SnitchSeeker.com - JK fails to ban an image of her son being published (UPDATED)

SnitchSeeker.com (https://www.snitchseeker.com/forum.php)

- Harry Potter News (https://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/)

- - JK fails to ban an image of her son being published (UPDATED) (https://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/jk-fails-to-ban-an-image-of-her-son-being-published-updated-49382/)

JK fails to ban an image of her son being published (UPDATED)

An image has been published in the Sunday Express showing JK Rowling pushing her son, David, in a buggy. The image was being used in an article to show her approach to motherhood, but JK Rowling tried to have it banned, as it was a breach of privacy. This attempt was unsuccessful.

Quote:

Mr Justice Patten said: "I have considerable sympathy for the claimant's parents and anyone else who wishes to shield their children from intrusive media attention.

"But the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do."

Jo has been granted permission to appeal and in the meantime there is a temporary ban on publication of the image.

Quote:

Mr Justice Patten pointed out that, before the 1998 Human Rights Act, the law did not recognise any such right at all, and there was still no general cause of action for "invasion of privacy".

"If the law is such as to give every adult or child a legitimate expectation of not being photographed without consent on any occasion on which they are not, so to speak, on public business, then it will have created a right for most people to the protection of their image," he said.

"If a simple walk down the street qualifies for protection, then it is difficult to see what would not."

For most people who were not public figures, there would be virtually no aspect of their lives which could not be said to be private.

The judge said the boundaries of what people could expect to remain confidential or private were inevitably influenced "by the fact that we live in an open society with a free press".

There was "an area of routine activity which, when conducted in a public place, carries no guarantee of privacy".

Quote:

The photo agency was awarded £40,000 interim costs against the Murrays pending the outcome of the appeal and a final costs assessment.

UPDATE: The BBC has a quote from J.K.Rowling:

Quote:

In a statement, Rowling said she and her husband Neil were "disappointed by the judgement, which seems to have misunderstood our claim".

"Our aim has only been to protect our children from press intrusion during their childhood.

"We see no legitimate reason why, as in this case, David, who was less than two years of age at the time, should have his photograph taken and then published in the press.

"We take his, and that of his siblings, privacy and safety very seriously."

Jo also confirmed that she intends to appeal.

i hope that J.K can appeal this because it is kind of an infringement on her privacy and she might not want her son to be exposed to the public as yet and that is to be understandable

That's so hard to do...keep your privacy after becoming so famous. I understand her wanting to keep her kids out of the public eye though, and I do wish her the best of luck. Hope she is moe successful with it than most celebrities seem to be ecspecially with the whole papparrazzi issue....and yah I know my spelling sucks right now.

:lol:

Good luck JK.

I don't read this paper but all i can say is good luck to JK

The sunday mail printeed a picture of her sdon in his buggy when Dh came out and quite rightly jo complained...

She is famous not her son!

i totally agree with all of you guys, the paparazzi need to realize when the limit, when it comes to inoccent kids who's parents happen to be in the public eye

I wouldnt want my children in the public eye either
(if I ever have kids)
but any who.... Go Jo!

Even though what the photographer did was legal, i still think its an invasion privacy, Jo has every right to be upset.

Well, that's the price you have to pay if your famous, isn't it? I mean, it was completely wrong on the photographer's part but now that the damage is done....

Yeah, definitely an invasion of privacy.

Here, it's illegal to publish pictures of minors without the parents concent. I think it should be like that everywhere. They should leave the kids alone, they are the ones in the public eye.

Aww. Poor Jo. I hope she can get her appeal.

this is totally rediculas, why should the shild be tormented in this manner hope that Jo gets to have those pics and any future pics of her kids banned from publication if it is to be published with out her concent.

the paparazzi should really learn to find their limit in the amount of snooping that they do

I do have to point out, its not like her son is going to be targeted now

I wish her the best of luck though, every parent should try to help the safety and security of their child, including what others know of them around the world <3

If I had tried to publish that, I'd be ashamed of myself.
JK's family deserve privacy, and Ms Rowling had every right to sue and take them to court. I hope she wins her battle, because they have no right to put pictures of her family on the paper.
A new law should be added to the Human Rights Act - giving people the right to privacy, and not allowing pictures of them or their family to be shown by the media. Unless it is a convict, terrorist or something else, who deserve to be named and shamed.
After my rant, I'll just say this -

GO JK!

Aww, even though what they did was legal, Jo still has every right to her privacy.

bah. if you're that famous, it pretty much is part of the package. yeah, the paparazzi are out of line most of the time, but that's just how it is.

that stinks for JK Rowling

People suck. They should leave kids out of it.

I think it was kind of rude for them to shoot a picture of Jo when we all know how private she likes to keep her family.
I honestly am on Jo's side the entire way. Although maybe it was a bit much to go and have the picture banned, i still think that if she wants her privacy, she is allowed to keep it.
Wow, £40,000 is a lot of money in canadian anyway!

It was kind of rude for them to do that, even if it is legal. They should at least show some respect and not publish it.

Quote:

A new law should be added to the Human Rights Act - giving people the right to privacy, and not allowing pictures of them or their family to be shown by the media. Unless it is a convict, terrorist or something else, who deserve to be named and shamed.

As the guy said, that isn't really practical. Convicts & terrorists are still humans, by the way.

I think its unfair of the press to invade Jo and her children's privacy...

Thats really bad. I can't believe they'd do such a thing.

In My Opinion.....

If you are famous then everybody is going to go snooping in your life.
So, either don't go out or go out and ignore the press.

Sorry If I offend anybody but that's what I think. :*ops: :ron2: