nb_cid nb_clickOther -tt-nb this.style.behavior='url(#default#homepage)';this.setHomePage('http://www.aol.com/?mtmhp=acm50ieupgradebanner_112313 network-banner-empty upgradeBanner
14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Son of British singer Adele wins privacy case




LONDON (AP) - British singer Adele's toddler son has won a five-figure sum in damages after paparazzi photographed private family moments.

Adele's lawyer Jenny Afia said Wednesday that the Grammy-winning performer was adamant her son Angelo must never become "public property."

She said: "It is a matter of profound sadness that many of his milestone moments, such as his first family outing and his first trip to playgroup, were photographed and published worldwide expressly against his family's wishes."

Afia said Adele accepts her public profile, but the family never encourages routine photos that intrude on their privacy.

The damages from the settlement with photo agency Corbis Images UK will be held in a trust for Angelo, who turns 2 in October, and the agency agreed not to use the photos again.

Join the discussion

1000|Char. 1000  Char.
privettabacus July 23 2014 at 11:22 AM

Good for her, just because your are in the public, doesn't mean your family or children must also suffer! people in general should not have to give up their privacy for the entertainment of others, can't wait to see more of these law suits.!

Flag Reply +17 rate up
4 replies
alspoolhall July 23 2014 at 12:18 PM

There is a difference between a celebrity/star and their kid(s).Take pictures all you want of the star but to take a pic of the kid(s) and then actually publish those pics is just plain wrong. If you don't know the difference, then no amount of explaining will ever get through to you. Good for you Adele . . . sue those creeps.

Flag Reply +14 rate up
2 replies
mercymfa alspoolhall July 23 2014 at 1:04 PM

is the kid going to be traumatized? give me breake.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
2 replies
norawelson mercymfa July 23 2014 at 1:15 PM

Not traumatised, but do they not deserve the same right to the choice that the mother made. Should it not be their choide to be in public eye or 'not' as they decide? And at two, they are too young to make that decision, so their parents must make it for them. She has as much right to try and protect her child's privacy as any parent does. She did not loose the right to be a concerned parent. It just became a WHOLE lot harder.

Flag +1 rate up
PLW mercymfa August 05 2014 at 8:13 PM

You know, I'll agree traumatized is a strong word but if a kid can't be taken to a park like a normal kid without idiots with camera's snapping away, it's not a healthy environment. These creeps must appear like the boogie man to a toddler. Think about how many times we've seen Suri Cruze clinging to,her Mom or Dad. She looks terrified.

Flag 0 rate up
blue42 alspoolhall July 23 2014 at 3:29 PM

I dont think there is a difference at all except they think they should have more rights than regular people. Other than that. If the sh-- were to hit the fan I gaurantee I wont be treating them any different than anyone else.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
rude July 23 2014 at 11:16 AM

I guess I'm of the opinion that you can take anyone's picture IN PUBLIC......BUT, if you want to publish that picture you should need that person's permission in writing.
But I don't rule the world.......yet.

Flag Reply +14 rate up
1 reply
slackwarerobert rude July 24 2014 at 10:28 AM

newspapers have wiggle room on needing signed releases.
But since she sued, the pictures of the kids are a news story, so you can publish them now.
Still haven't found the princess mooning the camera pictures.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
cla.connie July 23 2014 at 8:42 AM

Good for her. Fighting back against an obnoxious press.

Flag Reply +10 rate up
2 replies
Angel Zayas cla.connie July 23 2014 at 2:04 PM

press photographers and paparazzi are 2 different types of photographers. learn the difference. the paparazzi pursue celebrities for money and they cross lines, photojournalist have ethics and are invited to photograph celebrities and presidents etc. Think time magazine or national geographic. the famous are being recorded all the time. atm machines, security cameras,people with cell phones. you cant hide really in a public space and there is no expectation of privacy in a public place celebrity or not. her public appearances are fair game. Now climbing a fence or trespassing and chasing people is the reason why real photojournalist/documentary photographers get flack. as if a picture of someone in public is harmful? she is training her child to be traumatized and fearful of being photographed.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
tedi cla.connie July 23 2014 at 9:21 PM

its not about the kid being traumatized, maybe its about some weirdo recognizing the kid and planning something for extortion

Flag Reply +1 rate up
monroelaw July 23 2014 at 9:50 AM

Paparazzi are scum. That being said the only way to put an end to them is for all of the mouth-breathing idiots who purchase the magazines that print their photos to wake up, get a GED and rent a life...

