Court Rules Against JKR in Photo Privacy Case

111

Aug 08, 2007

Posted by SueTLC

J.K. Rowling lost a bid in court today when a judge in the UK ruled against the Harry Potter author who had tried to stop publication of a photograph involving her young child. The case involved a photograph taken of young David Murray, then 20 months old, as he was out with his parents for a walk in the streets of Edinburgh, Scotland. This photograph later appeared the Sunday Express, and according to the BBC Jo “complained that David’s right to privacy had been infringed and sought to prevent future publication,” by going to court over this matter.

In the ruling today, the judge denied the Murray’s attempt to stop this, and as the Guardian reports:

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.”

The judge granted the Murray’s permission to appeal and continued a temporary ban on publication of the picture in the meantime.

Jo and her husband, Dr. Neil Murray were disappointed in this outcome, and Jo said that she and her husband 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.”

JKR went on to say that they will appeal, and we will continue to update on that when the case proceeds. Thanks to everyone that emailed!





83 Responses to Court Rules Against JKR in Photo Privacy Case

Avatar Image says:

The papparazzi are sick disgusting people

Avatar Image says:

Yes they are. What do the vultures want with Jo’s kids, don’t they already ruin plenty of things?

Avatar Image says:

Why can’t they just leave her kids alone? Seriously, what’s the point?

Avatar Image says:

I dont get it I understood the judge said pretty much that his hands were tied that the law says they are aloud to take the pictures ok my qestion is. Can he at least keep them from posting them or is that out of his hands to?

Avatar Image says:

There was that press embargo on the princes until they came of age.

I’m sort of surprised they lost (or, at least, didn’t win) because the UK has much more stringent privacy rights than we do.

(of course, they’ve also - even with, or maybe even because of - their more stringent restrictions on the press. Much easier to get a libel conviction or a conviction for publishing government secrets. Who knows? Maybe that’s why they’ve got such a rabid paparazi & tabloid culture over there?)

Avatar Image says:

mmmm. how’d i get that accidental crossing-out thingie?

Avatar Image says:

Really, whoever took the photo deserves a good ol’ hex…only if…

Avatar Image says:

Sigh … well, good luck in the appeal, Jo!

Avatar Image says:

Hmm. So was the picture taken and published without Rowling’s knowledge or consent (I assume David’s consent, as he was 20 months old, doesn’t count for much)? I’m not a lawyer, but that’s got to count for something. I personally think Rowling has every right to protect her children; they should not be dragged into the media or the press without their or Rowling’s consent.

Avatar Image says:

I just noticed that there’s a temporary ban on the publication of the picture. If they can keep delaying the appeal, then they’re keeping their son out of the press, just like they wanted.

Avatar Image says:

NO ONE and I Mean NO ONE has the right to take the picture of anyone’s child without the permission of their parent. What right do these people have? I don’t know the laws in the UK, but in the US if a person takes a picture of your child and publishes without your permission it you can SUE them. AS a JKR FAN I will never read or buy Sunday Express magazine and I suggest anyone that’s a fan will do the same.

Avatar Image says:

I jump on the bandwagon…JKR’s Army.

Avatar Image says:

Yes you can sue in the US but i do remmber reading were Reeese Witherspoon also went to court over them taking her childrens pictures and lost its like if you are in the medi all the time then your children dont have any rights and are just flashed everywhere think about it there are alot of people who are in the media all the time that i would think would keep there chidren out of everthing if they could.

Avatar Image says:

How hard would it be to pass new legislation in the UK?

Avatar Image says:

That is just wrong!

Avatar Image says:

Stupid paparazzi. Nobody has the right to take pictures of other peoples’ children and stick them somewhere, regardless of who they are!

Avatar Image says:

This is awful. The way the judge spoke “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” It’s not like Jo is flounting herself all over the press like Paris Hilton. She lives a very quiet life and has always been very clear that her children stay out of the media explosion that Harry has become. Anyone who doesn’t respect the wishes of someone as great and good as Jo Rowling doesn’t deserve the time of day. I whole heartedly support the boycot of all things Sunday Express.

Avatar Image says:

as much as I’d like to see what Jo’s kids look like, I respect her privacy and I can understand why other people want to catch a glimpse of her kids as well. I don’t totally agree on their case because when the family is out in public, they can be photographed legally, even if the parents don’t give their consent.

