Page: 1

JK Rowling loses court case against paparazzi

best12bars Profile Photobest12bars Profile Photo
best12bars
Broadway Legend
joined:6/29/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/29/05
She has to pay the equivalent of $81,000.
Yahoo Link
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
shira467 Profile Photoshira467 Profile Photo
shira467
Broadway Legend
joined:3/22/04
Broadway Legend
joined:
3/22/04
That should be like chump change to her by now!
Deet: Shira, I Love You!
JoeKv99 Profile PhotoJoeKv99 Profile Photo
JoeKv99
Broadway Legend
joined:12/27/04
Broadway Legend
joined:
12/27/04
She spent that on markers to sign autographed copies of Dealthy Hallows last month.
No good can possibly come from using this vast wasteland of error and deliberate deceit. You should get off of it and warn others away. You should make sure your children and grandchildren know what a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution it truly is.
DG
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
"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 Profile PhotoSueleenGay Profile Photo
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend
joined:6/9/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/9/03
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.
PEACE.
FindingNamo
Broadway Legend
joined:7/22/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
7/22/03
Did anybody see anything on the kid's forehead?
Can you hear me now? Twitter: @NamoInExile
best12bars Profile Photobest12bars Profile Photo
best12bars
Broadway Legend
joined:6/29/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/29/05
Yes... A price tag.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 8/7/07 at 08:10 PM
DG
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
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 Profile PhotoHeidiPuck Profile Photo
HeidiPuck
Stand-by
joined:9/30/06
Stand-by
joined:
9/30/06
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
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
"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 Profile PhotoHeidiPuck Profile Photo
HeidiPuck
Stand-by
joined:9/30/06
Stand-by
joined:
9/30/06
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
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
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 Profile PhotoHeidiPuck Profile Photo
HeidiPuck
Stand-by
joined:9/30/06
Stand-by
joined:
9/30/06
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 Profile PhotoSueleenGay Profile Photo
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend
joined:6/9/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/9/03
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.
PEACE.
DG
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
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 Profile PhotoSueleenGay Profile Photo
SueleenGay
Broadway Legend
joined:6/9/03
Broadway Legend
joined:
6/9/03
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.)
PEACE.
ThankstoPhantom
Broadway Legend
joined:10/13/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
10/13/05
Sueleen...your final sentence is something I somewhat agree with, sad as it is for me to admit.
How to properly use its/it's: Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...
DG
Broadway Legend
joined:11/2/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
11/2/05
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 re: JK Rowling loses court case against paparazzi
ThankstoPhantom
Broadway Legend
joined:10/13/05
Broadway Legend
joined:
10/13/05
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.
How to properly use its/it's: Its is the possessive. It's is the contraction for it is...