Advertisement
Singapore markets closed
  • Straits Times Index

    3,292.93
    -3.96 (-0.12%)
     
  • Nikkei

    38,236.07
    -37.98 (-0.10%)
     
  • Hang Seng

    18,475.92
    +268.79 (+1.48%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    8,213.49
    +41.34 (+0.51%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    63,555.41
    +1,761.13 (+2.85%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    1,359.39
    +82.41 (+6.45%)
     
  • S&P 500

    5,127.79
    +63.59 (+1.26%)
     
  • Dow

    38,675.68
    +450.02 (+1.18%)
     
  • Nasdaq

    16,156.33
    +315.37 (+1.99%)
     
  • Gold

    2,310.10
    +0.50 (+0.02%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    77.99
    -0.96 (-1.22%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.5000
    -0.0710 (-1.55%)
     
  • FTSE Bursa Malaysia

    1,589.59
    +9.29 (+0.59%)
     
  • Jakarta Composite Index

    7,134.72
    +17.30 (+0.24%)
     
  • PSE Index

    6,615.55
    -31.00 (-0.47%)
     

Paul Weller's children win lawsuit over pictures

Children of musician Paul Weller win privacy lawsuit against newspaper over online pictures

LONDON (AP) -- The children of musician Paul Weller won a privacy lawsuit Wednesday over paparazzi pictures published on a newspaper website.

Lawyers for the former front man of The Jam and his family sued Associated Newspapers over images of daughter Dylan and twin sons John Paul and Bowie that appeared on its MailOnline site.

Dylan was 16 and the twins 10 months old when the pictures, taken during a shopping trip in Santa Monica, were published in 2012.Judge James Dingemans ruled that although publishing the pictures was legal in California, they "were published in circumstances where Dylan, Bowie and John Paul had a reasonable expectation of privacy" — a status protected in British human rights law.

He awarded a total of 10,000 pounds ($17,000) to the children.

ADVERTISEMENT

Paul Weller told the High Court in London that the photographer was asked to stop but persisted, "taking photos of a very frightened 16-year-old holding her baby brother."

"What kind of person is that anyway?" he said.

MailOnline said it was "deeply disturbed" by the judgment and would appeal.

It said it was in competition with U.S-based websites protected by the First Amendment, and called the privacy ruling "a worrying development in our law, as it has conferred unfettered image rights on all the children."