magazine I will obviously change the main picture and the 
Villain - Frank D'AmicoA friend of Mr Kaye had been granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the editor (Anthony Robertson) and the newspaper (the Sunday Sport) from using the material, which they appealed.
Lord Justice Glidewell said "It is well-known that in English law there is no right to privacy, and accordingly there is no right of action for breach of a persons privacy. The facts of the present case are a graphic illustration of the desirability of Parliament considering whether and in what circumstances statutory provision can be made to protect the privacy of individuals."
In the absence of the right to privacy, Mr Kaye's advisers based their claim on libel, malicious falsehood, trespass to the person and passing off. The Court of Appeal ruled that none of these torts was applicable except malicious falsehood, and on this basis the only remedy available was that the newspaper was prohibited from stating any inference that Mr Kaye had consented to the story.
The academic response to this ruling has been negative, e.g. "Kaye remains a compelling demonstration of the limits of both existing English law and of the limitations of an approach that relies upon inadequate existing remedies to protect privacy."
1998-2000
The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It also totally abolished the death penalty in UK law (although this was not required by the Convention in force for the UK at that time)
2008
In 2008 the editor of the Daily Mail criticised the Human Rights Act for allowing, in effect, a right to privacy at English law despite the fact that Parliament has not passed such legislation. Paul Dacre was in fact referring to the indirect horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act on the doctrine ofbreach of confidence which has moved English law closer towards a common law right to privacy.In response the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer stated that the Human Rights Act had been passed by Parliament, that people's private lives needed protection and that the judge in the case had interpreted relevant authorities correctly
2011
It has become apparent that many rich and powerful people are taking out injunctions or super injunctions. This has raised the argument, do the public have a right to know, or do the celebrities have a right to privacy.
No one younger than 15 may see a ‘15’ film in a cinema. No one younger than 15 may rent or buy a ‘15’ rated video work.
The work as a whole must not endorse discriminatory language or behaviour.
Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse. The misuse of easily accessible and highly dangerous substances (for example, aerosols or solvents) is unlikely to be acceptable.
Strong threat and menace are permitted unless sadistic or sexualised.
Dangerous behaviour (for example, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on detail which could be copied. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised.
There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, ‘fuck’). The strongest terms (for example, ‘cunt’) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable.
Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.
Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context. Works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation are unlikely to be acceptable.
No theme is prohibited, provided the treatment is appropriate for 15 year olds.
Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable. There may be detailed verbal references to sexual violence but any portrayal of sexual violence must be discreet and have a strong contextual justification.
The next shot is a close up of Leonardo DiCaprio's face. He is a big actor so this alone is a great selling point. This is a reaction shot, we can see that he looks uneasy. This builds up even more tension.
The main unique selling point of the film is its gravity defying effects. The next two shots after are also like this. It is a close up of a glass of water, however the water moves as if there is no gravity. This would be very strange to the viewer and intrigue them even more. 
There is another close up shot of Leonardo DiCaprio. It is also a reaction shot, this confirms him as the protagonist in the film. He is a big actor, and this is one thing that is given away. Nothing much else about the characters or storyline is given away in the trailer.
As the music gets faster, so does the cut the next shot. There are many quick close ups of slow motion, gravity defying action scenes. This will draw the viewer in as it is very unique, and will interest the films main target audience. After the quick action shot, there is a shot of someone jumping out of water. This increases the confusion, hopefully leaving the viewer aching for more.
The trailer ends with another close up, reaction shot of the main protagonist. It shows him waking up, as if everything that has happened in the trailer so far was in a dream?
As a poster is usually bigger then a magazine front cover and is used to sell the film, it doesn't follow the same conventions. It is trying to sell only one thing and as it will be much bigger, it will try to fit in as much about the film as it can.
Empire magazine is the UK's leading movie magazine so there is a degree of arrogance in their front page. An example being that they are such a successful brand, that they dont even need to show their masthead in full. In this picture we can see the main figures head is covering the 'P' in 'EMPIRE'. Despite this it still shows many common magazine features.
