![]() Unfortunately, the Mail Online's press release demonstrates that they are no more a respecter of such rights (or the people who pursue them) than they are of the court's judgment. "This is an important step in the protection of children's rights, and this decision should be welcomed by those who value them, regardless of whether they are so-called 'famous' or not. That is no proper justification at all, whether they were taken in England or in California, nor is the newspaper's argument that their commercial business model would somehow be affected if they were not allowed to do so. "The only reason for publishing the photographs was because they are the children of someone well-known. That is why we brought this action on their behalf. "We are absolutely delighted with the positive outcome of our privacy case against ANL, as we are with the fact that in a detailed and very carefully reasoned judgment, the court has upheld our complaint that unpixellated photographs taken of our children whilst out enjoying some quality time with their family should not be published without consent. Paul and Hannah Weller said in a statement: It is part of my job as a mother to control who sees that information." ![]() ![]() Mrs Weller told the court: "The image of their face should be controlled by their parents and not on a national website. He said he was relaxed about his 27-year-old wife Hannah putting pictures of the twins on her Twitter account, which had 3,570 followers, as long as their faces were not shown. "Even when I asked him to leave, and I thought he had left, I came out and he is still taking photos of a very frightened 16-year-old holding her baby brother. He said it was incorrect that Dylan, who was in one shoot for Teen Vogue when she was 14, was a model and she had been "entirely intimidated" by the paparazzo who took the photos without consent. ![]() "They overstepped the line with the photos in LA, where they are full frontal pictures of the babies … I don't think the children should be brought into it, not until they are old enough to make their own decisions." The singer said he was never happy about his children being in the papers but he could not make a court case of it every time it happened. That's a distinction that needs to be made." There's a big difference between that and someone following you around and taking photos of babies. He said: "My preference would be just to talk about my music but I can also see that would be a very dull interview. Weller gave evidence that he did not volunteer information about his family when he spoke to the press to promote his records but was a candid person who would answer a question if asked. The pictures were published after a paparazzo followed Weller and the children on a shopping trip through the streets of Santa Monica, California, taking photos without their consent despite being asked to stop.Īssociated Newspapers argued that they were entirely innocuous and inoffensive images taken in public places and that the Wellers had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a significant degree. The one-time frontman of The Jam and the Style Council was not at London's high court to hear the ruling by Mr Justice Dingemans.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |