Interesting one this, and at odds with what one might expect... I can see this
being appealed further.
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7387490.stm
"Harry Potter author JK Rowling has won a legal battle to ban publication of
long-lens photographs taken of her son when he was 18 months old.
The author claimed the boy's right to privacy had been infringed after a picture
of him was published in 2004."
"We are immensely grateful to the court for giving our children protection from
covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and
material difference to their lives."
The agency photo - taken in November 2004 - showed Ms Rowling pushing David in a
buggy on a street in Edinburgh.
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."
Now I think I'm correct in saying this is a new principle - a photograph taken
on a public street can't be published because.... well I'm not really clear, the
judge just waffles about 'reasonable expectations'. And sets different standards
for children. Not impressed.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |