JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son

[johnastovall]

UK tightens privacy laws...

[kenw]

'tis a slippery slope in several directions, all downhill.

[jeffkohn]

I guess I would want to know a little bit more about where and how the pictures were taken. The article implies that these were long-lens, covert photos. Under US law, such photos are not allowed when a person is in a place or situation where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', so for instance a photographer can't use a super-telephoto to shoot somebody in their home, or their fenced-in back yard, etc.

On the other hand if they were in a public place and the telephoto was just used to take the photos from a distance, I don't see a legal issue with that (although ethically I think it's pretty icky and I have nothing but contempt for photographers who make a living that way).

[kenw]

the ones at the center of this case were, imho, not "reasonable expectations of privacy" types, they were of "David// being pushed in a buggy by his parents near their home in Edinburgh in 2004."

the unknown is what exactly was "near their home ". A public park? roadway? Sidewalk? or a large expanse in their backyard?

[Damon]

she's also the one suing the college kid (or was it high school) for publishing an unofficial harry potter encyclopedia, which is perfectly legal.

I think her head is just getting a little too big.

Granted I wouldn't want pictures taken of me or my family, but she has to understand that she's a celeb, and she's put herself in the public eye. If she goes out in public that's her risk. Celebs have to put up with it all the time, why should she get any special privelages?

I guess the better question should be, "Why do they think we want to see photos of her kid?"

[123canon]

harry potter was big enough without her adding controversy by saying dumbledore was gay, she asked for the publicity-now she has it...

[studiocygnet]

"It will have a profound effect, especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it."

I'm not sure who they would be talking about, because this seems to be a step in outlawing street photography in general. Some folks are just to self-important.

[thorin]

This was decided under UK law, why is everybody attempting to use US law to judge the results? The UK appears to be moving towards the principal that a child of a famous person is entitled to the same privacy as the child of someone who is not famous. Am I the only one that thinks that makes more sense that the US interpretation that a child of a famous person is subject to the lack of privacy because of what their parent(s) have done? As Damon points out - in the US, the parent surrenders their children's privacy for them - doesn't seem right to me?

[Damon]

I don't think it's right. I personally would hate it if I was followed by paparazzi all the time.

I think the UK is moving towards limiting the paparazzi's rights because of Princess Diana's death. Didn't they just recently (finally) rule that the paparazzi was at fault?

[110240]

if... I was famous (big "if", I know - some might say Im already infamous in a few countries :) ), I would hope for privacy for my children. Seems like JK is using her money to set precedents that will protect the "little guys".