Jude Law wins lawsuit against UK tabloid [Poll]

Jude Law has won damages and legal fees in a suit against Hello!, a UK celebrity publication, after the tab published pictures of three of his four kids while they were vacationing with him and Sienna Miller in the Caribbean in January. 

In addition to a fine of about $15,000, Hello! agreed not to publish pictures of Law alone or with his children in situations where they have "a reasonable expectation of privacy." Whether Law's fourth child is included in the decision -- well, maybe not?

The legal route is a departure from the orange-hurling tactics the actor used in November against NYU students apparently majoring in celebrity photography. 

We're almost afraid to publish this picture of Jude. Almost. But then we checked with our lawyers, who assured us there's no reasonable expectation of privacy on a red carpet. Whew. 

Your thoughts?

-- Christie D'Zurilla

Photos: This picture of Jude Law was taken March 28, 2010, at the 2010 Empire Film Awards in London, where there were lots of other people around, and Law stood in front of cameras on purpose for publicity. Credit: Ben Stansall / AFP / Getty Images.

Follow the Ministry of Gossip on Twitter (we're @LATcelebs) and Facebook.

Comments

[Sara]

I am so tired of the ultra-rich ultra-priviledged cry babies whining about their lack of privacy. You can quit any time you want, and then people will ignore you. But then, you wouldn't get paid obscene amounts of money for very little work in a time when unemployment is 10%. Put up or shut up or go away. Your choice.

[Lindalou]

Of course celebrities deserve private time with their families without the vultures swarming around, stealing that privacy. But it's adolescent mindsets like Sara's that fuel the problem. Suppose how Sara would feel if pictures of her and her family were taken by random passersby and posted all over the internet along with snarky comments. We may be coming to that, you know. A site now exists where people can post comments about other people, good, bad, or ugly, for potential employers or just other internet users to read. Maybe you'll get a taste of that business yourself, Sara.

[facts needed]

I think if you are in the public eye, sorry, but you take the good with the bad. You get the paycheck, then don't cry when the people who pay $12 for a movie ticket invade your private time. HOWEVER, children are a different story. These kids do not ask to be put in the lime light and many of them don't want it. Publishing these pictures could endanger the children. Children of stars should be off limits.

[charity]

By "facts needed" logic, then, if a patient pays a doctor $120 for an office visit, then that patient can expect ready access to said doctor, day or night, vacation, whenever, for whatever medical question arises, all because he paid $120 once. Very dumb. Nobody better EVER invade one of my holidays, I'll jackslap the doodlesoup out of them. I want to see more celebrities (the REAL ones, not the ones that scratch and claw to get in the tabloids) giving this kind of pushback and putting tabloids in their place, which is below the gutter.