Adele's Son Wins Damages For Paparazzi Photos

Adele's Son Wins Damages For Paparazzi Photos

Singer Adele's son Angelo Adkins is to get a five-figure sum in damages at the High Court over paparazzi photos.

The case was brought against Corbis Images UK Ltd by the singer and her partner, Simon Konecki, over photographs of his "milestone moments".

Adele's lawyer said she was determined her two-year-old son was not and must never be "public property".

"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," solicitor Jenny Afia told Mr Justice Bean in London.

"Adele and Simon never encourage such photos. Quite the opposite.

"The parents' view is that these images were of routine, everyday family occasions which the paparazzi has no right to intrude upon, profit from and file away in picture libraries for future reference and use."

Corbis will pay damages and legal costs and has agreed it will not use the photos again, Ms Afia added.

The lawyer told the judge that the singer accepted and enjoyed her public profile as a world-famous singer and songwriter.

"She is extremely grateful to the public and press for their support in helping her achieve international acclaim," she said.

As a result of Corbis agreeing the payment, Adele and Mr Konecki have withdrawn a claim against other defendants in connection with photos taken of their little boy.

Ms Afia said: "Adele and Simon are pleased this matter has been resolved. They continue to do all they can to protect Angelo's rights in relation to the paparazzi, including taking legal action where necessary.

"They will be holding the damages on trust on behalf of the claimant for this purpose.

"They will also continue efforts to improve the laws relating to paparazzi and children generally, building on the successful campaign Adele helped fund in California resulting in far stricter harassment laws."

Later, the lawyer said the case showed taking photographs could be as intrusive as publishing them.

"This case also emphasises a dividing line between celebrities who strive to keep their children out of the spotlight and those who make them part of their brand," she said.

"The children of famous parents are not celebrities. The law can, will and should protect them."