[Macros]

I'm not really sure if its worthy of a DB thread, but figured it was too serious for the inn.

reading this article, by Jennifer Anniston spurred me into this, but its been something I've thought a lot about over the years.



How are paparazzi not arrested for being perverts.
How are news papers and trash magazines not shut down for breaches of privacy?

I mean if I (and I have no desire to) made it my business to lie in the gutters outside a nightclub to take upskirt photos of young ladies, or stalked the beaches taking pictures of people without their permission, possibly bathing in the nip, I would be arrested.
And quite rightly so. I would be hauled up to court and probably be put on the sex offenders register or some such.
Yet when a pap does it, he gets paid and the pictures splashed over magazines.
Does being rich suddenly remove your rights?
If I was lying on the beach somewhere, or maybe in my garden (the irish weather is great for the latter) in the nip and someone snapped pictures of me I'd damn sure get the fucker arrested if I knew who they were. So why can't the rich and famous just turn to the magazine and say, ahem, excuse me, who sold you picture, its just the police would like a word.

The whole trash circus of the celebrity gossip magazine and rumour mongering to me should come crashing down in a wave of arrests and law suits.

I like to think I'm not naive, I know some (the Kardashians etc) people thrive on this trash, its their brand, everyone seeing every little bit of their world. But everyone else, imagine being scared to go out with your mates for a few incase you get snapped getting out of a cab and suddenly the whole world can see your knickers. without any repercussions to the scumbag that made it his business to take a picture of your business.

This has always really bugged me. My frustration with peoples interest in this shite probably adds to my annoyance that papparazzi and the people who buy from them get away with it.

[Tiste Simeon]

This flared up massively when the topless pics of Catherine Middleton (or however we're meant to refer to her now - Duchess of Cambridge I think!) was posted. The photographer had a monstrously long lens and was sitting around in a bush for ages to get a photo of her. Really scummy.

As far as I know, the royal family took action and the magazine that published it was facing closure but I'm not sure. I do get that some people would say "well, they're famous, they should enjoy the publicity, they 'belong' to the public" but everyone has a right to some privacy...

I guess they have to take it up with the courts like anyone else would...

[Aptorian]

I've been disgusted by the whole thing for a long time now.

But I think it actually is a bigger problem than just the Paparazzis. Because who are buying these pictures? And who are buying these magazines? That's the thing that really weirds me out.

We live in a society where we are taught that we shouldn't gossip, nobody likes people sticking their nose in their affairs, and yet for some reason it's socially acceptable to buy these rags or read those websites that peddle this shit? I always find it funny that Reddit for example (if you're familiar with that website) are obsessed with their internet privacy but at the same just loves their celebrity scandals and, of course, everybody remembers "The Fapening" when dozens of female celebrities private social media accounts were hacked and nudes were posted of them. That got super popular for a while.

Why is it that everybody hates surveillance, online or in real life, but they love keeping tabs on random famous people when they're out shopping or, god forbid, they're going through a rough patch?

Personally I just think that there should be laws in place that censor the kind of tabloids that make money off sensationalist smut.

[Macros]

but this is what I don't get Apt.
If you or I went around taking pictures of a person we would have a restraining order filed, or worse.

[Aptorian]

As far as I understand it there's some kind of weird loophole. Basically anybody is allowed to take pictures of anybody as long as it's in public. The questionable thing is how those images are used. I assume that anybody could sue a publication for selling their image, but few, if any, have the time, money and energy to go through with it. Even for a celebrity it probably just isn't worth it.

Would be interesting if any of the Malazites with knowledge of this stuff or legal matters chimed in. Paging Morgoth or Hoosier!

This post has been edited by Apt: 03 December 2016 - 04:25 PM

[Caira]

I agree that it is disgusting practice. Being a public person is inevitably connected with limitation of some privacy, but I think that not on such scale as it happens now.

 Apt, on 03 December 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

The questionable thing is how those images are used. I assume that anybody could sue a publication for selling their image, but few, if any, have the time, money and energy to go through with it. Even for a celebrity it probably just isn't worth it.

Would be interesting if any of the Malazites with knowledge of this stuff or legal matters chimed in.

I'm also wondering how it is regulated in our countries. I can say that according to the Polish law such image could be published (without permission of a person being photographed) only if the photo of a public person was connected with the performance of public/social functions by this person (or in two other cases, but not relevant here). I don't think topless sunbathing can be viewed as connected with any social functions. Also, a publisher may be sued for infringement on personal rights. However, it is still just theory - in practice, I don't think the publishers are sued in a vast majority of cases.

