Individuals can sue internet publishers in each country in which they believe their image has been harmed as a result of content posted online, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled. Publishers, though, should not be subject to stricter laws than would apply if the court action was taking place in the country in which …
= More cases = More lawyer, More money and More Judges
Shocking to think of Judges making rulings that drum up additional business.
Kylie's ex-lover identified!
'The ruling related to "personality rights", which do not exist in all EU countries. There are no "personality rights" in UK law.'
He is allowed to sue in France, but the French courts are not allowed to apply stricter laws than in the UK.
So how can he sue over an issue where there are no laws in the UK?
> So how can he sue over an issue where there are no laws in the UK?
The ECJ has given him the right to sue, not the right to win.
They seem, with this ruling, to have put a large brake on the practice of jurisdiction-shopping. That seems like a good move.
 Not a total stop, though; this guy can still choose what type of legal system he wants, but he cannot gain extra rights while so doing.
Agreed. Actually, this makes 'jurisdiction shopping' less attractive, as a publisher could always appeal on the basis that some technicality of law in the court's jurisdiction made that law more restrictive than the equivalent in its home country. Such technicalities are hard to argue within one legal system, let alone across legal systems.
So, basically, if you want to sue a publication in another jurisdiction you can, but be prepared for multiple appeals going as far as the ECJ if you happen to win. Or, of course, you can sue in the publication's home country if you think they might actually have a case to answer.
Just when Europe does some stuff to make them look more balanced than the UK courts along comes something like this, and how much of a surprise is it that the French are involved.
The good old ECJ has managed to keep a straight face while saying that two probably contradictory legal standards can be used in a single case. We really are in the position where publishing something which is not illegal in the country where a publisher resides/publishes can spark a case in another country where it is illegal and a trial is supposed to proceed on the basis that the publisher is innocent?
OK, time for everyone to make a sanity check...call it, heads or blue?
The version I read...
(BBC?) ...said that he was looking to sue for "invasion of privacy" and to protect his "right to his image". Surely your "image" is how you are perceived by the world, and if the alleged events happened, then his image has been tarnished (one might suggest by his own lack of judgement) and to then try legal means to maintain said image is little more than a lie. Given who he was related with at this time, we then have to ask was this likely to be an "in the public interest" issue? [in other words, if you don't want your murkier moments examined, date a regular girl]
I had paid no attention to this story way back when (my opinion is stars, starlets, and their other halves routinely do monumentally dumb things), so might I suggest this guy look up "The Streisand Effect"?
@ heyrick - "was this likely to be an "in the public interest" issue?"
You are confusing two different issues. What you are referring to is "something the public is/might be interested in". This is where the grubbier end of journalism comes from, because the public are (or have been taught to be) interested in stuff that no reasonable person should care about (e.g. who is shagging whom).
On the other hand, something that is "in the public interest" may not have any noticeable interest amongst the public, but it is in the best interests of all that it be brought out. This would include, for instance, Liam Fox and his dodgy mate confusing where the legitimate line between friendship and corruption occurs, or what MPs claim expenses for. This is the stuff of proper investigative journalism, and of which we get so little.
The press barons really want us to see the two as the same thing, since protecting their right to pry into "celebrities'" private lives makes them easy money. However, it is extremely important for the future of reporting in the Western world that these two issues are not confused,
Call that a news item?
Where's the blatant photographs of the tiny antipodean pop princess dotted liberally around the article?
You missed my link....
That's blatant enough.
Story seems to imply that it is also ok for people overseas to contact other governments to bring their laws inline with the other nation (with me so far?)
As if individuals have concerns based in law of one destination/resident country not really applicable in source/publication country well in a free society such individual should have recourse even if it does mean contacting elected law makers in the source country (hoping this really does make sense).
PS: this means Official Contact rather than just-thought-I'd-let-you-know-that type contact.
(Look out! UK civil servants have already marked a few £billions in department setup fees, removal subsidies, rents to most highly favoured landlords of office block buildings, ... And where is Mr Werrity when he is (potentially) needed most?)
- Does Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- 166 days later: Space Station astronauts return to Earth