Adele and her partner, Simon Konecki, brought the case, relating to pictures of the child’s “milestone moments”, against photographic agency Corbis Images UK, trading as Splash News and Picture Agency. The agency then made the photos of Angelo with Adele available for publication in the media.
Solicitor Jenny Afia said that Adele, as a world-famous singer and songwriter, accepted and even embraced her public profile. “She is extremely grateful to the public and press for their support in helping her achieve international acclaim,” she said.
But, she added: “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.”
Ms Afia said Corbis had confirmed the names of the paparazzi, not employed by the company, who took the photos, and her firm had written to them saying legal action would be taken if they photographed Angelo again in circumstances that breached his privacy or violated his rights under the Data Protection Act.
On that basis, the claim was withdrawn against the defendants listed as ‘VVV and others’ – persons unknown who were responsible for the taking or sale to Corbis of photographs of Angelo on or about 21 June and 16 November, 2013.
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.
“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.”
Ms Afia said later: “Being in the public eye doesn’t mean your children are public property. Our laws provide full protection against the paparazzi and more parents should make use of them.
“These images were taken during private, recreational time unconnected with professional or public engagements. They represent a clear infringement of our client’s right to privacy.
“As this case shows, taking photos can 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.
“The children of famous parents are not celebrities. The law can, will and should protect them.”