|
AUGUST 9, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Posted by GERI
Source: HPANA
Earlier this week Harry Potter author JK Rowling lost
a court case in which she sued a UK photography agency seeking to ban the publication of a picture of her son.
Rowling, who filed the action under her married name Murray, was walking with her husband and son, when the picture was taken from a distance with a long lens. The judge in the case stated that celebrities are not guaranteed "a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do."
Now a privacy law expert says that the judge did not take into account that celebrities may be more vulnerable to invasions of privacy than other people.
Mrs Murray and her family are vulnerable to media pressure on their private space. They may be rich; they may be privileged, but nevertheless these people are vulnerable, and I think there is a question of principle there that asks should the law be prepared to give them additional protection because of that vulnerability?
But the photograph of Mr and Mrs Murray and the child is wholly different. They are not street furniture; the photographer took that photograph covertly with a long lens camera specifically to produce information about them and publicise it to the world at large because it was information about them as specific living individuals. That is wholly different to taking a photograph of someone as they happen to be getting on a bus when you don't care who they are and no one else will know.
Ms. Rowling is appealing the decision.
Reader Comments (90)
Your Thoughts
click to write...
Copyright © 2002-2009 HPANA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 
HPANA is an unofficial fan site, in no way affiliated with J.K. Rowling,
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury Publishing or Warner Bros. Entertainment. All
trademarks and copyrighted material are the property of their respective owners.
About HPANA | Movie 6 | Send a news tip | Contact us | Privacy policy
Witch
Points: 861
star chaser says:
Taking JKs photo is one thing, but they should not be invading her sons privacy. I hope she wins an appeal.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 5:16 PM EST
Witch
Points: 760
Mrs. S. Snape says:
It's illegal here to publish the photo of a child without written permission from parents. Maybe this should be considered where media runs rampant with private lives...Britain and Hollywood especially.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 5:27 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2363
Nataly says:
Her son and her herself is different.. I hope the best for this case.. :)
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 5:31 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2146
kkids says:
Why should it matter if a person is a celebrity or not? Privacy should be considered in all cases such as this. A celebrity's child and family should be granted privacy - do they not have a privacy law in the UK? Should a privacy law be written in both the states and the UK to protect a celebrity and their families??
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 6:20 PM EST
Keeper of Harry's Fate
Points: 8934
TheOneWhoMustBeNamed says:
Very sad, but not really unexpected. Hopefully, she will succeed on her appeal.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 6:27 PM EST
Mrs. Draco Malfoy
Points: 27761
Arika Granger Malfoy says:
YEA!
That was total garbage that she didnt win.
I mean come onnnnn
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 6:34 PM EST
Professor
Points: 1070
azkaban_wannabe says:
That is so wrong. I don't get why people want to take pictures of children. If they aren't there's, then leave them alone.
*idiots*
Ah~
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 6:44 PM EST
Prefect
Points: 317
kels22 says:
That is out rangeous.
They had no right to take her son's picture.
It's just disrespectful and rude!!! >:/
I hope the best for JK.
lots of love,kels
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 6:55 PM EST
Head Girl
Points: 455
Krztyn says:
That really upsets me. I hope Mrs. Murray (our beloved JK Rowling!) wins her appeal! Best of luck!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 7:16 PM EST
Professor
Points: 1090
Octavian Petronius says:
Good luck to her on her appeal. Being an attorney I know the law is not necessarily "fair". Privacy is something that should be respected and it's a shame that we need to remind people of that.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 7:27 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2209
Scarlett Kent says:
I hope she wins the appeal. Besides an invasion of privacy issue, many celebrities face real security issues and problems from stalkers, etc. JKR is very wealthy - what if some criminal decided to kidnap one of her kids for ransom? They now know what her son looks like, thanks to that photo. JKR isn't one of those celebrities who uses their children as props or accessories for photo opportunities. Leave her kids alone.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 7:40 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 4th Class
Points: 1298
Sturgis Podmore says:
It's sad that reporters can't respect celebrities' privacy. Yes, endless media attention comes with the fame, but there's a line.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 7:44 PM EST
Student
Points: 213
Ginny_Weasley_504 says:
Thats just wrong... what else can I say?
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 8:42 PM EST
Muggle
Points: 36
Ghostly One says:
Ok, so when it comes to the privacy of celebrities they deserve the same privacy as other people. This means that the person who took the photo would be as upset as the celebrity they photographed, if said photographer was plastered over the newspapers, on-line or elsewhere. I wish people would respect others privacy, celebrity or not.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 8:47 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2076
Feelin' Felix Felicis says:
I'm sorry that JK Rowling lost her court battle. Unfortunately, with her status in the world, she will be subject to that kind of treatment. Still the photographer was doing his job, no matter how low he stooped to get the picture. What can she do? She can't hide herself or her family away forever.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 9:04 PM EST
Friendly Deaf Angel
Points: 5169
Friendly Deaf Angel says:
It is wrong of the Puparazzi to do that, i know it what they live for and get money but it was wrong of them to take a Picture of the Son of Jo. I wish her all the best to win the Case. I think the Judge was a git for letting the guy go. what was wrong with that judge.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 9:26 PM EST
Princess of Anime
Points: 7539
Allenoray Mozart says:
Stupid reporters and their fancy cameras!
Can't stand when people can't respect other peoples privacy.
I believe the outcome was very wrong! ><
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 9:54 PM EST
Head Girl
Points: 411
iamfelix says:
I hope she wins the appeal.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 10:03 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 3rd Class
Points: 1433
Brianna Huckpuck says:
I can't believe that judge. You can not take a picture of people, and then print it wherever the heck you like. It's invasion of privacy, and in the case of the child, WRONG. I swear...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 10:40 PM EST
Auror
Points: 3656
Anastasia Popovick says:
How is it that some celebs can keep their children out of site and the picture pigs respect their wishes not to photgraph them and others can not get that same deal?
I just have to say that the photo pigs need to back off and leave her kids alone! Respect her wishes! DUH!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 10:42 PM EST
Antipodean Snow Goddess
Points: 3070
Tikihaha says:
That's exactly the point - SHE'S the one who is famous - not her son! That is a clear breach of her son's privacy, regardless of what she does for a living.
Fight it, Jo!! Good luck ...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 11:10 PM EST
Witch
Points: 958
Ron+Hermione says:
I think this ruling should be changed. I believe that if J.K. doesn't want her childrens' photographs to be published around the world, then she should have a right to stop this from happening!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 2:07 AM EST
Prefect
Points: 320
Jorel says:
FIGHT THOSE BASTARDS!!!! I LOVE J.K. If anyone can get something done it would be J.K. :)
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 2:35 AM EST
Rickmaniac to the Core
Points: 2564
snaily says:
That's just ... sad ...
We're with you, Jo!! Fight it out ...
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 2:59 AM EST
Prefect
Points: 347
DumbledoresArmyLives says:
I think that is somewhat unfair because other celebs win stuff like this and it is to protect her child for crying out loud. They should make an exception for when it comes to children.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 3:13 AM EST
Order of Merlin, 1st Class
Points: 1862
Bright Eyes says:
It's amazing that there haven't been more images of her children online. Others children of famous people are all over the papers. I'm glad Jo is protecting her kids. She's the one who's 'famous' the kids didn't do anything to provoke media attention. She doesn't want that burden on her children.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 3:24 AM EST
Back to top of page