David Murray, aged five, yesterday joined the model Naomi Campbell, Princess Caroline of Monaco and the Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt on the list of names shaping Britain's emerging privacy laws.
The son of the Harry Potter author JK Rowling and her husband, Dr Neil Murray, won a landmark court of appeal ruling establishing that the law protects the children of celebrities from the publication of unauthorised photographs, unless their parents have exposed them to publicity.
Rowling and her husband brought the case in their son's name in an attempt to ban publication of covert long-lens pictures of her son taken when he was 19 months old by an agency photographer. In the images, one of which was published in the Sunday Express magazine, David was being pushed in a buggy by his parents near their home in Edinburgh in 2004.
Express Newspapers settled the case against it for invasion of privacy out of court but the agency, Big Pictures, applied to a high court judge to have the claim against it struck out. Last August, Mr Justice Patten threw out the parents' claim, saying that "the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything".
But three appeal court judges, headed by the master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, overturned that judgment yesterday. Clarke, England's second most senior judge, 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."
Rowling and her husband said in a statement: "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 ... 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". The couple also have a young daughter, and Rowling has a daughter from a previous marriage.
Hugh Tomlinson QC, an expert on privacy law, said: "In this case an English court has held, for the first time, that the publication of an inoffensive photograph of an everyday activity in the street could amount to an invasion of privacy. This brings English privacy law more closely into line with the position in France. This case puts in place another building block in the gradual construction by the courts of a fully developed law of privacy."
Rowling's solicitor, Keith Schilling, said: "This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country." He 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 ruling means the claim for invasion of privacy against Big Pictures can now go ahead unless it is settled out of court.