Fatal car crash publicity - invasion of privacy issues?

[MrShed]

Hi all, wonder if you can help - bit of a funny one this.

 

My partner's best friend died just over a year ago in a fairly horrific car crash which killed several people - this had quite a lot of publicity at the time, and also again more recently due to an inquest.

 

Now, the parents of the other youngster killed in the accident has sold their story to a well known "womens mag". This continued publicity is causing severe distress to both my partner, and the mother of the my partners friend.

 

There is nothing libellous or defamatory in this story, but is there any kind of rules/guidelines/laws on this kind of ongoing breach of privacy? This publicity is obviously being thrust upon the family when it is unwanted.

 

As a side issue, the magazine used a photograph that is owned by the girls mother without her permission, is there any comeback on this?

 

Thanks in advance!

[MrShed]

Sorry to be all impatient....but bump

[barracad]

Not sure about the publicity angle - is your partner's friend being named in these articles or is the issue just that the images are being used?

 

As for the unauthorised use of the photograph, you may find this thread useful.

[MrShed]

The partners friend is named to my knowledge - fairly integral to the story.

 

Basically, the crash involved a young couple and their baby daughter - all three died. My partners friend was the girl.

 

I doubt theres anything to prevent any coverage of it, just dont really like to see how upset my partner gets over it, or the girls family.

[barracad]

Whatever rights one has to privacy, I think they would be somewhat limited over the deceased but I'm no expert on the matter.

 

If you fancy a bit of background reading to see what the rules are then a good place to start would be Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (which establishes a right to privacy), and possibly the law of confidence (in reference to the person who sold the story).

[MrShed]

Thanks barracad - appreciate the input so far. I think so far the best course of action might be the photograph route, at least that way I suppose the image isnt being plastered anywhere.

 

With this in mind, the picture has been used on a couple of internet sites prior(with permissions) including the BBC. Anyone know what the legality is therefore of "us" still claiming copyright ownership?

[moggieb]

Hi MrShed-so sorry about this. However, maybe this is one of those occasions where it's just better to let go & not pursue it further.

 

My brother in law went through something similar about 10 years ago. His wife went out one night with a friend and was involved in a car accident. She was killed, her friend survived and later sold her story-including photos-to one of these magazines for the princely sum £250. It was quite high profile at the time as my sister in law was driving, there was no other car involved and the friend claimed she couldn't remember what happened after getting in the car. My brother-in-law was left with two small sons and she revealed quite a lot of personal problems that weren't common knowledge and not entirely true. It caused a lot of heartache at the time. However, like most of these things, 'todays news is tomorrows chip paper' and in the end he decided to keep his dignity and didn't pursue the matter. Newspapers/magazines and even the internet soon find something else more sensational to report and interest will soon fade if its allowed to.

[BankFodder]

The courts have a wide discretion as to the damages awards they make for copyright breaches. However, you probably still shouldn't expect a lot but it might be calculated on a percentage of the value of the story. The mother wold have to bring the action. If she was distressed by it then it would bump up the damages but neither you nor your partner would be able to sue.

[MrShed]

Absolutely BF - sorry just for the clarification of any doubt, this question is really being asked on behalf of the mother of the girl who died.

 

Thanks for your input moggie - you probably have a good point.

[buzby]

Regarding the picture and the issue of copyright - if it is YOUR picture (that is, taken by you and not of you) then you will have a remedy to prevent further publication, but not otherwise. I have seen many situations where a grieving parent has released a picture of a child for the press to use, this is seen as an automatic waiver and only if the owner expressly removes or rescinds the right to publish the photograph will it prevent subsequent usage, however even then mistakes to happen and it is reused. Invariably a parent is quite agreeable to their loved one being remembered in this way, so no privacy rights attach, and for those only indirectly affected, there are no issues ata all, even if named (as fact).

[Guest]

but is there any kind of rules/guidelines/laws on this kind of ongoing breach of privacy?

 

see for eg the Press Code - PCC

[buzby]

The PCC is not a 'law' only a recommendation, and is only binding on those publishers that choose to abide by it. However matters-of-fact, are excluded.

[Guest]

the Press Code of Practice is a 'guide' that mrshed enquires about re privacy. the Press Complaints Commission can deal with complaints about newspapers and magazines, and it is stated on their site that the Code 'binds all national and regional newspapers and magazines'.

[buzby]

So they would like to think. This is an industry funded (so not independent) shop-front put in place to forestall formal regulation. In exactly the same way ICSTIS the old name for the Premium Rate phone 'regulator' allows firms to manage themselves.

 

However as far as the original complaint is concerned, a look at their list of adjudications going back 5 years will reveal the bulk of complaints concern privacy and accuracy. The former only concerns folk that are 'famous'

whether on not what is being disclosed is true or not - but for items of fact like names of people involved in accidents, there are no issues preventing publishing.