Singer Namie Amuro sues women's magazine over photos

Wednesday 25th June, 06:46 AM JST

TOKYO —

Singer Namie Amuro, 30, this week sued the publisher of women’s magazine Shukan Josei, claiming that the magazine violated her privacy by publishing photos of her and her 10-year-old son. Amuro is seeking 22 million yen in compensation.

According to Amuro’s lawyers, on June 10, the magazine published photos of the two of them walking together and shopping at a convenience store. In a statement released by her agency, Amuro said, “We don’t want our private life to be exposed to the public and we don’t want to live with the fear of always being on display to the public.”

Latest 15 of 39 Total Comments Show All

blvtzpk at 05:29 PM JST - 25th June

She can strip off her clothes and show the world all of herself, dance like she's doing it on stage, and that's all fine and dandy

You promised to get the DVD back to me last week. I'll expect tonight.
Gloobey at 08:23 PM JST - 25th June

To be honest,crap like this pisses me off. Simple fact is that she is famous, she enjoys all of the benefits that that entails and her fame sadly negates her having 'privacy' in the way you and I would equate it. Tough luck, so sad, boo hoo...
Pukey2 at 09:58 PM JST - 25th June

Well if her son looks anything like his father, then the publishers did us all a favour by blurring his face.

Wow, ten years old already. Seems like only yesterday when Amuro made that mistake.
jonobugs at 10:01 PM JST - 25th June

As much as it seems to make sense at first (that being a celebrity you have to take incidents like this in stride) I have to say that there should be some sort of line drawn even for (or especially for) famous people.

YES, they consent to having their photos taken in their professional career, but that is quite a bit different than having candid photos taken without their consent. These people get paid to have her photos taken on a daily basis, but when their finished work, there should be some sort of line drawn.

Perhaps I would agree with one of the other posters here that it would be okay for people to take pictures, etc as long as the photo wasn't published. I feel that any publication of a photo should require the consent of the subject unless there is really no reason for that.

Whether you agree or not, you have to admit that lack of photography ethics has ruined the life of some celebrities and has arguably caused the death of others (Princess Diana).

Maybe if there is an actual NEWS story occurring, like a bank robbery, etc., then this rule wouldn't apply. But a photo just for the sake of seeing a famous person in regular everyday life isn't a news story. I feel bad for those celebrities who have to put up with a constant barrage of media hounds. I think that if any person here were hounded like that they would change their mind about this.
Cos at 12:07 AM JST - 26th June

They took a photo of the child, that's not normal. She is right to sue.

If she was on her own doing shopping, we could discuss about it. Not in this case.
Fredster at 01:17 AM JST - 26th June

jonobugs - I am in agreement with you 100% until you wrote...

Whether you agree or not, you have to admit that lack of photography ethics has ruined the life of some celebrities and has arguably caused the death of others (Princess Diana).

This is like lumping real doctors in with those that perform back alley surgery without a license... Please don't lump real photographers in with that ilk of Paparazzi who are only "stalkers with cameras" and not photographers...

Additionally, there is nothing to suggest in the original News story that this was a Paparazzi type attack situation...

\

Cos

They took a photo of the child, that's not normal. She is right to sue.

Once again - there is nothing legally or morally wrong with taking her or her child's picture if they are in public but the problem comes with how the photos are used... You will notice that the original article quotes her suit quite properly when it carefully says "... the magazine violated her privacy by publishing photos of her and her 10-year-old son..." It doesn't say "when they took her picture" it clearly and properly states "when they published"...

Cheers,
1GiantStudMuffi at 04:55 AM JST - 26th June

man, she's hot
Blue_Tiger at 08:31 AM JST - 26th June

javanation - Hows about getting off of that high horse? Namie Amuro can stip down to her nothings for all the world to see, publish her "heroic" story for all the world to read -- which includes talking about beign a sngle Mom to her now-ten-year-old son -- talk about her failed relationships ad. infinetum. ad. nauseum., and prance around on stage like a female cat looking for a tom, yet, the minute anyone takes a photograph of her in public, she goes crazy? And those of us who disagree with her lawsuit are the spineless ones? Please! Ms. Amuro needs to grow up...
LFRAgain at 04:41 PM JST - 26th June

There's a vast difference between actively choosing to publicize oneself and having that choice made FOR you. Being famous does not automatically strip one of a right to privacy, particularly when children are involved. The type of juvenile petty jealousy that prompts some to think otherwise is truly annoying. These are the same people who think celebrity status automatically strips one of the right to exercise one's civic responsibilities when it comes to speaking out on political issues.

Children don't make the choice for their parents to be famous, so they should be off-limits. Amuro, if she's pursuing the suit in the interests of her child, has every right to be angry.
kostasy at 08:26 PM JST - 26th June

“We don’t want our private life to be exposed to the public and we don’t want to live with the fear of always being on display to the public.”

Solution: hikikomori

Seriously though, Namie san is exposing herself to the public by going to the konbini. Several people saw her and her child. What is the difference of this being publicised for more people to see her - her being famous and attracting all the attention that famous people attract.
blvtzpk at 12:33 PM JST - 27th June

Namie Amuro can stip down to her nothings for all the world to see,...and prance around on stage like a female cat looking for a tom...

I'm still waiting for you to return the DVD. And don't give me that 'I need it for research' line any longer. It's been weeks!
Black_Jasmine at 04:47 AM JST - 28th June

Sorry, too much noise around this emty place calling "Singer Namie Amuro". Be honest, she NEVER was gifted. So, as conciquences, we have stripping her cloth off, "mistakes" with men (taken closely they can be taken as a miscalculated prostitution) and finally, ASKING MAGAZINS TO PAY MONEY FOR PICS of her walking with her son. She should be more gratefull for them, at least it's something different in her image.
hikkiamuro at 11:01 AM JST - 28th June

i love namie amuro and she is in her right to sue them she needs privacy too. i did not know she had a son!!!
onedragon at 01:31 PM JST - 29th June

They were more interested in her child than her celebrity lifestyle. I hope she takes them to the bank!
snowfall at 09:53 AM JST - 2nd January

Amuro IS gifted. That's why she's been popular since age 14. She's actually known for NOT using sex appeal to sell her music and keeping her relationships quiet.

ALL human beings have a right to privacy, no matter how well known they are. They shouldn't have to stay in their homes 24/7 to avoid being photographed.

Work is work; personal life is personal life.

Would you like for all of the public to have a right to photograph you any time you step out of your home and publish it in a paper? Along with your CHILD?