JK Rowling today won a landmark privacy ruling over the publication of a photograph of her son David when he was 18 months old.

JK Rowling today won a landmark privacy ruling over the publication of a photograph of her son David when he was 18 months old.

Appeal judges today ruled on a renewed bid by the Harry Potter author to ban further publication of a photograph taken in an Edinburgh street.

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 picture, showing Rowling and her husband, Dr Neil Murray, with the child in a buggy, was taken by a photographer using a long-range lens and appeared in the Sunday Express magazine to illustrate an article about her approach to motherhood and family life.

The author - suing as Mrs Joanne Murray - failed in a High Court action last year against Express Newspapers and the agency which supplied the photograph, Big Pictures (UK).

Express Newspapers has settled the claim, but the case continued against the agency and has now moved to the Court of Appeal.

Following today's landmark ruling, the case can now go to trial, to determine among other items whether damages should be paid. However, the ruling today establishes the legal framework which will now apply to all privacy cases involving children.

In a statement released through their lawyers, Schillings, JK Rowling and her husband 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 intrusions 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. We are immensely grateful to the Court for giving our children protection from covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and material difference to their lives."

Keith Schilling, Senior Partner at Schillings said, "This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country. Following the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN, which established a right of privacy, this case establishes a law of privacy for children in those cases where, understandably, the parents wish to protect their children from intrusive photography by the paparazzi. 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.

"Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life."

Neil Blair, instructing solicitor from J K Rowling's literary agents, Christopher Little Literary Agency, said that, "Whilst the case concerned photography, which has always been recognised as especially intrusive in privacy cases, the principles that this decision establishes are apposite to the protection of private information concerning children generally."

The original ruling by the High Court ruled there was no right of privacy for famous people engaged in routine activities such as shopping and no prohibition on the taking or publishing of such photographs unless it caused harassment or distress.

The author and her husband claim that the child's right to privacy has been infringed and seek an injunction banning further publication of the photograph or any other picture taken of him without his consent.