Avatar Image says:

It is because she does live a quiet life that they want to mess that up for her the people who work for the press or ruthless and when they go out to take pictures of who ever they are out for blood look a princess diana she just wanted as much as a quite life as she could.

Avatar Image says:

Hahaha. Oh, dang. JKR does not lose cases. She wins them and then uses the remains to wipe her floor.

Avatar Image says:

Now we know why Jacko had his children cover their heads with scarves, or sheets or whatever. Okay, now THAT is a bit extreme.

Avatar Image says:

I read about that earlier and I was just appalled. Somehow or other those scum will get what’s coming to them, whether in this life or the next.

Avatar Image says:

poor jo, she is really trying to be a good parent. she is going above and beyond what most celebrity parents would do for their children. i admire that and i think it shows her genuine concern for her children’s well being and what an amazing parent she is. i think it would be fun to see her cute kids but i side with jo, their safety and privacy is more important.

Avatar Image says:

Keep appealing Jo! We believe in your kids and your privacy. We love you!

Avatar Image says:

A savvy lawyer may (remember I said may; I work in a law firm but we don’t specialize in family law) be able to try this under the banner of child endangerment, i.e., Jo’s children’s photos being out in public like that now could give some fruit loop a face to go with a name. This could then lead to kidnapping, stalking, etc. due to JKR’s fame.

Its a loose case, but like I said, it would need to be a savvy lawyer.

Avatar Image says:

Technically it’s a very gray area both in the UK and in the USA. In the US and I’m guessing moreso in the UK, if you are a “celebrity” and are out in public, you are fair game for journalists (and I use the term loosly here)to take your picture and publish. You give up your privacy by being famous. The “press” can follow you around and take your photo and photos of basically anyone with you. As for photographing children in public and publishing the images, the law is on the side of journalists. Freedom of the press and all. What they cannot do is use the photo of anyone to promote a product such as in an ad. Then you need to get written permission and pay compensation.

However that doesn’t absolve the scum paparazzi on a moral level. I would venture to say that publishing pictures of Jo’s kids endangers their safety and on that basis alone I think they should be off limits.

I have a feeling that Jo will not be shy about taking this suit as far as she can.

Avatar Image says:

I agree with Glenn for the most part.

Oh well, the price of being well known :\

Avatar Image says:

Good. The law is the law. Any special treatment to people in positions of power undermines the justice system and only corrupts courts more. I’m sure her family and son will be fine. This is the life she chose.

Avatar Image says:

Seriously, what sick people. Good luck with the appeal, Jo!

Avatar Image says:

Maybe Jo could take the classic celeb approach and provide the media paparazzi dweebs with a photo of the whole, charming family group?

Avatar Image says:

wow. I guess Im the only one who doesnt see anything wrong with this. If the pictures were taken in their house or on private property then yeah, she has a case but come one?! Walking down the street is fair game! I love Jo for her books but the thing is, shes a celebrity and has to pay the price for it. Being a celebrity means you are in the constant glare of the public almost 24/7 and for good or bad

Avatar Image says:

I am so mad. Judge job end now and for paparazzi media to say sorry and to stop at photo from seeing the sun of days. I feel like at we have no law.

Avatar Image says:

It is one thing for the poparazi to take pictures of people in the spot light, but in my opinion they go way to far. Yes, Jo is seen in the public eye, but now they are going for her children. The paparazi track down people, and over all cross the line these days. They are going lower and lower for pitures just to get the money. They don’t care whom they hurt or affend on the way.

Avatar Image says:

Desertwind, the press embargo on the young Princes was very much a ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ and not anything passed by law. The Palace asked the press to leave them alone and they, for the most part, complied with this. After the part the paparazzi had played in their mother’s death, how could they not agree quite frankly. In return for this, whenever they went on a private holiday with their father they staged an official photo-call on the first day.

diluvia – changing the UK’s privacy laws has come up again and again, but the nation is very reluctant to go down that route. There are very many instances of wrong-doing by people in the public domain (and those who are not for that matter) that are uncovered by the press which could be prevented from being published by strict privacy laws. Once the door is slammed shut, it stays shut and at the moment the considered opinion is that the occasional intustion into well known people’s lives is far outweighed by the benefits of having freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Having said all that, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone like Jo to ask that their children’s faces be blanked out of any photos that might be taken of them with their parents in public and for the press to agree to do so.

