Rock
star Paul Weller has won £10,000 for his children after their pictures were
"plastered" on the Mail Online.
The High
Court in London ordered Associated Newspapers to pay the damages after Weller
complained.
Seven
paparazzi photos were published in October 2012 under the headline "A
family day out: Paul Weller takes wife Hannah and his twin sons out for a spot
of shopping in the hot LA sun".
The
couple said the shots were "plainly voyeuristic".
They
sued Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday
and Metro, for misuse of private information on behalf of their daughter Dylan,
who was 16 when the pictures appeared online, and twin sons John-Paul and
Bowie, who were 10 months old.
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.
A
paparazzo had followed the family on a shopping trip in Santa Monica,
California, and took photographs without their consent despite being asked to
stop.
David
Sherborne, lawyer for the Weller family, said Hannah Weller - the mother of the
twins - had not been in the public eye before her marriage and had taken active
steps to prevent their faces being seen in the media.
Photos
taken in the street, and not in circumstances such as premieres or for
promotion, were a "blatant impediment to the natural social progress of
children", he said.
In
court, Associated Newspapers argued the images, in which the children's faces
were not pixellated, were entirely innocuous and inoffensive and the Wellers
had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a
significant degree.
Following
Wednesday's ruling, the organisation said it planned to appeal.
"The
photographs showed nothing more than Paul Weller and three of his children out
and about in public places," said a spokesman.
"There
was no claim and no finding that we had followed, harassed or targeted Mr
Weller or his children and no request had ever been made to pixellate the
children's faces.
"Our
publication of the images was entirely in line with the law in California where
they were taken by a freelance photographer.
"The
suggestion that children have an expectation of privacy in relation to
publication by the media of images of their faces when one child (now nearly
18) has modelled for Teen Vogue, images of the babies' naked bottoms have been
tweeted by their mother, and their father has discussed the children in
promotional interviews is a worrying development in our law, as it has
conferred unfettered image rights on all the children.
"This
judgment has wide-ranging and serious consequences not only for local, national
and international digital journalism but for anyone posting pictures of
children on social networks. We intend to appeal."
The
judge agreed the images could have been published legally in California, but
said their appearance in the UK violated the right to privacy enshrined in the
European Convention on Human Rights.
"There
was no relevant debate of public interest to which the publication of the
photographs contributed. The balance of the general interest of having a
vigorous and flourishing newspaper industry does not outweigh the interests of
the children in this case," he added.
Weller
recently announced a new greatest hits collection, More Modern Classics,
featuring songs from the last 15 years of his solo career, including From The
Floorboards Up, That Dangerous Age and new single Brand New Toy.
No comments:
Post a Comment