From Media Guardian:
The court of appeal today reversed an earlier high court judgment against the author, ruling that a case could be made that her son's right to privacy had been infringed.
Rowling brought the case - under her married name Joanne Murray - along with her husband Neil on behalf of their son, David, who is now five.
The court of appeal today ruled a case could be made that photo agency Big Pictures breached Rowling's son's right to privacy and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights, when it took long lens photographs of her son being pushed in a buggy in Edinburgh in November 2004 when he was 18 months old.
The photo appeared in the Sunday Express magazine, which later reached a settlement with Rowling.
Delivering the ruling in London today, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.
"In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him."
The appeal judges ordered that there should be a trial to decide the matter unless a settlement with Big Pictures could be reached.
[more at Media Guardian]
This verdict seems to create a right of privacy where none existed previously, that may impact all street photography. Although photography itself still appears free of restriction, publication of the resulting photos may conflict with this ruling.
Whilst this case specifically concerned paparazzi reporting, this judgement raises the question of whether any published photo of a child in a public place may now be challenged as a violation of an expectation of privacy, whether in books, magazines, exhibitions or web galleries.
The background and significance of the case are outlined by media specialist solicitors Swan Turton at this EPUK article.