Avatar Image says:

Jo is a celebrity so her pics are fair game. But her son is a child, and she as a parent should be allowed to say who can and cannot take his picture – regardless of her celebrity status.

Someone said earlier that the law is the law – and celebs shouldn’t get special treatment. Agreed. But I cannot imagine having my son’s picture taken and published without my consent – indeed against my stated wishes – and then not being able to invoke the protection of the law.

Am I just naive? I would be screaming bloody murder!

Avatar Image says:

That’s the law. Every person has a choice – not to become rich and famous, and not to be photographed. Really, kids and older people here are starving, being neglected, being abused, bullied, dumped, killed, raped, kidnapped – thousands of horrible things happen, and someone who’d likely never starve again complains about one single picture of their kid? It seems ironic to me.

Avatar Image says:

I can understand all the anger towards the paparazzi but that’s something that comes along with freedom of press! sure, you may prevent someone from taking pictures of your child in a way but as soon as you’re a person of public interest and take a walk out in public you’re “fair game” i guess… At least I think that’s what it’s like here in Germany. If the press gets restricted in matters that interest all of us people tend to scream out loud – but as soon as it’s their own life they want total control. Even though I don’t really appreciate those pictures I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. As long as there is a market for these pictures you won’t be able to stop it. And as long as we are interested in the life of JKR as much as her work we actually are a part of that market, as sick as it may be… And I’m afraid the attempts to restrict any further publication of these pictures will only lead to a better price for new pictures of Jo’s kids – and that’s the job of those paparazzi.

Don’t get me wrong here: there is nothing appealing for me to see these pictures, but I just wanted to put things in perspective here. That’s what you get in a free country. Would you rather live in a repressed country?

Avatar Image says:

Well there a simple way to deal with this short term, actively encourage people not to buy the publications who print the picture. All these organizations look at one thing when it comes what they will and won’t permit, the bottom line. Hit their cash flow and watch it stop and it will stop fast, but that will take effort from everyone over in the UK {and other countries if the picture spreads} to get out the word.

As for the long term, that can be taken care of by carefully writing the law. As far as I am concerned, unless it is something that is illegal, no one has the right to print it without the parents OK and if the press does not like that tough and all you have to do is write a law with that stipulation in it to keep the kids privacy intact and still allow pictures to printed if there is a crime involved. But you know what, if there is a crime involved the police would probably like to see them long before they are printed. All a crook has to see is their picture in the paper to figure out it is a good time to go to ground and you would be helping the cops out a lot better by simply taking the pictures to them and waiting for them to tell you it is ok to print them.

John B.

Avatar Image says:

I guess they just wanted a pic of JKR in private and not a pic of little-David specifically. Which doesn´t make it better anyway. Can´t they just leave JKR and her family alone? She is a normal person and yes, normal persons do go shopping with their spouses and children. Nothing spectacular about that. No need to intrude celebrities privacy to show these everyday things. Big deal. I guess the problem is the group of people who is interested in stuff like that and buys these magazines. I have utmost sympathy for JKR that she wants to protect her children and her privacy. I don´t know about the laws in the UK and I guess the judge decided accordingly, but I wished she would have gotten some support.

Avatar Image says:

I frequently see in photos of celebs and their kids that the faces of the children have a blurry circle over them. It isn’t all celeb kids, though and I wonder why that is. If you bring the kid with you to a public event and are willing to pose with them, it’s one thing, but when you are just out shopping or whatever the children should be protected. There are some celebs who seem to use their children as a fashion accessory but Jo has never been one of them and her children’s identity should be protected. There are a lot of nutters out there for one thing, and for another, these children have not chosen to be famous.

Avatar Image says:

I also don’t agree with the press intruding on children, and think it’s a good idea to pursue the angle of the danger this might put the child in. Just think of all those that think Harry Potter should never have been published. If one of those fanatics gets a hold of that picture, they might decide to go after the child. That’s just plain wrong!

Avatar Image says:

Jo is the celebrity, not her son. So why take a picture of him, and publish it? Where’s the story in that?

Avatar Image says:

i agree with Sammy…”The papparazzi are sick disgusting people”

-cuomo

Avatar Image says:

Sorry, folks – I realize that the UK doesn’t have a First Amendment per se, but every civilized society should have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Anyone in a public place can have their picture taken by the press and that photo published – they don’t need to give permission. I’m absolutely against any laws that would restrict the press in this way.

