Author |
Message |
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 5:25 pm
There is also a "demand" for snuff films, but no one holds a gun to anyone's head to make them, or for people to destroy lives in ANY way, just because someone will buy the product. Sorry. they don't get a pass with me. There is a "demand" for drugs, child porn, even actual children.. and those who supply don't get a pass, either. Who is at fault? Those who say the ends justify the means and endanger others or even annoy them.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 5:40 pm
There is a basic conflict of interest here. I completely agree that celebrities should expect and receive a reasonable degree of privacy in places where reasonable privacy is expected. However, celebrities often want to be photographed when in public. Some make a point of even alerting the press. It helps their careers. Then again some only want to be photographed in public when they feel like it. There was absolutely no need for Diana to run from the press. She could have simply stood there, let them take pictures and then leave. Racing away at ridiculous speeds in a car driven by a drunk chauffeur is just an example of excruciatingly poor judgement. There are plenty of examples of celebrities who are perfectly able to live their lives outside of the public / paparazzi view. They simply pose for pictures and then leave. Do we want to have some fan who snaps a picture with a cell phone arrested for invasion of privacy?
|
Stacey718995
Member
07-05-2007
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 7:25 pm
To be as sick as Patrick is and to have to hear reports that you have died, when in reality he is probably fighting with everything to stay alive. I can not imagine...makes my heart ache for him and his loved ones
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 7:50 pm
I agree about Patrick. That is unconscionable reporting.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:41 pm
If rhwe dan is waiting outside ans stalking the celeb (or non-celebO and snapping pics that are clearly not wanted, yeah, they should be liable. There is a concept of RESPECT for the wishes of others. I can remember being on vacation and travelling to a pueblo and it was made clear that the people did not want to have their pictures taken, that they considered it taking their soul or spirit. And the same people who would think.. oh it is ok for ME to chip off a hunk of an antiquity or monument, even though they were told not to, or the one who just has to take that flash shot of a gymnast or skater who is mid-jump, or click that shutter on the back swing of a pro tennis player or golfer, because they just HAVE to get that shot, or the same person who MUST leave his/her cell phone on after being asked to TURN IT OFF, the same person who talks through that movie you paid to see, or the performance your child worked for weeks to perfect, at the school concert.. yeah, I'd punish them AND the paid "media" folks. I think reasonable people can figure out the difference between a star who is out on the red carpet and someone's mother suffering from dementia, or someone's surrogate mother (or ANY unknown pregnant woman), or a celebrity whose family member was just murdered... I just don't think because we believe that some celebs want to be photographed, or even KNOW there are times that they want to be photographed, that it means that we can decide that anyone who is at all publice therefor deserves to be photographed, stalked, chased down, even endangered, has lost the right to say NO, because.. because someone else wants it, or this person ever posed in the past, or because you can make money, or because.. well hey I wouldn't do this, ya know, but someone else will, so that makes it ok for me? LOL.. sorry.. rant.. I would err on the side of do no harm.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 8:52 pm
I don't think that the police should be able to arrest people for taking pictures in public places. That's like something you would have seen in the Communist USSR. Is that what you are advocating?
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 12:17 am
LOL, I'm far from a Communist. I just don't buy all the excuses for what goes on with the paparazzi. Many of the places are not public and if they are endangering someone, chasing them in cars, in public, that still isn't right. What happened to Brooke's mom started out in a private place, venues that ask that photos, recordings not be taken or cell phones not be used are not usually public venues, If someone is in a private car, THEY aren't really in public (IMO.. I'm sure technically once we leave our garage we are at the mercy...) The paps shooting into windows, climbing fences.. yep that isn't right. Actually I'd hope that common decency and good sense would mean the police would be able to concentrate on other crimes anyway.
|
Seamonkey
Moderator
09-07-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 12:19 am
And here is a public figure with some GOOD NEWS!! http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kennedys-cancer-in-remission-2009-05-19.html Kennedy's cancer in remission By Alexander Bolton and Michael Sandler Posted: 05/19/09 02:44 PM [ET] Sen. Edward Kennedy’s brain cancer is in remission and he is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess to spearhead healthcare reform, according to Democratic colleagues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he spoke with Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, in the past few days and was told the 77-year-old lawmaker is “doing fine.” Reid said Kennedy’s cancer is in remission and added that while the lawmaker is going through another regiment of treatment, the procedure “is not unusual.” “This is something we expected,” he said.
