Facts
- Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones granted OK! Magazine exclusive rights to publish photographs of their wedding.
- The agreement created contractual and commercial confidentiality over specific images of the event.
- Hello! Magazine obtained and printed unauthorised photographs taken surreptitiously at the wedding.
- Publication diminished the value of OK!’s exclusivity and caused the claimants financial loss.
- Proceedings were brought alleging breach of confidence and unlawful interference with contractual relations.
Issues
- Whether the unauthorised photographs remained confidential information notwithstanding public knowledge of the wedding itself.
- Whether Hello!’s deliberate publication constituted a breach of confidence and unlawful interference with OK!’s exclusive contractual rights.
- Whether damages were recoverable for the economic loss flowing from that interference.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal held that the unauthorised images were confidential; visual depictions can retain secrecy and value even when the event itself is known.
- Hello! Magazine’s publication breached the duty of confidence owed to the Douglases and OK! Magazine.
- Intentional interference with OK!’s contractual exclusivity was actionable without proof of malice.
- Each photograph possessed discrete economic value; damages were assessed with reference to the loss of value of every infringed image.
Legal Principles
- A duty of confidence arises where information, including photographs, is imparted or obtained in circumstances importing an obligation of confidentiality.
- Publicity of an event does not strip subsequent, unreleased images of confidentiality or commercial value.
- Intentional interference with another’s contractual rights is tortious when it causes foreseeable economic damage.
- Confidential visual content can be protected independently of any general privacy right, providing a commercial remedy for misuse.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal confirmed that exclusive photographic rights are protectable as confidential information; deliberate, unauthorised publication of such images amounts to both breach of confidence and unlawful interference, entitling the right-holder to recover damages reflecting the separate economic worth of each infringed photograph.