It’s the people who buy newspapers and magazines that have the power here. Don’t buy the paper that publishes pictures you don’t agree with. If their circulation goes down, they won’t pursue the photo. The reality is that people buy these papers because of the celebrity pictures, not in spite of them. As long as they sell, the pictures will be taken and the publishers know that it’s not considered nice to want the photo, but that we buy the paper, hide it in the grocery bag till we get home to devour it.

Avatar Image says:

I betcha half the people here who are saying “oh this is so horrible” are looking for the pic online now.

That’s where the paparazzi get their mulah.

Avatar Image says:

Just from what’s here, the judge is saying that because they were in a public place, it was okay for the photographers to take a picture of the family (kind of like if you saw a celebrity in public and tried to sneak a picture from your camera phone for your own use, just to prove you’d seen them).

Well, that’s one thing, just taking a picture in public. But it’s something entirely different when you sell the picture to publications for mass distributing. Ugh, paparazzi…

Avatar Image says:

The one person who I have not seen respond to this is prob the most qualified to answer. That would be the lovable Harry Potter fan Melissa! It would be very interesting to see what her response is considering her employment background though I have an idea what it might be lol

Avatar Image says:

There is a difference from freedom of press, and pursuing and taking a picture of a two year old boy, whose mum just so happens to be a famour author. Thats not right!! There is no justification in that. Jo, never parade’s her children in public, in front of the press, so she has every right to stop a rag printing a picture of her son. Another thing, taking a picture of Jo and her family out in public, doing what every other human being does, is not news worthy. So the banner of freedom of press and freedom of speech shouldn’t exist in this case.

Avatar Image says:

Forgot to add this to my post, but that there is a breach of EU Human Rights. Which is law, here in the UK

Avatar Image says:

I at least think it is good of JK to try to protect her children. I don’t think anybody should be mad about that.

Avatar Image says:

I think “sick” and “scum” are rather strong words – when this article merely says that a photographer took a picture of a family why they were out walking on a public street.

The photographer didn’t chase the family down and beat them senseless prior to photographing did he?

This is the sort of annoyance that public figures simply have to deal with, if they wish to reap the benefits of being successful public figures. It is ludicrous, IMO, to expect privacy when one is out and about on a city street.

What’s next? Will celebrities try to pass a law forbidding people from looking at them in public too?

Avatar Image says:

Yes, It’s me again the military retiree. I have never been so dissappointed that the freedom and the laws me and my comrades and those still fighting for can be bended and milipulated to conform to others ill will, as if we don’t have enough bending going on outside our country. A child is due safety and sercurity at all times and at all cost. My prayers are that one day children will been seen as they are, a most precious gift that requires only love, fun, and understanding to grow, not explortation. Which has become a serious problem today. Keep fighting Jo, and everyone else!

Avatar Image says:

haha JKR’s army.

good luck jo. <3333

Avatar Image says:

The safety of children is the issue here. Anything that could put a child at risk of kidnapping, particularly in this case, is wrong. Snapshots of celibrities is one thing, pictures of their children is quite another. I don’t suppose anyone remembers the Lindbergh baby? Not to mention Madeleine McCann, which particularly touched Jo.

And no, I have not and will not look for the picture and can still say with conviction that the paparazzo who took it, and the rag that published it, are SCUM.

Avatar Image says:

i agree with her. i think its horrible that her children should be subject to having their picture taken just because their mother is famous.

there are a lot of crazy people out there who could do something horrible to them. God forbid it, but it could still happen, and these pictures could assist them.

<3padfootrocksmysocks

Avatar Image says:

good luck jo!!!!!!!

Avatar Image says:

i understand jo is upset, but i think she is making way too big of a deal out of this. i mean,its a picture!when she became a celeb,she lost all privacy! just kidding. but she has to understand that they take pictures for a living, and she must get over it.

Avatar Image says:

This isn’t about Jo’s privacy! Its about her childrens. They are not in the public eye, so they shouldn’t be photographed, and put into newspapers.

Avatar Image says:

Honestly - and I’m speaking as a former journalist - I think it should be illegal to publish photographs or quotes from anybody without their consent.

