NOT APPROVED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22367, 14 September 1934, Page 7

NOT APPROVED

USE OF DUKE’S PICTURE REPLY TO AUSTRALIA. It has been made apparent (says the Melbourne Age) that the Government has no power to prohibit the use of a photograph or pictorial representation of the Duke of Gloucester provided it conforms with the laws of defamation and decency. But as the royal visitor does not approve their use it may be regarded as bad taste to use the photograph for commercial purposes. The coat of arm# of the Duke is in a different category, for that is his personal property. The Premier has stated that the Government would legally enforce a prohibition on the use of the photograph or coat of arms. Apparently, the Government has no power whatever so far as the photograph is concerned. Many firms have entered into contracts for goods bearing the coat of arms or photograph, and in some cases both. The Attorney-general said that he had received a number of requests from commercial firms wanting to know the legal position with respect to the use of the coat of. arms or photographs or pictorial representations of the Duke of Gloucester. These firms were anxious to know the position, as they had entered into contracts, and would be entering into contracts for, at any rate, the use of pictorial representations of the Duke. Mr Macfarlan said he had told them that they were not entitled to use the coat of anus without permission, but so far as the photographs or pictorial representations of the Duke were concerned, the Government had not - the power either to permit or prohibit their use. As a matter of fact in this respect the Duke of Gloucester stood in exactly the same position as an ordinary subject, as under the English law there was no right of privacy in respect of photographs or pictorial representations. Any subject was at liberty to use the photographs or pictorial representations of any other subject as be pleased, so long as it was not accompanied by aspects of indecency or done in sucb a way as to offend the law of defamation under the common law in England, which was introduced here. There had been no statutory interference with that law either by the Commonwealth or States. The secretary of the Premier’s department (Mr Gale) explained that, following an application from the Young Australia League to place a photograph of the Duke on the league’s prospectus for its proposed tour of Victoria, which wa« to be distributed throughout the country, the Premier’s Department referred the matter to the Federal Prime Minister’s Department, which in turn submitted it to the Imperial authorities. A reply had been received through the same channel that “ The use of the coat of arms is not approved. This is reserved for the personal use of the Duke of Gloucester. Similarly, the use of photographs of his Royal Highness is not approved.”