This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/paul-weller-wins-damages-from-the-mail-online-after-plastering-images-of-his-children-across-the-site-9264788.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Paul Weller wins damages from Mail Online for 'plastering' site with images of his children Paul Weller wins damages from the Mail Online on behalf of his children for 'plastering' site with images of them
(35 minutes later)
Paul Weller has won £10,000 in damages from the Mail Online, after images of his children were “plastered” across the site. Paul Weller has won £10,000 privacy damages for three of his children whose faces were “plastered” over a newspaper website.
The Jam frontman sued Associated Newspapers for publishing seven paparazzi photographs of him with his wife and children on an outing in October 2012. The singer, 55, sued Associated Newspapers, the publishers of Mail Online, for misuse of private information on behalf of daughter Dylan, who was 16 when the seven unpixellated pictures appeared online in October 2012, and twin sons John-Paul and Bowie, who were 10 months old.
The headline on the story read: “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 former frontman of The Jam and the Style Council, who was seeking £45,000 damages in total, was not at London's High Court to hear the ruling by Mr Justice Dingemans. It is the UK’s first significant privacy trial since July 2012.
The couple complained that the shots contained within the article were “plainly voyeuristic”, and misused private information about their daughter Dylan, who was 16 when the shots were taken, as well as their sons John-Paul and Bowie, who were 10 months old. Seven pictures were published after a paparazzo followed Mr Weller and his children on a shopping trip through the streets of Santa Monica, California, taking photos without their consent despite being asked to stop. The article was headlined: “A family day out: Paul Weller takes wife Hannah and his twin sons out for a spot of shopping in the hot LA sun,” incorrectly referring to Dylan as Mr Weller’s wife. The couple said the shots were “plainly voyeuristic”.
David Sherborne, lawyer for the Weller family, said that Hannah Weller had not been in the public eye before she married Paul Weller, and had gone to lengths to prevent the faces of their children being seen in the media. Associated Newspapers argued that they were entirely innocuous and inoffensive images taken in public places and that Paul Weller and Hannah, 28, the mother of John-Paul and Bowie, had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a significant degree in interviews and on social media.
He argued that photographs taken of the children in public places like the street, and not at promotional events like premieres, were a “blatant impediment to the natural social progress of children”. David Sherborne, lawyer for the Weller family, said Mrs Weller had not been in the public eye before her marriage and had taken active steps to prevent their faces being seen in the media. He said photos taken in the street were a “blatant impediment to the natural social progress of children”.
Associated Newspapers countered that the un-pixellated images were inoffensive and that the Wellers had significantly opened up their family life to the public sphere in the past. Andrew Terry, partner and media expert at global law firm Eversheds, said: “The publisher made much of the historic images and comments about his children that had been widely published with approval from Mr Weller.
While Justice Dingemans agreed that the images could have been published legally in California, their appearance in the UK violated the right to privacy enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Mail Online would still need to show that its interest in publishing on this occasion outweighed the right to privacy. Given there was no genuine public interest debate at stake here, and given the ages of the children involved, the Mail Online’s right to publish was unlikely to prevail.”
“There was no relevant debate of public interest to which the publication of the photographs contributed,” he said. “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.” Mrs Weller said on Wednesday: “I’m pleased for our children. We didn’t want any money. We wanted to make sure they couldn’t harass and publish photos of our children again.”
Weller was not at the High Court in London to hear the ruling by Mr Justice Dingemans himself. A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said the company will appeal. He said: “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.”