Avatar Image says:

but like someone said, if it was taken on their property yeah, but she was walking down the street! and you cant really blame the paparazzi, it is their job. i would be mad and i would probably yell at them, but i wouldnt go all the way and take it to court.

Avatar Image says:

Regarding the issue of children’s safety – ummmm, so has every kidnapped and murdered child appeared in a tabloid?

Exactly how many children of celebrities have been kidnapped anyway? That Lindbergh baby was many, many years ago – and Madeline McCann was not kidnapped because someone saw her photo in a magazine, was she?

Flipping through the People magazine at the grocery store, I see pictures of Tom Cruise’s child, Brooke Shields’ child, Ben Affleck’s child and a dozen others at least. Apparently it is some incredible miracle that none of these children has been kidnapped yet, since child’s photo in print = sure and immediate kidnapping and probably death. How ever do they manage? And how are all those child-killers finding their victims, since the vast majority of murdered children don’t get their pictures in the paper, hmmmm?

This is very much ado about nothing.

Avatar Image says:

As much as I admire JKR and understand her goal of privacy, the law is not on her side. Fact: if you are walking down the street and a journalist takes a picture, he may publish it without your permission. I think many of the commenters forget that the job of the court is to uphold the law, not to make exceptions to the law out of personal sympathy – and for good reason, as that would lead to widespread corruption very quickly. Is it morally acceptable to target a “celebrity” and her child and publish a photo against their wishes? Probably not, but the court cannot do anything about that.

Avatar Image says:

The problem here is that the paparazzi wouldn’t even exist if people weren’t so adamant about delving into the lives of famous people. They chase these poor people and their families around because they know some editor is going to pay top dollar for a good shot of Jo taking her son to the park. That editor pays the money because of all the people who spend money on the rags that will print the picture. I personally never buy any of that junk or watch the shows on tv. Who cares about Brad and Angelina and their twelve children from third world countries? Their work is great, can’t it just be left at that? That being said, I love hearing about Jo and her life but I would never want to infringe on her privacy or that of her family’s just so I could know more.

Avatar Image says:

We’re hoping you win Jo! Get lives papparazzi!

Avatar Image says:

Neil, you are so right!

Avatar Image says:

Much ado about nothing? Cool, bring it on.

Avatar Image says:

I feel sorry for stars children. Look at Drew Barrymore’s childhood. Because her parents didnt shield her from the Hollywood life Drew started to do drugs and drink at age ten. You notice none of those parents are in jail for child abuse! Our judicial system are a bunch of hipocrates when it comes to celebrities!

Good job, Jo! You keep your babies safe! Im like Molly Weasley and will hurt anyone who tries to harm my kids!

Avatar Image says:

Wow that person was a brat to try and put a picture of Jo’s kid all over press, internet…or where ever he was going to put it!!!!! That makes me mad!!!!

Avatar Image says:

I sympathize with the family, and paparazzi are scum, but after all it is a public place.

Avatar Image says:

Jo’s lawyer is NOT a fool. If the law is clearly on the paparazzi’s side he would not have bothered to take the newspaper to court. This is a clash between two laws: freedom of the press against individual’s right of privacy and YES your right of privacy is not forfeited as soon as you walk out of your front door. Surveillance cameras in shops and streets are governed by laws too. A shop cannot take a tape and put it on the internet or hand it to the press – police need to get a court order to watch it. I’ve had to sign written permission to my son’s school for them to include a picture of my son (in a group) in the school magazine. So, I had the right to refuse and Jo doesn’t? How’s that fair?

The Data Protection Act (as amended in 2000)and which binds ALL European Union countries, including Britain, has very stringent rules about taking pictures of people, whether celebrities or otherwise. Most people, including journalist and people in the legal profession have still not come to terms with all the implications of this act – however, it is only a matter of time until they do. Jo would win this hands down if she appealed in the European Courts of Justice.

The rights of the press should not come BEFORE the rights of the individual just because they are more vociferous and have the finances to withstand legal battles. I truly wish every success to Jo in this – here’s someone who has the money, the will and courage to fight a battle that a lot of us stand to gain by. Thanks Jo.

Avatar Image says:

You know it’s strange don’t magazines and stuff like that need written consent to post photos of children to the public…. Why should this be any different.

I mean sure fair enough to take the pictures but it’s not right just to flaunt them about. I mean sure where one of the worst countries for being watched but it’s not like they show them to the public.