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 4:45 am
I understand the concept of once you put yourself in the public you become 'fair game', but the surrogate did not put herself in the public nor did her pregnant friend.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 5:13 am
Jimmer, I wouldn't think celebrities would be overwhelmingly against the public snapping photos. It's those paps, with their big lights and flashes, multiple images, the throngs of photographers at every turn, and the in-your-face with the camera sort of thing they object to, I'm betting.
|
Goddessatlaw
Member
07-19-2002
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 5:36 am
Scorsese favors Leo DiCaprio to play Sinatra in Upcoming Biopic. I want James Marsden to play that role, although DiCaprio would probably be fine.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 7:23 am
I agree Hukdon, however, I think that the idea of making it illegal to take pictures in a public place goes against American and Canadian rights and freedoms. It's very difficult to create a law that would protect celebrities in public places from pictures without removing a lot of the general public's or the press' freedom. The simplest thing to do is to enforce existing laws. The paparazzi or anyone for that matter should not be allowed to do anything that is illegal. There are many existing laws that cover these things already. That includes trespassing on private property against the owner's wishes. Some places that are sometimes thought to be public (because there are a lot of people that go there) are in fact private, so this would include restaurants, clubs or any place where the owner doesn't want them to be. Speeding or driving recklessly is clearly against the law. There are many other laws designed to keep people safe. Perhaps if these laws were more strictly enforced it would solve the problem without obstructing anyone's rights and freedoms. There are other ways to improve the situation as well. The celebrities who generally end up with the best pictures and who are treated best by the press are often the ones who are nice to the press and simply stop for a moment or look over and wave. Ultimately though I agree with the thought that the best way to reduce this is to not buy publications or frequent sites that show the pictures.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 7:32 am
The difference between taking pictures in public, and what the reality of "freedom of the press" are miles apart, IMO. They use super long lenses so they're not on private property, and snapshots are taken over walls, from trees, etc. of; for example, a celebrity sunbathing, or whatever. Their families and friends should not have to be thrust into the media simply based on having a relationship with said celebrity. For gosh sake, they have families and can't even enjoy their own property. Same with going out to eat with their families. I don't think being bombarded by the paps when they are trying to do "normal" everyday things shouldn't be fodder for the media. When celebs come out of a doctor's office, we really don't need to see that. Patrick Swayze's photos come to mind. For heaven's sake, there is just NO decency by these paps. THAT is what bothers me.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 7:51 am
That bothers me too, Hukdon and they give photographers a bad name. It makes me very angry. It also bothers me that people buy that stuff because if there was no market for it, then it wouldn't happen. I just don't know how they could create a law to prevent that without restricting other people's ability to take pictures.
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 8:12 am
I suppose if photography is your profession, or you sell pictures to any sort of print or video media, then laws would be drafted to cover that. For an example of how this works in MY profession, as a licensed health care provider (PT) in New York State, I have certain criteria to follow or I can lose my license. If I go out in public and create any sort of disturbance; if I get a DUI or DWI; or even if I have some sort of misdemeanor on my record, I can and probably will lose my license. We are held to a standard in order to demonstrate trustworthiness to the public. I can say what I want, and print what I want (I suppose there are limits to those, but they are not defined by our practice act), but my public behaviors are subject to penalty. We can lose our license to practice, and/or be fined up to thousands of dollars. We are held accountable for public behaviors, and the paps could be as well. Who would monitor this would be pretty simple. The public and the celebrities would blow them in so fast, it would very quickly end much of this harassment.
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 8:24 am
I wonder if someone could sue for using someone's likeness for profit, ie: a photograph of a person they are profiting off of.....grounds for suit?
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 8:32 am
Huh?
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 9:06 am
Ok, if the paps took a photo of you, and then used it in their magazine purely for profit or to sell mags, could someone sue for profiting off of their image?
|
Hukdonreality
Member
09-29-2003
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 9:08 am
I would think that's fair!
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 9:19 am
The way it works now is let's say that I'm out taking pictures and Brad Pitt happens to walk by and I take his picture. I can publish that picture and say that it is Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt is Brad Pitt - he can't help being Brad Pitt (LOL) and he is in a public place. What I can't do is publish that picture and put a caption under it that says, "Brad Pitt likes to drink Budweiser Beer" unless I have Brad Pitt's permission.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 9:22 am
Ok, if the paps took a photo of you, and then used it in their magazine purely for profit or to sell mags, could someone sue for profiting off of their image? Wow - Newspapers and magazines do that to Barack Obama all the time. He could make quite a bit on the side.
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 9:26 am
Jimmer...what if Brad Pitt likes to drink Budweiser Beer? Or has a Budweiser beer in his hand? 
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 10:31 am
I'm thinking photographs of you while you are working, doing work related things community service time, charity works, etc.. are one thing, but photographed during private time should be prohibited. No more new baby shots, no more who's shopping where, no more who's at which club...
|
Kookliebird
Member
08-04-2005
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 10:39 am
Why complain... he drinks American. Oh wait, it's now owned by a Belgium company.
|
Dipo
Member
04-23-2002
| Wednesday, May 20, 2009 - 1:18 pm
OMG, Escapee, if that was the case Paris Hilton wouldn't have a job, LOL.
|
|
|
|