J.K. Rowling recently lost her "lawsuit over the publication of a photo of her son that was taken on an Edinburgh street in November 2004.
The photo showed Rowling and her husband, Neil Murray, with their son, David, in a baby carriage. It appeared with a Sunday Express story on the Harry Potter author's approach to family life."
Rowling sued the agency responsible for the distribution of the photo, complaining that "their right to privacy had been violated." She sought damages and a ban on any further publication of the photo.
"On Tuesday, judge Sir Nicholas Patten dismissed the case against the agency."
""Our aim has only been to protect our children from press intrusion during their childhood,"" said Rowling regarding the case. ""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.""
""I have considerable sympathy for the claimant's parents and anyone else who wishes to shield their children from intrusive media attention," Patten said.
But he said the law doesn't allow them to "carve out a press-free zone for their children concerning absolutely everything they choose to do.""
Should people who are well known have the right to ban photographers from taking pictures of their family in public?
If you were a photographer and you came across a celebrity in a public place with their children, would you take and sell their picture?