Maybe it is because the tight relation, in such business, between popularity sustained by media and the market-value of person itself. Still, it is weird practice both of paparazzis and of people buying such stuff.

[Traveller]

There are so many magazines just full of pictures of celebs (or people who used to be) on holiday, in the sea or pool, and a load of snide headlines about their appearance. I just don't get how it can, or should, be legal to take and publish them without permission. It's been going on forever. Occasionally someone who gets snapped from the shore on their yacht will try to make a fuss, but they never get anywhere. The pictures, instead of being immediately published, should just be used as evidence and used to prosecute.

I hate seeing these invasions. And the crappy magazines full of them. Who the fuck actually pays for them anyway, they're responsible for funding it all.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 03 December 2016 - 07:52 PM

[Mezla PigDog]

*may have occasionally bought a copy of Grazia for a long journey*

I consume it like trash tv - enjoy being shocked, wonder at the absurdity of it all, occasionally think "shit she's let herself go". They are good for high street fashion too

[Traveller]

Mez that's like people who buy the Daily Mail and defend it by saying it's just for the tv guide or because 'it's so bad it's entertaining'! Shaaaame!

I'm sure that the majority of women buying them do so to feel smug that the star of a few years ago now has a tummy after her two kids. It's still a shitty way to fund further invasions and media bullying.

[Mezla PigDog]

It is a very comprehensive tv guide though.

Just to further shame myself I'm sat here happily watching the X Factor. So I have no respect for the privacy of celebrities or the sanctity of music. I'm like the worst Brexit and Trump ignoramus rolled into one.

UKIP! UKIP! UKIP! Poor Nicole has let herself go after being dumped by love rat Lewis Hamilton.

[worry]

From one US perspective: I'm fine with this remaining a moral issue rather than a legal issue. People taking photos in public places just shouldn't be micromanaged. I know it seems like splitting hairs between creeping up on a window physically (Peeping Tom) and taking a photo from the sidewalk w/ a long lens, but leaning towards freedom (away from gov intrusion/punishment/etc.) in public spaces is a necessary aspect of the 1st Amendment. For one thing, if you're taking photos of buildings from a public space it's incredibly restricting to have to manage: whether the building is occupied, what the occupants are engaged in, whether there's a gap between the drapes or the blinds aren't closed all the way, etc. This would just wreak havoc on the 1st Amendment, and more globally, things like Google Streetview or Google Earth, not to mention just regular snapshots taken in public. There's also legitimate journalistic reasons for someone in public to record events happening on private property, and chipping away at that is dangerous even as a byproduct of what seems like a more noble cause.

That said, I do like for instance Kristen Bell's campaign to get paparazzi to stop taking photos of children, by taking aim at publishers. She was somewhat successful in getting some of the biggest mags to agree to it (by not purchasing pap photos of certain subjects), and it didn't require government intervention or the curtailing of 1st Amendment rights; it was just a matter of consciousness raising and public pressure.

[Cause]

 Macros, on 03 December 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

but this is what I don't get Apt.
If you or I went around taking pictures of a person we would have a restraining order filed, or worse.

Many celebrities I think condemn the paparazi publicly and yet cut secret deals with them behind the scenes to get what is essentially free publicity. In fact its publicity that they get paid for often. Kim Kardashians entire career was built around the leak of her sex tape. She dropped a law suit in exchange for 5 million dollars. The victim of the crime didn't seek justice in the form of jail time for the people who leaked or distributed the film. Her partner in the film dropped a music video about it.

The fappening was criminal and in that case the perpetrator has recieved jail time!

Lastly remember. Face of genitals. No picture should ever include both!

[polishgenius]

I'm of the opinion that celebrities should be legally and morally allowed to smack any pappers they catch stalking them.

[Macros]

I think Jamiroqaui popped one and got done for it.

Imo he was cut justified in smacking the fruitloop

[Mentalist]

Paparazzi are, whether people agree or not, part of the umbrella that covers this amorphous legal concept of "media"

Most jurisdictions have very serious exceptions cocerning "freedom of the press" (in Canada, it's "freedom of expression", which is a Charter-enumerated value).

For that reason paparazzi can get away with things that average members of the public would get condemned for. Within the very wide boundaries set by the courts of course.


Disclosure: I have not watched TV for about 9 years, and I watched it very sporadically before then. So my knowledge of the existance of "trash TV culture" comes from 3 things- discussions like this, those magazine racks at grocery checkout lines (when I run out of things to stare at, I might glance at the headlines) and those annoying ad links on websites that ask you to click them. So I have only a very general awareness that this is a thing that exists. But me and it kind of don't intersect, so I can't say anything specific about it.