Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland
The publication of stills from a security video of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed was not fair dealing for reporting current events, and was not justified in the public interest.
Facts
After the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed in Paris in 1997, Mohamed Al Fayed, Dodi Fayed's father, made public statements about their relationship and their plans. A security guard employed by Hyde Park Residence, a company associated with Mr Al Fayed, made copies of stills from the security video of a villa owned by Mr Al Fayed, which showed the couple's short visit there, and sold them to The Sun, which published them to show that Mr Al Fayed's statements were untrue. Hyde Park Residence sued for infringement of copyright.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the publication infringed copyright. Aldous LJ said that the fair dealing defence for reporting current events did not apply, because the stills did not need to be published to show that the couple's visit had been short, which could have been reported in words, and the information had been obtained in breach of confidence. He also said that the defence of public interest could only apply in exceptional circumstances, where enforcing copyright would offend against the policy of the law, which was not the case here.
Related cases on copyright: infringement and defences
- Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] Ch 149
- Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247
- Deckmyn v Vandersteen Case C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132
- Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416
- Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
- GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV Case C-160/15, EU:C:2016:644
- Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
- LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
