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.
That seems right to me
I think you summarise the situation accurately. The signficance of the ruling is not (yet) that there's a definitive legal situation, rather that a can of worms which had been closed has now been reopened.
I don't see why whatever emerges would not apply to fine art or any other context as well as press, If the work is exposed to public view it will have implications for privacy and scope for legal actions that rely on any precedents.
Photorights admin
Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd
Hi As I understand it the Court of Appeal's ruling was simply on the matter of whether the case should have been struck out by Patten J as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. It does not as yet over rule Campbell which is a House of Lords case. The Court of Appeal has merely indicated why it believes that there is a reasonable case to answer - it can not yet say that there is. The matter must now be argued before a Judge at first instance and the issues fully aired. It is still open to the trial Judge after hearing the arguments to say that after full argument there is still no right to privacy as per Campbell. If so Murray will then have to appeal that to the Court of Appeal again and if it needs to overturn Campbell then the matter will have to go to the House of Lords. If anyone disagrees with this please feel free to enter into discussion on this forum. I believe that the matter must be addressed by Parliament. Does anyone have any views on whether as this case was directed at the press whether fine art photography will be affected - I believe that it will be affected the same way. Interestingly the Court of Appeal did say that even if there is a right to privacy for minors the case could be wholly different for adults. I have a synopsis of the decision on my blog at www.photoblog.com/streetlens. Please feel free to visit Streetlens
'Now you can buy milk without being shot'
The IPkat blog comments on this judgement:
Which seems like an accurate summary of the situation now. Stay indoors, watch the TV and follow instructions.
©A admin
The full judgement is now online
The full judgement is now online at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
©A admin
Swan Turton commentary on this ruling
More at http://www.swanturton.co.uk/ebulletins/archive/jkcrowlingupheld.aspx
©A admin
Post new comment