JK Rowling loses court case against paparazzi

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 3:22pm

She has to pay the equivalent of $81,000.
Yahoo Link

[shira467]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 3:44pm

That should be like chump change to her by now!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 3:57pm

She spent that on markers to sign autographed copies of Dealthy Hallows last month.

[DG]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 4:19pm

"The photograph, showing Rowling and her husband Neil Murray with the child in a buggy, was taken by a picture agency photographer using a long-range lens"

I think this is creepy - and having it as a part of our society is . . . well, I certainly don't think it lifts us up. It's a shame that these people have to put up with this. There's some crazy people out there, and to not be able to reasonably protect the privacy and safety of your child seems a bit high of a price to pay for fame and fortune.

And as to the money, I doubt the amount matters to her as much as the principle of the thing.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 6:44pm

The picture was taken in a public place, right? She really had no case to begin with unless the laws are different in the UK. I am surprised it went as far as it did.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 7:03pm

Did anybody see anything on the kid's forehead?

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 8:10pm

Yes... A price tag.

Updated On: 8/7/07 at 08:10 PM

[DG]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 8:49pm

I get that it was taken 'in public' - but, come on! Have we lost all sense of perspective that everything HAS to be defined in terms of what is legally defensible?

I venture that anyone involved with this case, if it was THEIR child who was being exposed to danger (and YES, I do think that argument can be made in her case,) would be unwilling to press 'the letter of the law'.

And any attitude of 'she's in the public eye and then deserves whatever' means absolutely nothing to me. Celebrities are still people, whether we treat or respond to them as such.

[HeidiPuck]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 9:09pm

DG - photographers take pictures of people (including children) all the time. Each photographer has their own set of what they will and will not photograph.

Some photographers will not take pictures of children, some will take pictures but only use them with permission of the parents, and some will think nothing of taking photos.

It's true, if you talk to most of the photographers who think nothing of photographing other people's children, many would feel uncomfortable of the lens was turned.

However, sometimes it's just too hard to give up "that shot", especially when it would be worth so much.

[DG]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 9:21pm

"However, sometimes it's just too hard to give up "that shot", especially when it would be worth so much."

I understand that's the core issue here, but it doesn't make it right.

I feel for her.

[HeidiPuck]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 9:35pm

In this case I really don't know that there is a "right and wrong". It's such a gray area in general that there isn't an established golden rule dealing explicitly with this type of photography.

Do I feel for her? Certainly - she felt her child was endangered, and that's not something anybody should have to go through.

[DG]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 9:49pm

Here's something I don't understand. As it is, I think models have to give written consent for their images to be used for purposes involving monetary gain. You mention 'this type of photography' - why is this different, and how? If models have to give consent, why aren't 'candid' subjects allowed the same protection - ESPECIALLY involving children?

[HeidiPuck]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 10:03pm

This is where my legal knowledge fails - I don't photograph people in general, so I haven't had to worry about these issues yet.

However, my (limited) understanding is that in public you don't have the expectation of privacy and there are now laws limiting photography. I dont' believe model releases are required in all cases. My understanding is that you actually can sell the photo, it's the use that determines whether the release is necessary. The use is not technically determined by the photographer - so usually the photographer isn't the one to blame (most high profile lawsuits are suing the paper that publishes the photos, not the photographer that took them).

ETA: I'd actually be happy to dig around some more and find specific links if you're interested, but it wouldn't be until tomorrow afternoon.
Updated On: 8/7/07 at 10:03 PM

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 10:11pm

I believe the law is that if you are in a public place such as a park or a beach you are fair game in that ANYONE can see you there so, but if you are in a home or a club have to get a release...modeling is something else altogether.

[DG]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 10:23pm

I actually follow what you're both saying from a legal standpoint. Obviously, this is just another arena where I feel we as a society have gone way past the boundaries of common sense - and, at least what I consider to be common decency.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 8/7/07 at 11:22pm

It is not as if they were taking a picture of her baby in it's coffin. He was in a stroller, for fnck's sake. And really, at that age who would ever be able to tell her baby from little Suri or Apple?
(I'm just pissed at her because the last book kind of sucked.)

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/8/07 at 12:09am

Sueleen...your final sentence is something I somewhat agree with, sad as it is for me to admit.

[DG]

Posted: 8/8/07 at 12:12am

Again, Sueleen, it's the principle - and where do you draw the line? In the world in which we live, these people are at risk - and their children get included in that arrangement.

The only alternative seems to be total isolation - and I think that's sad, no matter who they are.

And, for the record (not that it matters one iota,) but I loved the last book

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/8/07 at 12:18am

I'm getting off topic, but...I loved the outcomes, but I felt the story was too rushed and far too circumstancial (random characters popping in from the past, and excessive amount of close calls). I definitely loved where the characters went, but the storytelling was weaker in comparison to the previous novels.