admirable
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,612
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Adele's Son Wins Damages For Paparazzi Photos
- Thread starter admirable
- Start date
Yep a another one,always amuses me that theses celebs never seem to have a go at the very heart of the problem,which is the people who look at theses photos and buy the mags that display them.
If there was no market for theses photos no one would take them
If there was no market for theses photos no one would take them
Fatheadedlizard
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 695
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If no one took them, no body would be able to see them.
Like wise if the the media , organisations and industries around the world didn't create a desire for people to want to know about these things, then people wouldn't be interested....
Like wise if the the media , organisations and industries around the world didn't create a desire for people to want to know about these things, then people wouldn't be interested....
Sharky
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,872
- Edit My Images
- No
Seems a reasonable judgement regarding publishing them as there is no public interest angle although there might be public curiosity which is entirely different.
The one thing i did note that i found worrying is the last part of the BBC piece:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28439754
"Ms Afia also said legal firm Schillings had been in contact with the freelance photographers who took the shots to explain that legal action would be taken if they photographed Angelo Adkins again in this way."
The one thing i did note that i found worrying is the last part of the BBC piece:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-28439754
"Ms Afia also said legal firm Schillings had been in contact with the freelance photographers who took the shots to explain that legal action would be taken if they photographed Angelo Adkins again in this way."
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Note that the damages were awarded against Corbis Images UK - not the photographer.
As is always the case, it is the publisher of any image who assumes any responsibility. Therefore this comment:
"Ms Afia also said legal firm Schillings had been in contact with the freelance photographers who took the shots to explain that legal action would be taken if they photographed Angelo Adkins again in this way."
Is bogus.
Steve.
As is always the case, it is the publisher of any image who assumes any responsibility. Therefore this comment:
"Ms Afia also said legal firm Schillings had been in contact with the freelance photographers who took the shots to explain that legal action would be taken if they photographed Angelo Adkins again in this way."
Is bogus.
Steve.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True but then no one would no who she is or buy her music
The issue here is celebs wanting to have their cake an eat it - if they pander to the press on one hand ,they can't be suprised when the audience theirPR has created wants more than they are willing to share.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
b******t!
Complete and utter tripe!
If I give a homeless guy a pound tomorrow, and a vagrant robs me on Saturday, I'm not 'having my cake...' I'm choosing when I wish to give my money away. The 2nd occasion would be robbery, it's without question.
If I give an interview to the press tomorrow, that doesn't give them the right to follow me around for the next 6 months. It's a twisted logic argument, how the press have got away with selling this myth to seemingly intelligent people is beyond me. If i have a chat with a neighbour about my holidays it doesn't give them the right to then snoop on us sunbathing in the garden. FFS we all have the right to chose what we share publicly.
And to put the record straight, I feel just the same this time as I did in the Weller case and I flipping hate Adele. She's a self centred bitch.
Sharky
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,872
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not that black and white though.
Unlike the Katie Price's, Kim Kardashian's and Z-listers of the world that sell their soul to the media others who undoubtedly are very high profile 'stars' don't. Actors, musicians are just doing a job, they'll be contracted to do controlled media interactions and some through agents or close acquaintances will undoubtedly leak movements to raise their profile. But that doesn't justify having your 2 year old being pap'd and sold to the gutter press e.g. mailonline (which next to the red tops and glossy's is probably the biggest consumer).
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
fairy muff - but the point remains that the likes of Adelle need the vacuous airheads who create the market for this sort of rubbish, which is why they never put the blame where it belongs. As i said on the weller thread if you want your kids to be off limits to the media don't give a glossy magazine an exclusive photosghoot with them (that was weller - i can't be arsed to look and see if adele has done similar - but i wouldnt be suprised)
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It's still [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] though Pete, just because there is a mutually agreed situation on one hand doesn't create a cause for breach of privacy on another.
Like I said before, that bogus argument would legitimise spousal rape. It's not an all or nothing, it's a case of respect and unsolicited press intrusion is perfectly legitimate 'in the public interest' which is a country mile away from 'interesting to the public'. We need more celebs to sue, that will dry up the market in the absence of a proper press regulator.
There are plenty of 'celebrities' queuing to have their faces plastered all over the media, why do the press feel the need to chase people when they don't want to consent.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We'll have to agree to disagree because my feeling is that in some case it does - imo a celbrity either says "my kids are off limits" and expects the medias to respect that - or a celberity can pump their public profile by sellling exclusive shots of their kids to certain magazines ... not both , because as soon as you do the latter you are actively creating a market of interest in your kids that you can expect other magazines to want to fulfill , and you can't then cry about it if they do.
in my view its all a bit 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' and whats really needed is for said celebs to grow up a bit and stop crying about a market they were complicit in creating
jakeblu
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,874
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Which magazines did Weller sell photos of his kids. If I remember from the last thread we could only find the Mail ones via a google search and of course the Bump.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As i recall there was a Junior vogue photoshoot with one of them (I think tigger linked it on thread)
edit - yep it was Dylan Weller and Teen vogue (although it wasnt tig who posted the link lasttime) http://www.teenvogue.com/blog/teen-vogue-daily/2011/02/snapshot-dylan-weller.html
- plus there was the father and daughter (admittedly 22 y/o daughter leah) photoshoot for itallian vogue lately
edit - yep it was Dylan Weller and Teen vogue (although it wasnt tig who posted the link lasttime) http://www.teenvogue.com/blog/teen-vogue-daily/2011/02/snapshot-dylan-weller.html
- plus there was the father and daughter (admittedly 22 y/o daughter leah) photoshoot for itallian vogue lately
Last edited:
Sharky
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,872
- Edit My Images
- No
Not at all! Like @Phil V said, allowing one should not be a carte blanche to invite anything else. Maybe by doing glossy exclusives they are hoping to satisfy a thirst for photos in a controlled manner on their terms and fair enough to them. That doesn't mean the next trip to the playground with the little one they have given a license to anyone with a camera to hawk photos around of obviously private events.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
We will agree to disagree, I honestly can't see how you support this argument Pete.
