Kim and Andy Murray married in April 2015
Newspaper pictures of Andy Murray's baby did not violate the child's right to privacy, a press watchdog has ruled.
Representatives of Sophia Murray also complained of harassment when her mother took her to Wimbledon in June.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) rejected complaints, external against the Daily Mail, Mail Online, The Sun and Telegraph.
The publications argued there was no reasonable expectation of privacy at such a high profile event.
The Mail Online article reported on Kim Murray taking four-month-old Sophia to the Wimbledon tennis tournament for the first time.
It was accompanied by images of the child being pushed in her pram by her mother.
In two of these images the top of her head was visible, while in two other pictures her foot was visible.
The complaint said taking photographs of Sophia without the consent of her parents was a breach of her privacy, and publication was likely to cause harm and distress.
It also alleged that Mrs Murray and Sophia had been jostled as they left Wimbledon that day.
Andy Murray beat Liam Broady in the opening match at Wimbledon
Mail Online, however, argued that Mrs Murray and her child did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at Wimbledon, which is a high-profile public event.
It said she entered via Gate 16, which is an entrance used by the media, where press are routinely situated and that the photographer was standing approximately 50m from the gate when the photographs were taken..
In its ruling the IPSO code committee said it did not consider the child to be recognisable from the photographs and that they did not disclose any private information about her.
It said: "The complainant was being taken by her mother through a press entrance to Wimbledon; a major sporting event where there would inevitably be a very large number of spectators, and photographers.
"While the gate used by the complainant was not a ticket-holders' entrance, it was accepted that it was a public location, and it appeared that photographers were allowed to stand in a position overlooking the gate."
The complaints against the other publications were similarly rejected by IPSO.
