Search results : 806
Refine your searchIRIS 2019-8:1/3 Court of Justice of the European Union: Pay-to-view restriction on foreign TV channel now permissible | |
---|---|
On 4 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment on whether Lithuania’s media authority could impose an obligation on all broadcasters requiring that a UK-based channel could be broadcast in Lithuania only in pay-to-view packages, as it had found that one of its programmes “contained information that incited hatred”. The CJEU held that such a measure did not infringe Article 3(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which provides that member states “shall not restrict retransmissions” of broadcasts from another member state. The case concerned... |
|
IRIS 2019-7:1/20 [GB] Age-appropriate design | |
Under section 123 of the Data Protection Act, the Information Commissioner must prepare a code of practice that contains such guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate in respect of standards regarding the age-appropriate design of relevant “information society” services that are likely to be accessed by children. The Code must be presented to Parliament; thereafter, under section 127, it must be taken into account by the Commissioner when considering whether an online service has complied with its data-protection obligations. The Commissioner in drafting the code is required to consider... |
|
IRIS 2019-7:1/19 [GB] Prince Harry accepts damages from paparazzi agency over helicopter snaps of his home | |
On 16 May 2019, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, settled privacy and data protection claims against Splash News and Picture Agency, who used a helicopter to take photographs of his home in Oxfordshire. The property is located in a secluded area surrounded by private farmland which is not accessible to photographers. In January 2019, Splash, a paparazzi agency which takes and syndicates images for commercial gain, chartered a helicopter which flew over Prince Harry’s home at low altitude allowing it to take photographs “of and into the living area and dining area of the home and directly into the bedroom.” The... |
|
IRIS 2019-7:1/18 [GB] The Supreme Court considers how alleged defamatory words in a Facebook post are interpreted by the hypothetical reader | |
The Supreme Court determined that the defendant’s words published on Facebook were not defamatory. The original trial judge was wrong to confine his meaning of the words to two dictionary definitions, and failed to properly consider the post’s context whereby readers would momentarily glance at words and not apply “a lawyerly analysis”. Nicola Stocker (the defendant) and Ronald Stocker were spouses, but their marriage ended with Mr Stocker subsequently forming a relationship with Ms Bligh. On 23 December 2012, a Facebook exchange occurred with Mrs Stocker informing Ms Bligh that Mr Stocker had... |
|
IRIS 2019-6:1/16 [GB] DCMS launches Online Harms White Paper - consultation period ends 1 July 2019 | |
On 8 April 2019, the Department for Digital, Culture and Media and Sport (DCMS) launched its consultative Online Harms White Paper, which sets out the United Kingdom’s proposals for regulations that would enable the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online, as well as the best place to start and grow a digital business. The main online problems concern the misuse of online sites by terrorist groups and sex offenders, online bullying, and the use of disinformation that risks undermining democratic values and principles. Social media platforms use algorithms, which lead to “echo chambers”... |