That's good for her! =]

OH YEAH! Go Jo! w00t!

GO JO!!! THAT GOOD FOR HER! SWEETNESS! 3RD!

TOP FIVEEE? go jo, that's awesome. if she could only win the U.S. one noww... :/

Yeah! That's great for Jo! I'm happy for her! =)

I thought you guise meant JKR v. RDR! Oh well, good for Jo!

yeah randomchat 1 so did I GO JO!!!!! :D

thats great! top 10?

This is a very promising precendent for all famous persons and their children. While the parents have chosen the public eye, their chlildren have not and those people deserve the chance to have and raise children as much as anyone. No matter how hard a parent tries to raise their child 'normally' in that environment, there will be inevitable leaks. At least these children will have the opportunity and precedent to be raised with privacy. It's good for JKR to battle for her son's right to privacy (which he has as much as anyone).

wow, surprising verdict, but a happy one! i didn't think she would win it, but i'm really really glad she did! The judge had a good point.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

congratulations, Jo! You totally deserved to win.

when i first glanced at the heading of this, i thought she won the rdr case and i was like YESSS...but glad she won this too. this media crap is getting out of hand. babies are off limits!

Good I'm glad you won. If I had a kid I wouldn't want the press taking picture of him all the time that how people like Brittany Spears get all messed up.

Congratulations Jo!!! I'm so glad she won this. It shouldn't matter how famous she is, her children still deserve their privacy.

Yay for Jo! I am so relieved she won. She looks great in the picture. And so does Neil. Hahahaha

That's great news! Jo's family deserves privacy; they didn't ask for fame, they were brought into it. I'm really happy for Jo. :)

That's great, but doesn't Jo get tired of all these court cases?

I know this isn't really related, but speaking of seeing HP people out and about I NEARLY WALKED INTO FILCH TODAY! I had to share this somewhere. As I was getting out of the tube today the person in front of me stopped short at the gates because they couldn't find their oyster card. I stopped short, but didn't bump into them, and they turned around and it was David Bradley! I swear I nearly involuntarily uttered 'Holy Crap!' but instead my eyes bulged and I slipped to the next gate and passed through the barriers. My friend was talking and when I asked her if the guy behind me looked like Filch she said, 'Yeh...but that's cos it is him'. At that point he had found his Oyster card and was on his way out of the station. I didn't talk to him, but holy crap. I've been so excited all day and just had to share with other people who would appreciate that sort of thing :)

: ( ?

ha, that's cool britishbelle! and I'm glad that Jo won that case. I see lots of pictures in magazines of famous people here in the US just walking their children to school and whatnot and they just get mobbed by paparazzi. I know I would hate that if I were in that position.

good!

Paparazzi scum, leave babies alone.

Whoot!Stupid paparazzi people! I'm really happy for Jo and Neil. It would have been so wrong if they lost the case

When I read this, I thought it was that she won the JKR vs RDR trial, but that's good too.

Great Jo! You always had our support :)

good for your Jo! She has always taken a really serious and sensible line on her publicity. She has every right to protect her children. good for her.

That's great!! I;m so lad, her family doesn't deserve to be treated like public property

I just had heared of this case this morning when reading the newspaper and my reaction is the same. I think that just because j.k. rowling has all of this money should can win all of her court case, will guess what, think again. Don't ever say again that There is a change that any normal kid would get there face in the paper, because that is not true. Not everyone is as likey as you miss, big shot. Your just lucky that you were given a change on make it in the world, because i sure that if your work wasn't chosen to be published, you would be where you are today. PLEASE DON'T FORGET WHERE YOU FIRST STARTED FROM, BEFORE HP!!! I just want you all to know that I am not mad at j.k. rowling for her success, but floored that she is now getting caught up on all the fame.

Thats kewlio. Good fer her

Rose37, Jo didn't win the courtcase because she is rich but because she is RIGHT! No sane person can say that her kids deserve to be on the front pages of rubbish tabloids and rubbish magazines because their mother is famous. She is arguably in the public domain but under-age children are NOT. A lot of celebrities USE their own children to get cheap publicity by showing them off to the cameras - so don't tell me that other celebrities' children have found their way onto the media. Good on you, Jo - you're someone who is willing to do everything to protect their kids - if only more celebrities did like her we would have far fewer rich brats getting into all kinds of trouble with drugs, alcohol and other vices.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Anybody can have their picture published in the media if they're doing something newsworthy in public. Ordinary people appearing in public is not newsworthy. Famous people appearing in public is. Only the most dedicated hermits have the right to not have their picture taken ever or only when they want it to be. I mean, if I robbed a bank, I could claim that I don't want the picture from the security camera published because it infringes on my right to privacy, but nobody would care if I did.

Jaeliyah, it's your allegory which is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. How can you compare a toddler to a bank robber? Many European countries take child protection in all its forms very seriously and rightly so. The child DID NOT choose who his parents are. The mother may by famous but her children are not! If I want to take a picture of a student at an activity for the school magazine, I would need a written permission from the the parents/guardians. Why should the media not be bound by the same rules. It's much more pertinent in their case because the viewership is so much larger and because they are actually making money off it. There is a word for a person who makes money off another but I think it would be censored on this site. Papparazzi, keep your filthy hands off kids!

