Associated Newspapers pays £10,000 over seven pictures of teenage daughter and twins on Mail Online in 2012
Three of singer Paul Weller's children have won £10,000 privacy damages after their faces were "plastered" over Mail Onlines website. Weller (aged 55) sued Associated Newspapers for misuse of private information on behalf of daughter Dylan, who was 16 when the seven pictures of her appeared on Mail Online back in October 2012, and twin sons John Paul and Bowie, who were 10 months old.
The one-time frontman of The Jam and the Style Council was not at London's high court to hear the ruling by Mr Justice Dingemans.
The pictures were published after a paparazzo followed Weller and the children on a shopping trip through the streets of Santa Monica, California, taking photos without their consent despite being asked to stop. Associated Newspapers argued that they were entirely innocuous and inoffensive images taken in public places and that the Wellers had previously chosen to open up their private family life to public gaze to a significant degree.
Weller gave evidence that he did not volunteer information about his family when he spoke to the press to promote his records but was a candid person who would answer a question if asked. He said: "My preference would be just to talk about my music but I can also see that would be a very dull interview. It's just chit-chat. There's a big difference between that and someone following you around and taking photos of babies. That's a distinction that needs to be made."
In my opinion I think that the paparazzo were in the wrong to constantly keep taking photographs of them after Weller told them to stop. They need their privacy and they should respect that however we as individuals; in this day and age; no longer have the privacy which we were once able to have.
MusicQubed aims for ‘forgotten fans’ priced out by streaming music services
British startup thinks there is room for mid-priced music apps as an alternative to Spotify and iTunes
Digital music in 2014 tends to divide between three main strands: Apple’s iTunes and other download stores; streaming music services like Spotify, Deezer and Rdio; and YouTube or Vevo for music videos. It's basically a market split between people buying individual song or album downloads; people paying £10 a month to stream anything they like (well, apart from Atoms for Peace or the new Beyoncé album); and The Kids merrily streaming all their music on YouTube.
This isn’t quite the whole story, though. A growing number of companies are exploring what you might call “mid-price” subscription music services, hoping that there are lots of people out there willing to pay a few quid a month for a more limited selection of music.
Another company exploring this mid-priced space is British startup MusicQubed, which runs the O2 Tracks service for mobile operator O2.
Available for iPhone, Android, Windows Phone and BlackBerry 10, the app downloads the UK's Top 40 chart plus extra tracks and playlists to subscribers' phones every week, charging O2 customers £1 a week and everyone else £4.99 a month.
- O2 Tracks launched in March 2013, reached 60m track plays that July
- O2 ran a £7.3m ad campaign for O2 Tracks last year
- In March 2014 there were around 15m plays a month for its first four months for 02 Tracks
In my opinion I think that music streaming services are much more easier to use on a day to day basis instead of downloading music off iTunes or syncing music to my phone (which can take some time). Streaming music is quick and easy and also studies have also proved that streaming services have decreased the amount of piracy that takes places to a certain degree.
No comments:
Post a Comment