PDA

View Full Version : Publication of private royal/celebrity photographs megathread.



Lorkin Desal
September 14 2012, 07:46:12 AM
So, last week we had Harry in a drink filled vegas holiday getting caught out. Now the future queen has been snapped topless by a paparazzo.

To what extent should the press encourage behavior like this and what do you think will happen next?

Lallante
September 14 2012, 08:42:18 AM
I absolutely and wholeheartedly believe that pap photos are the root cause of "celebrity obsession" which is essentially the bane of cultured society. I would make pap photos (selling or using private photos of a third party for commercial gain without their permission) illegal. If you want to use a photo of someone, get them to sign a release or blur their face out tbh.

If we could somehow end HEAT, Hello, OK! etc magazines we would be doing society a favour. Would probably reduce the number of eating disorders and depression among women too.

There is simply no public interest in publishing these photos. We haven't learnt anything new about Prince Harry from them - who hasn't done something like that, by his age? If you haven't you are probably sad that you haven't. Idiot non-lawyers at these magazines seem to have convinced themselves that "public interest" means "of interest to the public". It doesn't. Public interest is a defence or justification that the act -benefits- the public as a whole. Posting hoiliday snaps of some minor royal has zero public interest.

Diicc Tater
September 14 2012, 08:42:20 AM
I dunno. Sometime you have to get that you are a person of interest and that acting like a fucking tool is a bad idea.
The press? As long as it sells mags it'll be done. A "good" papparrazi snap can get you tens of thousands of €.

Lallante
September 14 2012, 08:46:06 AM
I dunno. Sometime you have to get that you are a person of interest and that acting like a fucking tool is a bad idea.
The press? As long as it sells mags it'll be done. A "good" papparrazi snap can get you tens of thousands of €.

Playing strip-pool with some girls you met isnt "acting like a fucking tool" its "acting like a young adult male".

If you are trying to argue that celebrities should be more careful because they are in the public eye you are both missing the point AND making a circular argument because this whole debate is about the extent to which "the public eye" should mean "knowing every last detail of what you do outside of a locked private residence".

Smuggo
September 14 2012, 08:51:17 AM
I'm afraid the blame largely lies at the feet of the people that buy these kind of rags and read these shitty pages.

People moan about crap journalism but they lap it up all the time. If they didn't create a market for it then it wouldn't exist.

But yeah, this is a clear breach of their privacy and there is just no justifiable public interest in either case. If Joe public did this it would be illegal.

Dianeces
September 14 2012, 09:20:42 AM
I absolutely and wholeheartedly believe that pap photos are the route cause of "celebrity obsession"

Just gonna quote this, and not necessarily because I agree with him.

Diicc Tater
September 14 2012, 09:35:54 AM
I dunno. Sometime you have to get that you are a person of interest and that acting like a fucking tool is a bad idea.
The press? As long as it sells mags it'll be done. A "good" papparrazi snap can get you tens of thousands of €.

Playing strip-pool with some girls you met isnt "acting like a fucking tool" its "acting like a young adult male".

If you are trying to argue that celebrities should be more careful because they are in the public eye you are both missing the point AND making a circular argument because this whole debate is about the extent to which "the public eye" should mean "knowing every last detail of what you do outside of a locked private residence".

The whole thing is circular in it self. Someone inside the circle need to break it.
I dunno how the pictures got to the mag but I suspect he's got some douche friend.
Should the publisher accept it? Who is going to be the first to say no? The publisher? The photographer?
The buyer won't.
If the mags won't publish, what about blogs?
The shit sells. "The public eye" wants it all.
How do you take the money out of the mix? Do that and it will stop. Because inserting 'morals' will stop only some people and there are always others.
I should get off the unicycle, rite?

Lallante
September 14 2012, 10:53:44 AM
Give people a legal right to a reasonable expectation of privacy tbh. Exceptions for when the person is in the public domain by they own choice or intention and the act being publicised is directly relevant to the reason they are in the public domain (e.g. athlete caught taking steroids, politician caught lying). I dont have problem with, for example, "love rats" not being caught out publicly unless they sell their "brand" as wholesome and family oriented or they are a politician (and therefore their integrity is called into question).

You have to divorce feelings of schadenfreude and prurient fascination from what is actually right and good.

punkboy101
September 14 2012, 02:22:57 PM
I absolutely and wholeheartedly believe that pap photos are the root cause of "celebrity obsession" which is essentially the bane of cultured society. I would make pap photos (selling or using private photos of a third party for commercial gain without their permission) illegal. If you want to use a photo of someone, get them to sign a release or blur their face out tbh.