For goodness sake Jaeliyah, get a grip! Jo doesn't quibble about being a new item herself, even if she does dislike the invasion of her privacy. David and his siblings are NOT news items and should not be treated as such. What is more, identifying them in the media puts their safety in jeopardy. I am more than relieved to see the outcome of the appeal.

britishbelle, that is so cool. I'd love to see David Bradley in real life!

for a second I thought this said she won against RDR and I got all excited. Oh well. ~ britishbelle, that's so cool!!!!!!!

I am sorry that I had said that and I now can see your point. Thanks Belsito!!!

To Belsito and Sloppy: I didn't mean to offend. I'm just stating facts as I understand them, those being that Rowling was in public and as such had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and her kids, whether they like it or not, are news items because of who their mother is. While I agree that inherently a toddler is different from a bank robber, the point I'm trying to make is that a media outlet is obligated to tell any story they think their public wants to know about. It's not an allegory; it's an analogy. I'm not in any way trying be profound. I just wanted to use an example as absurd as I find the argument to be. And Belsito, I don't know about your school, but that's not a legal obligation. At schools I've attended, I've had my picture published in the yearbooks and newspapers from activities I attended with neither my nor my parents' permission. Honestly, I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, I'm pretty sure it would be unconstitutional because it's a pretty big infringement on freedom of the press.

Ok, personally I'm glad that Jo won this case. Its understandable that she wants to protect her kids from the media. The paparazzi tend to overstep their bounds a lot and sometimes they need to be put in their place. In the U.S. they can get really bad, so I'm glad that she called them out on it.

Jaeliyah, the constitution is so vague that to explain to intracacies of the first amendment (namely that no one can argue what free press, speech, etc. really is) takes up entire classes in some places. Suffice to say however, that the yearbook is completely different from news media. There is a difference between that and deliberate action by a media outlet to infringe upon a child's reasonable expectation of privacy. The schools must get permission from parents for non-school related activities in which it is certain deliberate pictures will be taken (I've filled out five different slips for that this year). Your last statement, which is more important to an American, right to privacy or freedom of the press? Precedents will show that right to privacy takes immediate precedence over the freedom of press. My constitutional rant aside, I have to ask. Why should Jo not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for a two year old boy? Why should Jo make her children live a hermit's life simply because others are too nosy to leave them be? No rights are being infringed upon when someone doesn't get information about a celebrity, but when that information is gathered, rights are infringed. I don't have children, but I have a nephew and I guarantee I do not want people taking pictures of him when I take him for a walk. Not only is it possibly dangerous, it's invasive.

Lorcan, I agree about school publications being different from professional publications. That wasn't my example. Someone else brought it up. I was trying to make the point that not all school publications have to abide by the same rules. And your right to privacy does not at all depend on who you are; it depend entirely on where you are. You have a right to privacy when you are on private property. It's illegal if somebody takes a picture of you in your house without your permission because you can expect privacy in your home. An open street would be a public place. Anyone around could see you and what you're doing, so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy there because anyone can be there and anyone who is there can see you. When I say it wouldn't hold up in the U.S., I'm thinking of cases like State v. Glas, where these two guys were roaming around a mall with cameras surreptitiously taking pictures under teenage girls' skirts and dresses, and if I'm not mistaken, publishing them on the internet, which is I'm sure most of us can agree pretty reprehensible. The Supreme Court overturned the voyeurism charges against them on the grounds that the girls were in a public place and as such had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

And I believe there's another case, the name of which I can't find, in Tulsa involving a 16-year-old girl and a guy who followed her into a Target dressing room and put a camera under the door. The state court dropped the case ruling that the girl was in a public place and had no reasonable expectation of privacy. I know the cases are different with significant amounts of money and a professional media outlet involved and all that, but my point is that in the U.S., there is legal precedent to indicate that being a minor doesn't give you the right to not have your picture taken in a public place and published without permission.

I can concede that right to privacy largely depends on where, not who, but I still want to know what gives media outlets the right to take deliberate pictures of a minor child without parental consent? I believe it's still dangerous and invasive. At the point it becomes OK to take photos like that without parental consent, at what point can we stop them?

As a non famous parent when pictures of my children are taken and are put even in a school paper i need to give my consent for pictures to be used! I feel that this is also right for a famous parent as jk rowlings 18 month child surely permission must also be sought from her as a parent of the child before it can be published?!?

I won't argue the rightness of the activity, because it's irresponsible and rude at best. My problem with the case is that it's not the job of a court to decide what's right; it's their job to decide what's legal. They're claiming infringement on privacy, but there's no legal infringement on privacy. The judge's conclusion is based on intent, which is irrelevant unless it's harm. I could even go along with them if, say, they wanted to sue for part of the money the paper made using their son's image, but they didn't show that an actual crime took place.

@ Jaeliyah:------interestin g arguments, good to split the fact that the interest of paparazzi is far from healthy from the fact if it's is legal----- and yess the child of a celebrity has newsvalue, even the dog's litter of the sister of the nanny of the child of a celebrity has newsvalue in the tabloids. * sigh* another case JKR took to court, I just wonder if Stephen King and John Irving also have so many courtcases on their name as JKR. I Googled for Stephen King and found nothing, while in JKR's case the jump from the screen.