In a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent."

The case was brought by the author under her real name, Joanne Murray, together with husband Dr Neil Murray on behalf of their son, David, who is now aged five.

In a statement, the parents said: "We embarked on this lawsuit not because we were seeking special privileges for our children but because we wanted them to grow up, like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy.

"We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances. However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight."

They said the ruling would give their children protection from "covert, unauthorised photography" and make an "immediate and material difference to their lives".

Their solicitor, Keith Schilling, said the ruling established a law of privacy for children from "intrusive photography".

"It will have a profound effect, especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it."

The appeal judges set aside a High Court ruling last year which struck out the claim against Big Pictures Ltd, which took the photograph, and ordered that there should be a trial of the issues unless they can be settled.

The colour photograph of JK Rowling walking in an Edinburgh street with Dr Murray pushing a buggy with David in it was published in 2005 in the Sunday Express magazine which settled an action brought by the parents and was not involved in the appeal.



Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2008, All Rights Reserved.