|
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
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
Dragon Rider
Points: 4437
~MalfoyPotter~ says:
I think it is disrespecful that they took pictures, since Jo didnt want them to be published they shouldnt do so. He's her child not theirs. But ah well... Papparazzi.. Alas.
~MP~
∞
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 4:06 AM EST
Lips of an Angel
Points: 26390
3.1415926535 says:
shes tried sue someone from the press cos they took a photo of her son...?? thats weird... and she lost the case... I wonder how much money she lost over that,,,
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 5:45 AM EST
The Keeper of Time
Points: 2604
krisie says:
I don't think anyone has the right to take photos of celebrities children. Maybe they do have the right to take a photo of JKR but not of her son. It isn't his fault that his Mum is who she is.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 6:24 AM EST
Squib
Points: 155
laura123 says:
Even though she can't control what the press does or takes a picture of, it is a major invasion of privacy. And if she wants to stop the press from publishing a picture of her son, she should be allowed to!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 9:34 AM EST
Prefect
Points: 363
tsedolma says:
It is violating one`s privacy, I mean, the judge certainly has to think it from JK`s point of view, and it is not like JK doesn`t let anyone take her picture .she is a mother and she is protective of her child, is that ,like, so hard to understand???!!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 10:13 AM EST
Auror
Points: 4080
RON's all up in heRmiONe says:
I think the outcome was very wrong. She should have won the case. I know that celebrities aren't guaranteed a press free zone, but it is an invasion of privacy. Her son is a minor, and shouldn't it be illegal to put a picture of minors without the parent's consent in a public newspaper? If it was just Jo and her husband, it would be alright. She should appeal and get a different judge!!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM EST
Eternal Meatball Head
Points: 6171
BellaCullen says:
Well thats awful! Reporters do get a bit carried away at times. Taking a picture of the famous author is one thing, but of a 20 month old baby...
*sigh*
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 11:55 AM EST
Professor
Points: 1008
PhoenixThestral says:
Oh people are sooo intrusive!! Good luck on the appeal JK!!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 12:05 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 3rd Class
Points: 1578
*sweet_angel_baby* says:
It's really unfair for Jk. If she doesn't want any personal pictures to be shown in public, then they should rspect her request.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2852
H/HrShipper4Ever says:
Way to go JK. Sue those paparatzzi.. It's sick to what lenght people will get to take a pic of a famous person. People should respects other peoples privacy.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 4:23 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2495
Jbird says:
I'm torn when it comes to this. This is part of being famous, it goes with the territory. That said I don't think that children should be included in this. Take all the picturs you want of the parents/famous person but when it comes to thier kids I don't think it should be allowed without consent. Something could happen to thier kids because some crazy knows what they look like because they saw it in magazine-and I don't think that's right. I feel bad for her...
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 7:26 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2572
Mystique says:
I really hope she succeeds. It's not like the photogapher sw them walking, had no idea they'd be there, and sanpped a quick pick. He specifically targeted her, using the correct lens type and everything. Just because they are famous, doesn't mean the public or press should have access to thier private lives. They deserve a little privacy!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 8:56 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2011
brenpotterfans says:
I really hopes she wins that appeal. Photographers can be so awful, chasing down people just to get a picture. It is wrong definitely morally wrong to take a picture of any child without the parents permission.
When children are in public schools forms get sent home for the parent to sign giving permission to take picture of the kids. So when people are with their kids in any public place it should be illegal for anybody to take their picture and especially print it for everybody to see.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM EST
Honeydukes Eye Candy
Points: 3501
Pansyful says:
I think this deserves a fight. what those bastardly photographers did was not at all fair to the part of JK and her family. i hope they get another chance to this and teach those paparazzis some lesson!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM EST
Witch
Points: 883
Bossy Boots says:
It's one thing to photograph celebrities. It kinda comes with the territory. But taking pictures of their children is wrong. Those kids were born into fame, they didn't choose it. Leave the kids out of it. Stupid paparrazzi... leave people alone and get a real job!!
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 10:07 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 1st Class
Points: 1819
zues says:
When ANYONE is outside thier homes they can be photographed. You are not in the privicy of your own home. BUT I think any children of celebrities under the legal age should be out of bounds to the paparazzi.
Posted Aug 10, 2007 at 11:47 PM EST
Auror
Points: 3467
HufflepuffActress says:
I think it is awful for people to take pictures of her when she is out with her family. Her son is young he should have his picture printed unless his parents approve or he is old enough to decided on his own.
Posted Aug 11, 2007 at 2:06 AM EST
Order of Merlin, 2nd Class
Points: 1711
Hermione II says:
I really do hope she wins her appeal. It is so wrong to take advantage of someone's celebrity, just to make a name for yourself, and that's what most of these photographers do. Case in point, if I may? Diana 1997. 10 years ago we tragically lost a great woman, as did her two young and very vulnerable sons. Why? Because her driver sought to outrun the Paparazzi in order to protect her privacy! To top that all off, we were inundated with photos of the tragic accident for days and weeks, which was also wrong. dina paid the ultimate price for a photographer's moment of glory. don't let Jo and her family suffer the same fate. We all are entitled to our privacy, Jo and all the other celebs out there included!
Posted Aug 11, 2007 at 12:31 PM EST
Ravenclaw Mastermind
Points: 9743
Isilwen Ciryatan says:
Good for Jo for appealing that case!! I really don't like how these people can just take anyone's picture and want to publish it. It's not just the celebrity, but her own child. It ought to be up to her and her husband as to whether they want David's picture published. How could the judge not rule in her favor?!
Posted Aug 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 1st Class
Points: 1881
DarkPhoenixRising says:
It goes with the territory of being a celebrity. The trade off for the wealth and fame is bittersweet.
Posted Aug 11, 2007 at 3:56 PM EST
Delusional Army Soldier
Points: 4399
ILoveHP! says:
Aww. That's sad. I hope J.K. will have justice.
Posted Aug 11, 2007 at 11:27 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2860
mad_eye muggle says:
Ohh.......that's too bad.I'm so sorry JK.The stupid reporters,have nothing ood to do.Why don't they just repects other people's privacy,their way out of line.
Posted Aug 12, 2007 at 12:28 AM EST
Witch
Points: 863
CursedForever says:
I think its fine when the take photos of JK and her husband, but their children... thats just totally different. Its not fair.
Posted Aug 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM EST
Student
Points: 282
mrpotterhasgottenhotter says:
I love Jo, but no offense, she seriously needs to relax! Tons of celebrites get their pictures taken every day! It's simply a given for a person who writes the series of the century!
Posted Aug 12, 2007 at 7:16 PM EST
Prof. Alfred W. Mandoore
Points: 2445
JAYSTARR says:
I dont think JKR should worry much, there will loads of photographers taking pictures of her and her family for now on. Since she has finished her books and will be walking around town, especially with her childrens.
Posted Aug 12, 2007 at 7:41 PM EST
Back to top of page