BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8.00pm on 14 June 1999.

MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme.

Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, advised that MT had given a written consent to the production company to film the wedding and related events. Further, it stated, the programme did not make disclosures which could be regarded as highly offensive or objectionable, nor did it seek to ridicule or abuse.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. Given the matters raised on this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A television series about weddings was made by Touchdown Productions Ltd and broadcast on TVNZ. In January 1999, the complainant and his then fiancee agreed to participate in the series and their wedding was subsequently filmed. It was screened on 31 May 1999.

In the final programme in the series, broadcast at 8.00pm on TV2 on 14 June, it was reported that the marriage had ended in separation after only two months. The programme reused footage shot at the time of the wedding, incorporating wedding photographs which had been given to the programme by the bride, and included an interview with her in which she gave her reasons for the separation.

MT complained that the broadcast breached his privacy. He said that he had told Touchdown that he did not want his name used or his face shown in the programme. He expressed particular concern that the item included "computer enhanced" copies of the couple’s wedding photos being torn in half on national television. MT reported that he had been offered money to participate in the follow-up programme, but he had declined the offer because:

… he was attempting to put his life back together and was establishing a new relationship with a lady who had herself been through a break up, and, naturally any upset at this time was to be avoided at any cost.

MT further explained that when watching television on 14 June, his new partner:

… found herself confronted with additional footage of her new partner’s past wedding … .

MT claimed that when the wedding photos were handed to his ex-wife, there was no mention that the material would be made available for any follow-up programme.

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It noted that MT had signed a document headed "General Release Form" at the request of Touchdown Productions. TVNZ drew attention to the content of this form which it maintained was a consent to filming, and wrote:

We submit then, that the company making this programme was legally entitled to reuse material to which it holds the copyright freely surrendered to it by [MT] and his (now) estranged wife. Further we submit that the clause allowing the production company to adapt, alter and add to the contribution clearly covers circumstances such as those which arose and which led to the 14^th June programme.

Turning to the Privacy Principles applied by the Authority when determining privacy complaints, TVNZ noted that principle (vii) provides:

vii) An individual who consents to the invasion of his or her privacy, cannot later succeed in a claim for a breach of privacy.

Accordingly, TVNZ did not accept that the broadcast had infringed MT’s privacy.

TVNZ also considered the applicability of principle (i) to the complaint. It reads:

i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

TVNZ did not accept that the break-up of the marriage was a highly offensive and objectionable fact, adding that the bride acknowledged during the programme that she had walked out of the marriage. Principle (iv), TVNZ wrote, was not applicable as MT was not treated abusively or ridiculed any way. Principle (iv) provides:

iv) The protection of privacy also protects against the disclosure of private facts to abuse, denigrate or ridicule personally an identifiable person. This principle is of particular relevance should a broadcaster use the airwaves to deal with a private dispute. However, the existence of a prior relationship between the broadcaster and the named individual is not an essential criterion.

As for the other information included in the complaint, TVNZ wrote:

In his letter to the Authority, MT makes specific mention of the (still) wedding photographs used in the item. We confirm they were supplied by his [bride], who gave the programme maker the authority to reproduce them in the programme. We do not believe the pictures, or the act of tearing them up (to indicate the marriage was over), disclosed any private facts which might be highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

In his response, MT wrote that he found it offensive that the broadcast had taken advantage of the "painful break-up". He acknowledged that he had signed a General Release Form but objected strongly to the reference to the break-up. He wrote:

Touchdown Production Ltd’s thoughtless actions, knowing full well of the emotional impact the break-up had, obtained wedding photos and tore them in half. This was callous and showed no respect for my feelings.

The Authority’s Findings

MT complained that the broadcast of the item which reported the break-up of his marriage, and which showed a computer enhanced copy of his wedding photograph being torn in half, breached his privacy and, accordingly, was in contravention of s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act.

In determining privacy complaints, the Authority applies the Privacy Principles which it has developed. Principle (i) and Principle (iv) provide:

(i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

(iv) The protection of privacy also protects against the disclosure of private facts to abuse, denigrate or ridicule personally an identifiable person. This principle is of particular relevance should a broadcaster use the airwaves to deal with a private dispute. However, the existence of a prior relationship between the broadcaster and the named individual is not an essential criterion.

The Authority observes generally that disclosures about a marriage break-up may well be private and be protected by these principles. But here, this couple had willingly participated in the filming of their marriage and the preparations for it and to this extent they had put their relationship into the public arena. They knew from the terms of the consent that they were asked to sign that the footage would be used in a documentary to be shown on television, and they gave the film-maker a wide discretion as to its use. In these circumstances they could reasonably expect further media interest if their relationship did not work out, particularly in the short term. The Authority is not satisfied that the disclosure of their marriage breakdown and the reasons for it, involved private facts as contemplated by the principles. Further, and even if the broadcast did involve private facts, the Authority is not persuaded that the matters broadcast were, in those circumstances, objectionable or offensive or reported so as to abuse, denigrate or ridicule the bridegroom personally. It therefore declines to uphold the complaints under either Privacy Principle (i) or (iv).

TVNZ also relies on Privacy Principle (vii). This reads:

(vii) An individual who consents to the invasion of his or her privacy, cannot later succeed in a claim for privacy.

TVNZ provided the Authority with a copy of the General Release Form signed by MT in February when he agreed to participate in the Weddings series. This Form gives the Production Company an irrevocable consent and wide discretion about using the footage obtained.

While there may be debate as to whether this consent extended to the broadcast of the subsequent programme, it clearly gave the broadcaster the right to use footage obtained for the earlier programme without restriction. In the end, the Authority does not have to rule on the consent issue in respect of the programme complained about because of its conclusion that there was no breach of privacy under the Principles.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
19 August 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when determining this complaint:

1. MT’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority plus attachments – 7 July 1999

2. Television New Zealand’s Response to the Authority – 13 July 1999

3. MT’s Final Comment – 22 July 1999