Rowling wins court photo appeal

[mrmr96]

I thought photos taking in public were fair game?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7387490.s...

[Don]

mrmr96 said:

I thought photos taking in public were fair game?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7387490.s...

So did I. Obviously not.

[Simpo Two]

I wonder how you un-publish pictures?

[rsv gone!]

Becoming something of a serial litigant, isn't she?

[mrmr96]

bbc news said:

The author claimed the boy's right to privacy had been infringed after a picture of him was published in 2004.

bbc news said:

The agency photo - taken in November 2004 - showed Ms Rowling pushing David in a buggy on a street in Edinburgh.

As far as I was aware there is no "right to privacy" in a public place (i.e. a street in Edinburgh). So maybe it's not the taking of the photo, but rather the publication?

bbc news said:

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.

I thought that there was no right to ban your photo appearing in a news paper. I'm sure Ms Rowling is not the first to have a picture published which she would rather not. Indeed many criminals are photographed leaving court, they are not celebrities but becasue the photos were taken in public they can be published.

Have I missed the point or is Ms Rowling's offspring being entitled to special treatment?

Edited by mrmr96 on Wednesday 7th May 12:31

[CVP]

I think she was trying for the "in the public interest" line. If the image had just been of her then as she is a famous author she might not have been able to pursue this kind of action.

She does seem to be enjoying the inside of the court at the moment.

The cynical side of me says that her current case in the USA is purely about money where she saw someone who might make a decent amount of money out of the Harry Potter guide and then decided as she was the author of the ortiginal aoerks, that kind of guide book might be a very good idea to write and publish and milk the last few pennies from the Harry Potter series, so let's stop this fellow in his tracks.

It's a shame, as if I understand correctly, she did not take any action against the internet site he had been running for a few years that the book would be directly based on. That the internet site was free and helped the fan base whilst she was still writing the books would have had absolutely no bearing on the lack of action, oh no.

Chris

[Neek]

bbc news said:

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.

does that mean wide angle is alright?

[Puggit]

That pesky Graham sticks his lens in everywhere

[Tuna]

I guess the fact that the subject of the photo was an 18 month old child probably helped her case.

[kybo]

Neek,

It's a fine line, isn't it. You think you've got the rules nailed and it turns almost full circle.

Like your quote suggests, it was more the way in which the picture was taken that was in question : ""We are immensely grateful to the court for giving our children protection from covert, unauthorised photography;" (extracted/copyright BBC news article). I have read somewhere about long lens photography in public areas being discouraged:

Take a photo covertly and your a spy/terrorist or a sinister/dirty/unhinged person. Take a photo in the open and you get mugged by ill-educated security guards and coppers - you just can't win .

10 penneth!
Scott

[poah]

thats shocking news TBH, it lays a president for all famous children shot in the UK. while I don't see the point of it and I could not care less about the children of fmaous people the right to publish editoral images has been dealt a heffty blow with that ruling.

[_dobbo_]

I might be wrong but didn't the precedent exist? I remember that for a long time the children of the Beckhams would always have their faces blurred out in photos.

This doesn't change the law on photography in public places, and I don't see how it really effects editorial photography. She's won a case to ban the publishing of photos that have already been published. This doesn't effect the media's ongoing right to publish any other photos of any other person.

[poah]

other people will start on the bandwagon. she should not be able to stop it

[Dogsey]

poah said:

thats shocking news TBH, it lays a president for all famous children shot in the UK.

To be fair though J K Rowlings child isn't famous and I think that was the point of the case.