An interview with a magazine is mutually beneficial, an invasion of privacy is only beneficial to only one side. So to say that one justifies the other is a nonsense. To use analysis of the market to justify it is the red herring the press has sold you to excuse their bad behaviour.
Like I said, with no shortage of willing subjects, there's no excuse for paps chasing unwilling subjects.
We need to follow a handful of children's cases with some high profile adults and we'll see the tide turning.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as i said above - if a singer songwriter wanbt to keep their kids out of the public eye then thats fine , and the media should respect that. If on the otherhand they proactivelt put them in the public eye then can they really be suprised when they get papped. Now in Adeles case i'm not sure which part of that she fits into (my comment above was regarding the weller case).
However I very much doubt we'll see Adele come out and actively criticise the readership of the magazines who printed these pictures (who are the real problem because if they werent inteested no one would print the pictures in the first place) - because she needs them to be interested in her in order to sell records
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It's irrelevant and a red herring.
It's completely irrelevant whether a celeb gives an interview one day and asks for privacy the next, we are all entitled to share publicly as much or little as we like.
If my g/f sometimes fancies a bit of s&m and enjoys sex, it doesn't mean I can give her a good hiding and force sex whenever I feel like it. The idea that I could just say 'well you were fine with it last Friday' as justification is nonsense.
I'm happy to give you a bag of apples off my tree in the garden, does that make it OK for the neighbours kids to help themselves?
I've occasionally given away photos, does that mean I can't chase any customers for payment?
What's more - the law is simple re. all of the above, we just need the press to start behaving within their laws and guidelines to straighten up their behaviour.
I agree, if just once they said something about the readership,then again this story is just more publicity for her,and this war between the paps and celebs has been going on for so long now,it starting to get very boring,their a damn more important things going on the world,for me really to care anymore.
LCPete
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,785
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes I'm not interested there more important things going on than bloody celebs whining
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
too much information
and the comparrison is flawed - this is more like your girlfreind regularly selling kinky S&M sex to various neighbours but then getting upset when someone propositions her ( I'd point out that this is a hypothetical - i have no knowledge to suggest phills girlfreind does anything of the sort)
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Nope, because the pap's aren't 'propositioning', they're taking for granted they can have. Like the Apple scrumpers and the muggers and the people who don't want to pay for my photos.
They're taking without consent, which is a mile away from a 'proposition'
The headline wasn't 'Adele sues photographer for asking to take photo's', they were sued for publishing, how the f.... Is that a 'proposition'? Adele hasn't sued because she had a string of cold calls asking for interviews / pictures.
Just to keep a lid on it, my gf is purely hypothetical I'm happily married.
Bobsyeruncle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,422
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So you know her well then?
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed - and many artist/performers have deliberately crossed that line then started throwing their teddies when they don't like the consequences (I'm not saying adele has - I CBA to look into her specifics )
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
On the basis of a single interview when she got her first tax bill. Selfish heartless, stupid, I could go on.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Where's a blurred line? What's a celebrity?
As I said in the last one of these tedious discussions, 'celebrity' only exists where it's acknowledged, and for me that's amongst the vacuous.
Adele is a singer. There's no blurred line.
Bobsyeruncle
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,422
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That'll be a no then.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Good. ****ing Paps do my head in. All this "If you don't want to be photographed then don't be a celebrity" crap is BS. Her SON is 2 years old. He's entitled to a normal childhood.
sturisoma
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,908
- Name
- Summer
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the point is that it should be the parents' choice about whether their child's picture is splashed across the world's media - as the article says:
"The parents' view is that 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."
It is entirely different if you agree to a PAID photo shoot for a magazine with contracts and some measure of control.
I had another thought...
In this country it is not against the law to photograph anyone at all without their permission (although I believe military things and the like are a no no), but you do need their permission if you intend to use their image for commercial purposes. This is not the same for all countries so I'm guessing these images, taken legally in this country, must then be sold in other countries or they risk breaking the law
is that correct?
"The parents' view is that 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."
It is entirely different if you agree to a PAID photo shoot for a magazine with contracts and some measure of control.
I had another thought...
In this country it is not against the law to photograph anyone at all without their permission (although I believe military things and the like are a no no), but you do need their permission if you intend to use their image for commercial purposes. This is not the same for all countries so I'm guessing these images, taken legally in this country, must then be sold in other countries or they risk breaking the law
is that correct?
Plumtreelad
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 364
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
^^^ This
sturisoma
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,908
- Name
- Summer
- Edit My Images
- Yes
very concise - but please elaborate, otherwise your reply comes across as rude (or was that your intention?)
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
He meant 'No it's not the same for all countries so I'm guessing these images, taken legally in this country, must then be sold in other countries or they risk breaking the law'
There's a fairly free international trade of paparazzi photographs.
To the point where someone who isn't 'famous' in the country the pictures are taken still has to be on their guard. Re the recent Paul Weller case, he's not really famous enough in the US to attract press attention, but someone snapped his family knowing there's be a market for the images in the UK.
