Celebrities, the Media and the Personal Data Privacy Wars Dr. Robin Callender Smith Professor of Media Law QMUL’s Centre for Commercial Law Studies

….from Sir John Gresham, Gresham’s School, Holt, 1555 -> to Sir Thomas Gresham, Gresham College, 1597 ->

….or (as Prince Edward might have said) Are those paparazzi I see hiding behind my son?

Celebrity

Privacy Something is private if a person has a desire for privacy in relation to it when a person wishes to be free from outside access when attending or undertaking it Information is private if the individual does not want people to know about it

Proportionality In re S (a Child FS) [2004] Lord Steyn “First, neither article [8 or 10] has such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test. This is how I will approach the present case.”

The Streisand Effect

Data Protection Act 1998 1 Personal data = any data that can be used to identify a living individual. Applies to data which is held on computers or in a relevant filing system. Create rights for those who have their data stored, and responsibilities for those who store, process or transmit such data. The person who has their data processed has the right to - See it - Correct it - Restrict any damaging or distressing uses

Data Protection Principles Data Protection Act 1998 2 Data Protection Principles Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and shall not be processed unless: Obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

Section 32 DPA: “Journalism, Art and Literature” Exemption Data Protection Act 1998 3 Section 32 DPA: “Journalism, Art and Literature” Exemption Dis-applies the DPA Principles if the “data controller” (editor) reasonably believes that the processing and publication would be in the public interest.

Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001]: £50 DPA damages

Campbell v MGN [2004]: “widespread publication of the photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, even if taken in a public place, maybe an infringement of the privacy of his personal information.” £50 DPA damages.

Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008]: £60,000 Misuse of Private Information damages

A celebrity’s lawyer writes…. “Our client requests that you cease processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data concerning him and his personal relationships on the grounds that the processing may cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him and that such damage or distress would be or is unwarranted in all the circumstances and would prejudice the rights and freedoms or his legitimate interests. Having given this notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act (1998) our client reserves the right to apply under section 10 (4) of the Act to a court in respect of any failure on your part to comply with this notice for an order that steps be taken to comply with it.”

2014….and the “Data Protection Trio” Steinmetz v Global Witness Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González Hegglin v Persons Unknown & Google

Steinmetz v Global Witness

Google Spain v AEPD & Mario Costeja González

Hegglin v Persons Unknown & Google

2015….and the “Privacy Quartet” Google v Vidal-Hall Mosley v Google Weller v Associated Newspapers Gulati v Mirror Group Newspapers

Google v Vidal-Hall

Mosley v Google

Weller v Associated Newspapers

Gulati + 7 v Mirror Group Newspapers

2016….The Supremes and the EU Data Protection Regulation Google v Vidal-Hall on Section 13 (2) DPA Associated Newspapers v Weller on images of children of celebrities taken in public places MGN v Gulati and others on quantum of damages for unlawfully obtained private information EUDPR….finally signed, sealed and delivered?

…. and thank you. r.callendersmith@qmul.ac.uk Closing Comments …. and thank you. r.callendersmith@qmul.ac.uk