Posted:
Rowling revisits court photo row
JK Rowling lost a High Court action last year
Harry Potter author JK Rowling returned to court to try to ban publication of a photograph taken in the street of her son, David, when he was 18 months old.
The author, who lost her High Court action last year, claimed the child's right to privacy has been infringed.
Speaking in court her solicitor Richard Spearman QC said: "This claim is not about the rights of adults, this is about the rights of the child."
Photo agency Big Pictures said there was no proof the child had been hurt.
'Disappointed'
Mark Warby QC, representing the company, said: "The reality is that claimants' lawyers have never been able to identify any concrete way in which the child has been harmed."
The family were unaware the photograph, which was taken in 2004 in Edinburgh, was being taken and did not consent to it.
Proceedings were issued in June 2005 for an injunction preventing further publication of the photograph, along with damages for infringement of privacy.
At the High Court hearing the judge said the law did not provide celebrities with "a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do".
At the time Rowling issued a statement which said she and her husband Neil 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."
The Sunday Express magazine had printed the photograph alongside an article about Rowling's approach to motherhood.
However, the publication has since settled the claim with Rowling.
The hearing has been adjourned.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7288079.stm
JK Rowling lost a High Court action last year
Harry Potter author JK Rowling returned to court to try to ban publication of a photograph taken in the street of her son, David, when he was 18 months old.
The author, who lost her High Court action last year, claimed the child's right to privacy has been infringed.
Speaking in court her solicitor Richard Spearman QC said: "This claim is not about the rights of adults, this is about the rights of the child."
Photo agency Big Pictures said there was no proof the child had been hurt.
'Disappointed'
Mark Warby QC, representing the company, said: "The reality is that claimants' lawyers have never been able to identify any concrete way in which the child has been harmed."
The family were unaware the photograph, which was taken in 2004 in Edinburgh, was being taken and did not consent to it.
Proceedings were issued in June 2005 for an injunction preventing further publication of the photograph, along with damages for infringement of privacy.
At the High Court hearing the judge said the law did not provide celebrities with "a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do".
At the time Rowling issued a statement which said she and her husband Neil 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."
The Sunday Express magazine had printed the photograph alongside an article about Rowling's approach to motherhood.
However, the publication has since settled the claim with Rowling.
The hearing has been adjourned.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7288079.stm
Bade Achche Lagte Hain Naya Season
Itti Si Khushi Sab TV
Cricket
Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki
Geet - Hui Sabse Parayee