If we could somehow end HEAT, Hello, OK! etc magazines we would be doing society a favour. Would probably reduce the number of eating disorders and depression among women too.

There is simply no public interest in publishing these photos. We haven't learnt anything new about Prince Harry from them - who hasn't done something like that, by his age? If you haven't you are probably sad that you haven't. Idiot non-lawyers at these magazines seem to have convinced themselves that "public interest" means "of interest to the public". It doesn't. Public interest is a defence or justification that the act -benefits- the public as a whole. Posting hoiliday snaps of some minor royal has zero public interest.

Agree with this TBH.

Although I have to say when the whole Harry in Vegas thing happened it made me smile, it actually made me like him more because I can relate to it. I mean Harry is probably the best Royal there is (except the Queen and lolwinPhillip), due to being an all-round awesome bloke who enjoys a piss-up/smoke and actually serves his country in a conflict zone rather than collect a chest full of medals for fuck all like his father.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see Kate's baps tho...

Lallante
September 14 2012, 02:35:57 PM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Frug
September 14 2012, 03:22:52 PM
I think anyone who says they don't have a problem with these photos deserves to have paparzzi follow them around the same way. If there was a god, it would be so.

indi
September 14 2012, 04:47:49 PM
First off, I agree that the pictures of Kate and Harry should not have been published. It infringes on their privacy without a good justification. I feel Kate's situation is even worse, because she did nothing that you could even consider as 'out of the ordinary', while Harry did stuff you would not want your future boss to see on your facebook either, if you get my drift. Still, it really should not have happened.

I'm not sure I"d go as far as to absolutely forbid this. The reason for that is that journalism does have the 'task' of guarding the guardians in a way. That's far more relevant for politicians than members of the royal family, by the way. It's also got to do with the extent to which you are in a situation where a) you have power and b) you can be blackmailed to use that in another way than it should be used. (A year or so a go, a high ranking police officer was not promoted to a higher ranking/overseeing job within the police because of "private reasons". This translated to: the secret service discovered information that indicated without a doubt that questionable people/organisations could have a hold over this person. It does happen.) It doesn't mean you should just go around indiscriminately stalking politicians, etc., though.

smuggo
September 14 2012, 06:29:43 PM
First off, I agree that the pictures of Kate and Harry should not have been published. It infringes on their privacy without a good justification. I feel Kate's situation is even worse, because she did nothing that you could even consider as 'out of the ordinary', while Harry did stuff you would not want your future boss to see on your facebook either, if you get my drift. Still, it really should not have happened.

I'm not sure I"d go as far as to absolutely forbid this. The reason for that is that journalism does have the 'task' of guarding the guardians in a way. That's far more relevant for politicians than members of the royal family, by the way. It's also got to do with the extent to which you are in a situation where a) you have power and b) you can be blackmailed to use that in another way than it should be used. (A year or so a go, a high ranking police officer was not promoted to a higher ranking/overseeing job within the police because of "private reasons". This translated to: the secret service discovered information that indicated without a doubt that questionable people/organisations could have a hold over this person. It does happen.) It doesn't mean you should just go around indiscriminately stalking politicians, etc., though.

Yes, but as stated previously there's a difference between whoring and having a good time. Celebrities and people in positions of responsibility are not infallible and a lot of them aren't in that position through choice. If you are in a position where you are liable to be blackmailed for the advantages of a third party then you should be a bit more careful but any indiscretions should be picked up by the external vetting that is applied.

As far as the recent stories go. Kate's tits are nothing special and Harry was just trying to have some fun prior to being sent to Afghan, although probably in slightly more salubrious conditions than most of his contemporaries.

Ort Lofthus
September 15 2012, 01:46:13 AM
Honestly, I don't see how this type of bullshit isn't classified as harrassment legally. I think we can all agree that it is abusive, unwanted, and not just repetitive but omnipresent. Charge the photographers with harassment, then charge the publishers as accessories.

Mrenda
September 15 2012, 02:21:09 AM
Celebrities and people in positions of responsibility are not infallible and a lot of them aren't in that position through choice...

