On Thu, 8 May 2008 18:06:01 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:
>
>"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.
>
No, I wasn't making that mistake.
I just wanted to know the basis for the decision.
And thank you for the link to the case in another post. It made very
interesting reading.
>>
>> 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
>
I can understand the decisions in both this case and the Campbell
case, given what is said about the evolution of common law to
incorporate the principles of articles 8 & 10 of the ECHR.
I don't understand *why* the Lords felt that our common law, which has
never had any general expectation of privacy, should be extended in
that way, but they seemed to be unanimous on that aspect.
The split judgment in the Campbell case was not (as I read it) about
whether those articles should be incorporated, but about which side of
the balance between those articles the (newspaper) article and
photographs fell.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I may not be perfect, but parts of me are excellent.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |