This makes me so happy. I’m so glad Jo won that case.

That’s interesting, Rachel… I’d always thought Hello! was Spanish (Hola!) but I looked it up and it did start in the UK after all. It has Canadian and Russian editions too. Gah… perfect for the Skeeters :P

Anyhow, YAY!!! This outcome was everything we hoped for!

yeaah, go jo :D xxxx

It’s a very good thing this happened, as it was invasive into the privacy of a young child.

Am I the only one who just saw the “Jo Wins appeal” on the RSS widget and went “YES!” thinking it was the Lexicon case?

Yay Jo!

Speaking as a professional photographer, I think this verdict is fantastic! The people who operate as paparazzi give all photographers a bad name, The children of famous or “ordinary” parents are not public figures and should be afforded a standard of privacy across the board.

Children who are famous in their own right should expect some incursion into their private lives, just because there is a market for that sort of thing and they are “product”. As much as I wish the paparazzi would just go away, this should be a forward step towards restricting their actions.

Yup Zach, I did the same thing! My heart stopped…unti I read the rest of the title. And the RDR case isn’t an appeal yet anyway. Oh well. At least this was handled properly. I hope her other legal affairs also resolve well.

As a law student this is really fascinating because we don’t really have much of a law of privacy yet in this country – this is likely to be a very significant case for UK law so it is rather exciting!

JKR may end up in court in many countries all over the world to stop such pictures, not just in the UK. Here in Norway we’ve had several court rulings already in celeb cases that goes in the same direction as Jo’s victory here. But the papparazzis can just sell their pictures to Germany or some other country, where no such ruling has occured yet…

So let’s have international laws for these things. The media world is global, so should the laws be.

Good for them! I can’t even remember reading about this case, but I’m glad the law is acting to protect all children, despite the status of their parents. That’s such a risky thing to do, publishing photographs of celebrity’s children, it’s awful that some people will do that in order to get money. It really puts the child’s safety at risk, there are some super crazy people out there who could become stalkers or worse. It’s pretty scary. Like a previous poster mentioned, it’s disturbing how obsessed the US media is with Tom Cruise’s and Brad Pitt’s children.

Good,sound judgement. Just because a person is in the public doesn’t mean that their children have to be dragged into it too. And good to see Jo’s legally lucky these days!

Woot! This is very good news , not just for Jo but for everyone who has to deal with the paparazzi. Good job Jo and Neil, for not giving up.

Wonderful! Justice is not blind. All parents should be allowed to protect their children. Period.

I agree with the decision to keep the children away from most photographers. If the child’s picture was requested by the school to make public through the school the Parents must sign an agreement to have their kids picture taken and used towards use in the public eye so I would expect it is only natural for privacy request to be kept just like we all natrually have the right to do!

Good news, all kids have the right of a privat life. (Well the adults too) Sadly it needed the court to underline this.

I hope very much that Jo soon will have peace in the other court case too. Thumbs up.