As far as the recent stories go. Kate's tits are nothing special

Excuse me? Bollocks to this. They aren't in that position by choice? They could have chosen to fall in love with someone else. Unless you're a believer that there's only one in six billion people for us all to fall in love with, who happens to be in the same country, religion, tax bracket and with fuckloads of jewels for me to fall into love with. Because while my breeding is good enough that I might fall in love with a dole scrounger who has an engagement ring, Kate fucking Middleton had a choice about who she fell in love with. I don't want this to sound like she should get her tits out daily for every cum-stained pants with egg mayonnaise mouthbreather to salivate over. But if she's going to be Queen of England I think that's exactly what she should do. Because she serves no other function than for fucking morons to fill celebrity pages with, and for those fucking morons to sell fucking pictures to people who are no more capable of reading words than I am to ejaculate all the way to Mars.

If she wants to fall in love with a future King, then she's made a big decision about life. And I don't think it's the same decision with actors, or petty mediaites or anyone Piers Cunting Morgan decided to follow. She's going to be literally ruling over people, she should get her tits and vag and secretly bleached anus out for every commoner to inspect just like they inspect the gates of Buckingham Palace. Unavailable and pity to you because you're a fucking pleb.

TheManFromDelmonte
September 15 2012, 08:29:53 AM
It should be criminal, though spending police time on photos of people's ex doesn't seem best.

If it's made criminal it has to be in such a way the publishing company and the photographer are both targeted, then even if a foreign paper publishes the pictures and the people never travel to the UK the photographers can't travel to the UK to take more photos without being arrested.

I'd guess an EU arrest warrant wouldn't work for extraditing people as it wouldn't be a crime in the other country?

Doomed Predator
September 15 2012, 08:50:22 AM
While paparazzis are cunts, it's the people who buy this crap that are to blame. I don't understand why so many people care about celebrities personal lives. Why would you care if celebrity X got drunk/married/cheated/etc.? You're most likely never going to meet them, let alone become involved enough in their lives to justify such interest.

Daneel Trevize
September 15 2012, 01:12:45 PM
It isn't that they think they'll meet them, it's that they get to indirectly experience the same things via such crap, so they don't feel they're missing out if they know the private details of those they perceive to be better & something to aspire to, while they're stuck in their shitty lives because they make bad decisions or maybe just had really bad luck in life.

Dark Flare
September 15 2012, 04:11:22 PM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

KathDougans
September 15 2012, 04:26:27 PM
some paper editors said that the location the pictures were taken from was a public road, so that makes the pictures OK to publish. "she decides to partially disrobe on a balcony where it can be seen from a public road " for example.

Other things said that the location was >1000metres from the building.

Not really convinced that 1km or more counts as "where it can be seen from a public road", vOv

Dorvil Barranis
September 15 2012, 08:38:44 PM
Privacy is such a pre-internet concept. Once we have little drones with cameras flying around everywhere, we will start getting used to there being no such thing as privacy.

indi
September 15 2012, 08:52:49 PM
Privacy is such a pre-internet concept. Once we have little drones with cameras flying around everywhere, we will start getting used to there being no such thing as privacy.

Things don't just 'happen' to us, we're not victims. If this is ever going to happen, I'll demonstrate my ass off. If it doesn't work, I'll emigrate. Privacy is worth a lot; if we don't agree, we deserve having it taken away from us.

tulip
September 15 2012, 09:50:47 PM
I agree with lall in that without the "public interest" defence it's pretty obvious that it's stalking/harassment people only allow because if you're one of the sad fucks buying those shitty voyeuristic rags you're definitely not interesting enough to warrant being reported on yourself. But you're the lawyer (i think) Lallante, can you honestly see an industry in a free market not going a far as legally possible to get that cash? You would have to legislate a much clearer definition of public interest and whilst I'd like to think it could be done it would be very hard to draw the line cleanly on moral grounds, too lax and nothing changes, too strict and lololol police state accusations.

Wouldn't it just be easier to make it illegal to take or publish photos taken of a person without their consent with any optical lens, digital magnification or enhancement over a certain limit?

Whilst we're on the subject of what are so often "beauty and glamour" magazines why not make it a legal requirement to have a declaration on all images of models that have been digitally altered when the image is advertising a product related to the aesthetics of the model? No quietly shopping pictures advertising celebrity miracle weight loss diets, no subtly airbrushing that photo advertising perfect blend foundation (it amazes me this is allowed even now) and no underhand liquefying of your cover-model's thighs to shift copies in the first place.

Sacul
September 16 2012, 12:20:50 PM
Not a single fuck given. Checked out the tittie pics because of all the fuzz. Seeing how low quality they are i cant even see if she has nipple hairs.

