Rowling ‘disappointed’ after son loses photo privacy fight

THE mastermind behind the Harry Potter phenomenon JK Rowling has expressed disappointment after her four-year-old son lost a case claiming his right to privacy was infringed by the publication of his photograph in a newspaper.

A case was taken on behalf of David Murray, four, after the publication of an image of him in a buggy, with his parents, JK Rowling and Neill Murray, which was taken with a long-range lens on a public street.

The photo was taken by the Big Pictures celebrity photographic agency, and appeared in the Sunday Express in April 2005, to accompany an article about the author’s approach to parenthood.

The family’s solicitors took a case against the agency and the newspaper, claiming damages for breach of confidence and the misuse of private information.

They also sought an injunction banning further publication of the photo or any other picture taken of David without consent.

Express Newspapers settled the claim, and yesterday a judge in London struck out the remaining proceedings against the picture agency, and awarded the company costs of £40,000 (€58,000).

After a three-day hearing in the High Court in London, Mr Justice Patten said: “I have considerable sympathy for the claimant’s parents and anyone else who wishes to shield their children from intrusive media attention. But the law does not in my judgment allow them to carve out a press-free zone for children in respect of absolutely everything they choose to do.”

The photo agency’s defence was that English courts refused to recognise the right of an individual not to be photographed in public, except when special factors such as harassment, distress to a child or disclosure of confidential information was involved.

The judge said “a walk down the street” does not qualify for protection and the boundaries of what people could expect to remain private were inevitably influenced “by the fact that we live in an open society with a free press”.

The parents were not in court to hear the judgment. In a statement released through her solicitor, Ms Rowling said: “Both Neil and I are disappointed with the judgments, which seems to have misunderstood our claim. Our aim has been to protect our children from intrusion during their childhood.”

She said: “We see no legitimate reason why, as in this case, David, who was less than two years of age at the time, should have his photograph taken and then published in the press.”

Rowling said the couple took the privacy and safety of all their children “very seriously”, adding: “The judge has granted us permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which we intend to do.”

Solicitor for the Big Pictures agency Mark Summerfield said the judgment recognised that “this was essentially a test case designed to establish the right of celebrities to protection from intrusion into parts of their private or family life”.