Flag Reply +9 rate up
2 replies
dancingkokapelli monroelaw July 23 2014 at 12:38 PM

Oh don't be silly! Celebs desperately need the paparazzi like they need oxygen. The truth is, if the paparazzi isn't chasing around after them trying to take pictures to publish in those magazines, or websites, the public will soon forget about them and move on to someone else. I agree that the paparazzi often act like scum, but they are just doing their job. Publishers need them to sell more magazines, entertainers need them to keep their brand out in the public, and sponsors need them to advertise. The worst thing in the world for a celebrity is to wake up one day and discover they've become yesterdays news. There are tens of thousands of other entertainers out there who would do anything to get that kind of attention. Hell, now days it is pretty common for a press agent for a celeb to tip off the paparazzi as to where their client will be at a certain time. It's all about publicity, and there really is no such thing as bad press. Bad press is a lot better than no press.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
1 reply
norawelson dancingkokapelli July 23 2014 at 1:17 PM

But leave the children out of it. No parent wants their children's photo up for millions of strangers to ooggle. Even celeb parents have to consider privacy and safety for their children until their child is of an age to make their own decisions in that regard.

Flag +1 rate up
mdennsr monroelaw July 23 2014 at 12:43 PM

i think when these paparazzi intrude on anyone's privacy not only should they pay a huge fine they should get the crap kicked out of them, that would stop them.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
smashingmonkey July 23 2014 at 9:15 AM

Yes, yes. By all means. Celebrities should get all the benefits of celebrity. Fame, adoration, money. But it should be on their terms. They should not be inconvenienced by any of the bad aspects that come with celebrity. Poor celebrities. I'm glad the law finally stood up for these people.

Flag Reply +8 rate up
2 replies
attystevenlee smashingmonkey July 23 2014 at 10:20 AM

Agree. Notice she is pictured in the article with her medal for being appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire. Her celebrity is a huge net gain for her and her son. We don't really need the law to afford them some special protection against the downside of fame. In my opinion. When the paparrazi break existing laws -- like going into your house to get a shot or something -- that's different. But if you are famous and you take your kid to the park . . . having his picture taken in public is just part of the gig. Live with it.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
1 reply
norawelson attystevenlee July 23 2014 at 1:10 PM

Anyone can, intentionally or unintentionally, have their photo taken in public. USING that photo in print, for monetary gain, without the express permission of the person or persons photo'd is the issue here. That is the reason the lawsuit was won. Not that the photos were 'taken', but that they were published world wide, for gain, without her express permission. Many celebs have won similar suits on the same grounds. Most don't bother, and accept this as part of their status, but those that seek to preserve the privacy of their children. They chose to be in public eye, but the children did not - and at their current ages, could not, make such a decision.

Flag +4 rate up
jennypenny06 smashingmonkey July 23 2014 at 3:05 PM

Why should their KIDS have cameras int heir faces all the time? I say if a celebrity is out and about themselves, they're fair game. But when they have their small children with them, they should be left alone.

Flag Reply +3 rate up
chuck July 23 2014 at 11:48 AM

its about time these bums are made to pay for being a pain in the.......

Flag Reply +5 rate up
mgt0331 July 23 2014 at 8:41 AM

Who cares about this limey hack?

Flag Reply +3 rate up
2 replies
s5cat2dog mgt0331 July 23 2014 at 4:05 PM

This 'singer' Adele....please explain what is good about her mechanically enhanced voice. I've not heard a drop of any kind of emotion in what she sings. She is flat, monotone and not entertaining...except if you're listening to the tricks they use to make her sell records. And now this ridiculous law suit. Lady, just keep your mouth shut and your kid at home. You've made enough money, now just go away.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
cupidpsychemom mgt0331 July 23 2014 at 9:33 PM

No one. She absolutely trashed the US when she was on tour here and frankly, good riddance! I hope she stays the eff in england!

Flag Reply 0 rate up
skidrowtom July 23 2014 at 1:14 PM

It looks like there may have been a second baby that never got out.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
1 reply
dgraham731 skidrowtom July 23 2014 at 6:14 PM

Why be so rude? This hasn't nothing to do with that.

Flag Reply +3 rate up
ccleve2816 July 23 2014 at 7:04 PM

I do not think I have the right to have complete access to someone's life just because they make movies or sing songs for their profession. Anyone that does needs to go get there own life.

Flag Reply +1 rate up
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

More From Our Partners