Now eagerly awaiting beter res pictures.

Damn papparazi!!

spasm
September 16 2012, 12:24:59 PM
Not a single fuck given. Checked out the tittie pics because of all the fuzz. Seeing how low quality they are i cant even see if she has nipple hairs.

Now eagerly awaiting beter res pictures.

Damn papparazi!!

Try to discuss the issue, not the picture quality.

Sacul
September 16 2012, 01:24:40 PM
Not a single fuck given. Checked out the tittie pics because of all the fuzz. Seeing how low quality they are i cant even see if she has nipple hairs.

Now eagerly awaiting beter res pictures.

Damn papparazi!!



Try to discuss the issue, not the picture quality.

ow yeah srsbsn section
sorry mybad

Jason Marshall
September 16 2012, 04:37:06 PM
Came in expecting serious discussion about a woman's breasts.

left with a better understanding about Indi's views on privacy.

Sacul
September 16 2012, 06:47:53 PM
Privacy is such a pre-internet concept. Once we have little drones with cameras flying around everywhere, we will start getting used to there being no such thing as privacy.

Things don't just 'happen' to us, we're not victims. If this is ever going to happen, I'll demonstrate my ass off. If it doesn't work, I'll emigrate. Privacy is worth a lot; if we don't agree, we deserve having it taken away from us.

The tv series Black Mirror comes to mind when i read your post. Sliding scales and babysteps, we will get there.

Zumwalt
September 16 2012, 08:30:22 PM
Paparazzi are only in existence to fill the demand of the tabloids and places like TMZ. Don't blame them.

Dorvil Barranis
September 16 2012, 09:42:00 PM
Privacy is such a pre-internet concept. Once we have little drones with cameras flying around everywhere, we will start getting used to there being no such thing as privacy.

Things don't just 'happen' to us, we're not victims. If this is ever going to happen, I'll demonstrate my ass off. If it doesn't work, I'll emigrate. Privacy is worth a lot; if we don't agree, we deserve having it taken away from us.

Do you use facebook and google? Your consumer information is probably already being sold to the highest bidder. What seemed unreasonable a couple decades ago, people grudgingly put up with. Click here to accept these terms, don't bother reading the legalese.

Lallante
September 17 2012, 09:33:55 AM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

...which is why it should be illegal

Dark Flare
September 17 2012, 09:36:40 AM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

...which is why it should be illegal

Where do you draw the line? ALL pap photos or just naked ones? Does it depend on where the celebrity is when they're taken?
How do you enforce it, with so many amateur paps now?

(I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, just questions that I don't have answers to off the top of my head)

Lallante
September 17 2012, 09:38:20 AM
Privacy is such a pre-internet concept. Once we have little drones with cameras flying around everywhere, we will start getting used to there being no such thing as privacy.

Things don't just 'happen' to us, we're not victims. If this is ever going to happen, I'll demonstrate my ass off. If it doesn't work, I'll emigrate. Privacy is worth a lot; if we don't agree, we deserve having it taken away from us.

Do you use facebook and google? Your consumer information is probably already being sold to the highest bidder. What seemed unreasonable a couple decades ago, people grudgingly put up with. Click here to accept these terms, don't bother reading the legalese.

"It happens, therefore we shouldn't complain" a.k.a. "that's just the way things are" is the most banal of all fallacies. Its been used to justify racial segregation, slavery, sexism and every other heinous act of bullshit.

Refusing to accept a negative status quo is the basis of some of the most morally righteous acts.

Lallante
September 17 2012, 09:44:10 AM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

...which is why it should be illegal

Where do you draw the line? ALL pap photos or just naked ones? Does it depend on where the celebrity is when they're taken?
How do you enforce it, with so many amateur paps now?

(I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, just questions that I don't have answers to off the top of my head)

See my original post. Draw the line at commercially use of ANY photo/video of a third party without consent or obfuscation. A lot of TV show do this already (blur faces of people who dont sign a release).

What a lot of non-lawyers misunderstand about law, particularly criminal law that affects commercial entities, is that it really doesn't matter how enforceable a law is - just making it explicitly illegal (rather than "possibly illegal if arguable that it is [for example], harassment") would kill the market for such photos and thus kill paps as a profession. There would still be paps from countries that didnt have such laws targetting people while abroad, but the problem would be vastly reduced. If taking the photos or using them carried a significant fine (including confiscation of photographic equipment) and potential criminal conviction, the amateur side would die too.

