Mrs Pollard had contracted with the defendant for photographs to be taken of herself for her own purposes. She found that the defendant was using the photograph for quite different purposes. She argued that, she having contracted for the photograph to be taken for one purpose, there was an implied term that it should not be used for any other.
Held: Such an implied term did exist.
Judges:
North J
Citations:
(1888) 40 Ch Div 345
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Douglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Contract
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.181411