|
Rowling loses privacy court case - but was the outcome wrong? 
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)
click to read...
Your Thoughts
click to write...
Copyright © 2002-2008 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: 614
Harry_Hermoine_Fanz says:
*sigh* Those reporters are not cool. Yes, it's their job, but they must respect the artist's privacy. Doing that...is not respectful.*To me*
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 2:54 PM EST
Witch
Points: 718
Hedwig,express says:
Second?
In Texas, I know, a person was put in prison for taking pictures of children on a playground. So this would be close to the same thing, but English goverment is a bit different from American.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:05 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2332
Tokio Hotel Fan says:
Some people just can stop invading people personal life. If see does not want here kids pictures in the paper then that the least we could do for what she has done for us.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:05 PM EST
Sirius's Veil Thrower
Points: 4448
SiriusBlacksGodDaughter says:
I hate reporters, their job is to invade personal space and get rid of the privacy in normal people's lives. I want to see them deal with that!!! I mean, seriously, it should be JK Rowling's chose to have her son pictured or not, it's her son!!!!
~Drish~
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:16 PM EST
Student
Points: 216
Artep says:
Well I'm sorry J K lost but it is the norm for people to photograph anyone famous or indeed anyone they like without asking them so she should get use to it and ignore them.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:22 PM EST
Witch
Points: 603
kat_123 says:
Why do they feel that they have to invade Rowling's privacy? It's her son, what gives the reporters the right to take a picture of him and then make money from selling it? Its invasion of privacy! Well i hope her appeal goes through and she wins!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:29 PM EST
Head Girl
Points: 485
IrishGrace says:
Taking pics of J.K. is one thing... pics of her son is a whole 'nother ballgame... especially all creepy-like with a long-distance lens...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:37 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2342
john_potter says:
I think the outcome is correct. If you are in public you shouldn't have any assumptions of privacy. Now, it's not a really nice thing to do, but It's not illegal.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:47 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 3rd Class
Points: 1578
Honestly, Ronald! says:
I am never sorry for celebrities getting their pictures taken. However, every time I see kids' pictures- Angelina, Ben & Jen Garner, even Suri Cruise, I am always uncomfortable with that. They are still children, if someone was following around a non-famous kid with a camera, they would be arrested, no questions asked. All in all, I don't know what is legally true, but this is crazy nonetheless.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:53 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2521
Roswelladdict says:
This is a double edged sword for her, she is the renowned author of the most popular series ever written and has to expect that people are going to want to see her. However, she has a right to expect that we leave her family alone, they didn't ask for her to be famous, she did in a round about way. So it is fair for her to be photographed but not for her family, in my opinion.
I would like to note that I personally choose not to buy magazines, read articles and otherwise patronize publications or "news" (I use the term very loosely) outlets that partake in ventures such as the one that Jo was suing over.
I hope that Jo is able to overturn that decision and force the mags to start taking responsibility for being respectful to the families of celebrities.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 3:57 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2095
phoenix_feathers says:
Good for you, Jo. I wouldn't like my son's face publicized either, oddly enough. Hmm, fancy that. I think that it is quite dangerous for her son to be photographed, and hey, it's Jo's son, for crying out loud!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:05 PM EST
Auror
Points: 2502
School Governor says:
The ruling was totally wrong, the idiot judge did not take into account current case law and self-regulations in the media. Get out of the Nineteenth Century! High profile celebrities such as the Beckhams have been in photos where their kids images have been blurred out and clearly this should apply to JKR's kids too. This photographer is just being greedy and the photos are not in the public interest. It could be used by potential kidnappers.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:05 PM EST
Witch
Points: 746
SheylaLove says:
Good for Jo!!!!!!!
People have no respect for privacy these days, just because they're famous doesn't mean they don't deserve to live in peace!
GO JO!!!!!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:10 PM EST
Witch
Points: 580
The Prince's Tale says:
That's the great disadvantage of being famous ...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:18 PM EST
Seer
Points: 15207
Brittany Radcliffe says:
It was only a matter of time when JK would be bothered by the photographers just like every other celeb out there.
I guess they finally left Britney Spears alone to take of her and her son.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:18 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 2nd Class
Points: 1741
Mustela Putorius says:
The decision here seems a bit screwy. It's not legal to publish photos of children (under 16) without a signed parental/guardian consent form in the UK. This law exists predominantly to protect the identity/location of children who have been part of abuse cases etc. I don't see how the consent laws shouldn't extend to celebrities' children as well. I'm shocked she lost the case.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:24 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 4th Class
Points: 1370
mynanfanciesdumbledore says:
I can't understand why they think it's ok to secretly take photo's of children. What was wrong with asking her if she would mind them taking a photo of her & her family?
Having not seen the picture I can only assume that it was NOT distorted, so that we didn't see her little boys face, not that would lessen this gross intrusion.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:26 PM EST
Witch
Points: 755
harrypotter equalslife says:
I really dont know what to think about this.. i mean it was very morally wrong and innapropriate to take the picture of her kid, but they were in public. overall though, i think the judge probably made the right decision.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:29 PM EST
Witch
Points: 523
KarateKid says:
I read about this in the newspaper. I don't understand what these people get out of taking photos like that. I hope she gets her appeal thingy...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:29 PM EST
Witch
Points: 891
Lion says:
Too bad, really. The manner in which the pictures were taken is just plain "creepy." Stocker-azzi, anyone?
The best way for her to deal with the release of the pictures taken, is to release pictures of the boy before the reporter or anyone else can. That way, she's in control of the situation herself.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:37 PM EST
Squib
Points: 120
tatiweasley says:
I think her privacy should be respected...but it is difficult....I mean she is currently the second richest woman in the world and is a household name...paparazzis can't wait to get their hands on some pictures of her...
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:47 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 3rd Class
Points: 1576
~Harry's true love~ says:
I can understand what she feels, I wouldn't want People that I didn't know taking pictures of any of my children. It's wrong and let's face it. A bit weird. What do they want with him, He hasn't done anything wrong.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:52 PM EST
Professor
Points: 1139
humes says:
Some writers would kill for this kind of publicity...
I'm really torn on this one. On the one hand stardom requires that you get used to this type of publicity and unwanted attention. On the other, photographing from any distance for a tabloid, especially of a child, is creepy to say the least. The photographers had questionable intentions, to say the least; what if this were someone stalking Ms. Rowling as preparation to harm her? They want a photograph, just ask. Then again, since this is a tabloid we're dealing with, I'd just as soon have nothing to do with them.
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:54 PM EST
Order of Merlin, 4th Class
Points: 1277
DumbledoresArmy says:
Good. I understand that their privacy laws are different in England. But just because your a celebrity it shouldn't mean that your privacy no longer matters.
GO JKR!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 4:54 PM EST
Professor
Points: 1185
sapphire260 says:
I totally agree with Mrs. Rowling!
Posted Aug 9, 2007 at 5:02 PM EST
Witch
Points: 830
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
Back to top of page