DOUGLAS AND ZETA JONES CASE GOES ON APPEAL

The IPKat has learned from the BBC that Hello! magazine has won leave to appeal over the damages it was ordered to pay after publishing wedding pictures of Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas. The happy couple had previously signed an exclusive £1m photo deal with rival magazine OK! to publish photos of their 2000 wedding. In April the High Court ordered Hello! to pay more than £1m damages, after it published six unauthorised shots. Hello! is disputing whether it should pay damages to the magazine or stars. Hello!’s lawyer Chris Hutchings said the magazine was appealing initially over whether it should be liable to pay damages. Only 15,000 copies of the magazine actually went on sale before OK!'s publication, he said. In April Mr Justice Lindsay ruled that Hello!'s pictures had been a breach of commercial confidence. He later ordered it to pay £1,033,156 to OK!, (see IPKat blog, 12 November 2003) and a further £14,500 in damages to the Hollywood couple. The couple has been given leave of appeal over privacy issues. In the original case, the actors said Hello!'s publication of photographs was an invasion of their privacy but the claims were not upheld. The couple were only awarded £14,500 in damages for breach of confidence.

DOUGLAS AND ZETA JONES CASE GOES ON APPEAL DOUGLAS AND ZETA JONES CASE GOES ON APPEAL Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, January 16, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.