"Alex Heney" wrote in message
news:0v4424dsqc4ifapd1uvhithfeap5i3tph4@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 06:39:19 -0400, Mike Ross
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> As Aidy quite rightly points out, it isn't the photography that has
> been shown to be unlawful, but the unwarranted publication of the
> photos.
>
> And I am still rather dubious about what law the judge in this case
> thinks applies.
For "the judge" substitute "the learned judges of the Court of Appeal".
Don't make the mistake of thinking that this was some eccentric judge making
a capricious decision because he took a liking to JK Rowling. This was a
careful and considered statement of the law of the land by our most expert
judges.
>
> The article doesn't mention what law he thinks it comes under, just
> some vague waffle about his "right to privacy" having been breached.
For a full understanding of the law (I'm not being patronising, I concede
I'm not sure I understand it either - it's a specialist area) you have to
read:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-1.htm
|