at 523-25 per McTiernan J.