Avatar Image says:

The worst thing about these photos is that people use them to make money. If it was my child I would find this utterly offensive. It is like stealing.

If newspapers want pictures they should ask permission properly and go through the proper process, otherwise it is downright theft. I cannot see how a court cannot see this.

Avatar Image says:

I live in the U.S. (IL), and I know for a fact that my local newspaper cannot even name people under 17 without permission. There have been a few incidents where kids have had underage drinking parties, etc. and have been arrested, but they won’t name any kids that are under 17 in the newspaper report; they will only name their age and their gender. None of them were celebrities or related to celebs. I don’t know if that is a local or state law, but obviously JKR and the photographer/newspaper abide by different laws, I was just talking/writing about my personal knowledge of the privacy of minors where I live. And that is just writing their names in ink, I assume it’s the same with pictures too.

Avatar Image says:

Seems a famous person has fewer rights in this regard than the rest of us…my kids’ school won’t use a picture of my children in any of their literature or on their website without my express written permission. Also…funny how Scholastic made me sign a release in front of witnesses before my kids were allowed on the Harry Potter Knight Bus. Why aren’t the paparazzi required to present JKR with a similar release form??? I DON’T CARE what the laws say in this case…JKR should have the same descretion as other parents!

Avatar Image says:

whats their problem?? why can’t they leave poor Jo and her kids alone..mad crazy pathetic journalistes!!!

Avatar Image says:

i would be mad too,and i could see why jo doesnt want her kids to have that life,but like i said,why did she have to take it to court?

Avatar Image says:

I have to disagree with the Judge on this case ! Photographing anybodies family without their express permission is THEFT.Many may disagree pictures for “historical postritey” is quite different from perposely taking pictures of a Celebrities family is very different ! Common curtesy in such a situation (may I ) is not too much to ask. I myself have found photographs of myself in “the press” my permission was not sought, dispicable !

Avatar Image says:

I tend to disagree with those that think Jo “deserves” it. Just because someone is in the spotlight, does not take away their rights to their privacy. To take a picture of a child and print it without the parents permission is endangering their child. There are stalkers out there, as much as everyone would like to think the world is perfect, it is not. I mean, you can NOT possibly expect her to keep her kids locked up just to keep them out of the press. That is ludicrous. She wants to lead as normal a life as possible. That, unfortunately, entails for people to have manners and respect, which most paparazzi do not even possess the understanding of what that means.

Avatar Image says:

This stinks! Jo should gave the right to her whole family’s privacy. No Sunday Express!

Avatar Image says:

As long as stupid people keep buying stupid tabloids, the stupid papparazzi will keep making money by interfering in celebrities’ private lives. The excuse that someone is in public doesn’t really hold water with me. What is so fascinating about a photo of a celebrity just walking around? Oh, and what does Jo’s bank account have to do with it? She’s rich, therefore, we can mess with her? Please! Try to put yourself in her shoes. You’re just walking down the sidewalk and some thugs with cameras get inches away from your face and start flashing; or worse: you think you’re not being watched but you are; by scum with telephoto lenses. Anyone who says they wouldn’t mind that is really clueless. First amendment rights, my rear end! Freedom of the press? What press? I’d hardly call papparazzi members of the press.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry, everyone, but British, American and Canadian law are clear on this: if you are out in a public place doing public things there is little to no expectation of privacy. None.

I love Jo too, and I am a parent of three kids. I’m also a working journalist.

If you choose to go into a public place, you relinquish a bit of your privacy. It doesn’t matter who you are, and I don’t think it should. What, do we give Jo extra rights because she’s a wonderful author?

Parents have the right to not allow their children to be photographed at school, in the home, etc. These are places with an expectation of privacy. There is no expectation of privacy in a public street.

Avatar Image says:

I was so upset when I heard what the judged ruled in this case. How can they think that just because she is famous, that her’s and her husband’s children should be photographed by these sick people and have them published all over tabloid magazines??? It just isn’t right!

Avatar Image says:

poor jo!!! its bad enough they don’t leave her alone, but going after her kids!!! the papparazzi are horrible. jo should have the right to say who can take photo’s of her children and who can’t. i can’t believe the judge said he couldn’t do anything! the papparazzi should just leave her children alone!!!

Write a Reply or Comment

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.