Mrenda
September 17 2012, 01:09:35 PM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

...which is why it should be illegal

Where do you draw the line? ALL pap photos or just naked ones? Does it depend on where the celebrity is when they're taken?
How do you enforce it, with so many amateur paps now?

(I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, just questions that I don't have answers to off the top of my head)

See my original post. Draw the line at commercially use of ANY photo/video of a third party without consent or obfuscation. A lot of TV show do this already (blur faces of people who dont sign a release).

Are you serious? You can't be that short sighted. What about when the Drug Czar is photo'ed snorting coke from some hookers ring? Should this go unpublished, should he have his face blurred out to the point of unrecognition?

Tafkat
September 17 2012, 01:14:58 PM
Are you serious? You can't be that short sighted. What about when the Drug Czar is photo'ed snorting coke from some hookers ring? Should this go unpublished, should he have his face blurred out to the point of unrecognition?
That would almost certainly be protected as an action taken in the public interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_defence).

Dark Flare
September 17 2012, 01:34:46 PM
google image search Kate Middleton Closer. Wanting to see the pics doesnt affect the argument in the slightest.

Surely wanting to see the pictures is the entire point. Almost everybody wants to see them, which means they're worth a lot to whatever magazine can get their hands on them, giving the pictures a huge bounty so ofc the pap are going to take them.

...which is why it should be illegal

Where do you draw the line? ALL pap photos or just naked ones? Does it depend on where the celebrity is when they're taken?
How do you enforce it, with so many amateur paps now?

(I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, just questions that I don't have answers to off the top of my head)

See my original post. Draw the line at commercially use of ANY photo/video of a third party without consent or obfuscation. A lot of TV show do this already (blur faces of people who dont sign a release).

Are you serious? You can't be that short sighted. What about when the Drug Czar is photo'ed snorting coke from some hookers ring? Should this go unpublished, should he have his face blurred out to the point of unrecognition?

Lallante's post says for commercial use. Pretty sure that's a police matter.

TheManFromDelmonte
September 17 2012, 07:11:02 PM
Are you serious? You can't be that short sighted. What about when the Drug Czar is photo'ed snorting coke from some hookers ring? Should this go unpublished, should he have his face blurred out to the point of unrecognition?

Yes it should be given to the police and not published so as to not prejudice a trial.
If there's a problem with the justice system (corruption) then it can be published with a public interest defence.

Lallante
September 18 2012, 07:10:56 PM
Yep sorry, to be clear the rule would always have a public interest defence. But public interest would mean "in the best interests of the public" not "interesting to members of the public" as it seems to be employed by retard tabloids.

definatelynotKKassandra
September 18 2012, 07:43:45 PM
So you have to blur out the faces of everyone in the background of a news photo?

Lallante
September 18 2012, 08:04:05 PM
So you have to blur out the faces of everyone in the background of a news photo?

No, because you could have a "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and "consent by behaviour" exceptions too, which would exempt celebrities acting as celebrities (i.e. at celebrity events or posing for camera) but not, for instance, a celebrity attending rehab.

definatelynotKKassandra
September 18 2012, 08:30:09 PM
So you have to blur out the faces of everyone in the background of a news photo?

No, because you could have a "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and "consent by behaviour" exceptions too, which would exempt celebrities acting as celebrities (i.e. at celebrity events or posing for camera) but not, for instance, a celebrity attending rehab.

But doesn't that bring us back to where we are now, pretty much? Arguments over what 'reasonable expectation of privacy' means?

Lallante
September 18 2012, 09:03:41 PM
So you have to blur out the faces of everyone in the background of a news photo?

No, because you could have a "no reasonable expectation of privacy" and "consent by behaviour" exceptions too, which would exempt celebrities acting as celebrities (i.e. at celebrity events or posing for camera) but not, for instance, a celebrity attending rehab.

But doesn't that bring us back to where we are now, pretty much? Arguments over what 'reasonable expectation of privacy' means?

No, now the default position is you have no private law right to privacy by default in UK law (though there are specific exceptions like confidential information, data protection, harassment, tresspass etc etc). There is nothing illegal in itself about taking a super high-powered lens camera and taking loads of photos of a random person sunbathing in their backgarden (from a public viewpoint) and then publishing them in a newspaper.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" means you expected to have privacy and this expectation was not unreasonable. Courts are very good at applying these sorts of tests - it tends to be very common sense (Being on private property would usually give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, with common sense exceptions).