Topics: Privacy & Liberties, UK law, public figures, public spaces, media, expectations of privacy

Pinsent Masons law firm's OUT-LAW newsletter reports a privacy law expert claims that the judge in the Rowling privacy case made mistakes in judging against the Harry Potter series author. (The case was about the photographing for newspaper publication of Rowling, her husband, and her son while they were out for a walk.) Rosemary Jay, the legal expert, argues that celebrities may be more vulnerable to privacy intrusions than other people.

Jay said:

---
"If I was photographed in the street I would be no more than a piece of street furniture; there would be no breach of my privacy because nobody would care that I was in that photo," said Jay. "But the photograph of Mr and Mrs Murray and the child is wholly different. They are not street furniture; the photographer took that photograph covertly with a long lens camera specifically to produce information about them and publicise it to the world at large because it was information about them as specific living individuals. That is wholly different to taking a photograph of someone as they happen to be getting on a bus when you don't care who they are and no one else will know." she said.

"Mrs Murray [J.K. Rowling filed the suit under her married name] and her family are vulnerable to media pressure on their private space. They may be rich; they may be privileged, but nevertheless these people are vulnerable, and I think there is a question of principle there that asks should the law be prepared to give them additional protection because of that vulnerability?"
---

This view is interesting in that it is often easy to see the relative powerlessness of "ordinary people" in dealing with privacy intrusions compared to whealthy and powerful people. The well-off can hire bodyguards, buy secluded properties, have others run day-to-errands, etc. Celebrities can often argue a financial impact of certain privacy intrusions, such the commercial use of their likeness without permission.

But, as Jay notes, celebrities are often more interesting to large numbers of people than ordinary people. So it can be harder to keep some level of privacy in one's life. The families of celebrities are often affected as well.So, even though, I tend towards a more democratic or equal-treatment approach to privacy, I do see much merit in Jay's view.

Yet, I keep in mind the judge's concerns that Rowling's privacy intrusion complaint would imply overly extensive privacy protections. "If a simple walk down the street qualifies for protection then it is difficult to see what would not," Justice Patten said. "For most people who are not public figures in the sense of being politicians or the like, there will be virtually no aspect of their life which cannot be characterized as private."

Although it sounds good for privacy buffs, such an extensive view of privacy even in public spaces would have a tremendous impact upon things such the freedom of speech.

In an era of growing technological means of surveillance, the issue of what "privacy" people have in public spaces has yet to be settled. Although there is the "you have NO privacy in public spaces" argument is attractive, there are some difficult cases that arise. Several US upskirt photography cases have seen the use of the "no privacy in public spaces" argument. Then there are more distinct cases of stalking. .

J.D. Abolins