JK Rowling wins child photography appeal
Last August I mentioned (here) that Harry Potter author JK Rowling had lost a High Court case in which she tried to ban the publication of a paparazzo's photo of her son, taken covertly, without her permission, on an Edinburgh street.
Well good news! Rowling and her husband Dr Neil Murray took the case to the Court of Appeal and won. The BBC reports:
Judge Sir Anthony Clarke said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.
"In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."
Another nail in the coffin of the paparazzi parasites. Lovely!
about 3 years ago
Can a child of parents who are not in the public eye reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media though? Can anyone else?
There is, in general, no expectation of privacy if you’re in a public place, if there were it would be essentially impossible to take photos anywhere in public and them publish them, say by uploading them to flickr.
It seems to me that this is the right outcome for the wrong reason; it shouldn’t be a question of privacy, it should be a question of harassment.
about 3 years ago
But what constitutes a photo of a child?
Kids are every ware and it inevitable that occasionally they may be in the background.
What about the 14 year old that looks 19?