celebrity photos: do they have a right to privacy in public?

[Darkmatter]

halle berry and jennifer garner are trying to make paparazzi photos illegal in California when they are in PUBLIC. they claim it scares their children.

but as a celebrity, i feel you give up your right for privacy in a PUBLIC place. of course, privacy should be guaranteed on their own property like anyone else, but in public, there should be no argument. they are PUBLIC figures. why they would subject their children to the photos of paparazzi is beyond me, but that burden shouldn't fall on anyone else or be made into law. they sure like the enormous paychecks they make for being a public figure. now they want to change law expressly for them. the law should be created for ALL to follow and adhere to, not to benefit a select few because they don't have the common sense not to take their children to a public place. in england, because of princess diana's fatal crash, they have made this into law which is ridiculous. diana's car had privacy glass so there was no reason to speed to get away from the paparazzi to begin with. also seat belts would have probably saved their lives, but that's another debate.

what do you think about a law that prohibits you from taking the photo of a public figure in PUBLIC?

 

[Mr. EcKo]

I personally don't give a crap

 

[EVILFACE]

Being a celebrity doesn't make you special.

Unless you are shoplifting, shooting drugs or killing people.

 

[Darkmatter]

I personally don't give a crap

i don't imagine you do. thanks for your wonderful insight and opinion.

 

[Darth Madden]

I never quite understood the paparazzi. I mean how many photos do you need of somebody walking down the street or sitting in a car or eating at a restaurant? And if there are 30 other paparazzi taking the same photo how special can it really be?

But if they are in public then sorry celebs you are out of luck.

 

[Intruder04]

In public, no. They don't.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Nope. It's part of the life they've chosen.

 

[RIDDICK]

Many paparazzi are *******s, many celebrities too.
There must be a balance, even if it's Hollywood.

 

[fosing]

Being a celebrity doesn't make you special.

Unless you are shoplifting, shooting drugs or killing people.

aaaaand making sex tapes.

 

[ASTRO13ZOMBIE]

It's part of being a celebrity and always will be,But paparazzi could be less ***t like.

There are situations where they(The paparazzi I mean) should just *** off though.
Situations where the celebrity might be going through something rough and could do with not having a camera shoved in their face.

 

[pixletwin]

.... and they get paid to go to certain clubs and restaurants. That really blurs the lines between where their jobs end and their personal lives begin. Kind of the fault of the celebs who take advantage of opportunities like that. Still I don't think photographers have a right to live in their bushes or go through their trash anymore than I would be expected to live with that.

 

[barryo]

= sex tape

 

[Mad Old Lu]

I never quite understood the paparazzi. I mean how many photos do you need of somebody walking down the street or sitting in a car or eating at a restaurant? And if there are 30 other paparazzi taking the same photo how special can it really be?

But if they are in public then sorry celebs you are out of luck.

Agreed.

But I do feel bad about the kids having to be put through that kind of scrutiny. It would be great if the paparazzi would have some kind of honor code that would say to leave celebrities alone when they're with their kids.

 

[Blackthornone]

Paparazzi get paid to take photos, and magazines want pictures of celebrities with their children, too, so they will take pictures of them. The first one to get the photos and deliver them wins, so paparazzi are very competitive. The very phenomenon of celebrity itself is what has given birth to the paparazzi.

Without celebrity, there would be no paparazzi, so if these celebrities want paparazzi free lives, they must lose their celebrity as well. Funny how many celebrities want paparazzi around at some moments to boost their careers, but not at other moments when it serves them not.

Some celebrities have become so entitled that they believe they can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Darkmatter]

Agreed.

But I do feel bad about the kids having to be put through that kind of scrutiny. It would be great if the paparazzi would have some kind of honor code that would say to leave celebrities alone when they're with their kids.

then why do the celebrities subject them to that? and if they don't feel secure, they can always hire security so that the papa keep their distance. but you can't prevent them from taking photos. isn't that part of being a celebrity..having your picture taken? knowing that, why would you take your children to a public place? they want the huge paycheck but don't want the inconvenience associated. welcome to life.

 

[Darkmatter]

Paparazzi get paid to take photos, and magazines want pictures of celebrities with their children, too, so they will take pictures of them. The first one to get the photos and deliver them wins, so paparazzi are very competitive. The very phenomenon of celebrity itself is what has given birth to the paparazzi.

Without celebrity, there would be no paparazzi, so if these celebrities want paparazzi free lives, they must lose their celebrity as well. Funny how many celebrities want paparazzi around at some moments to boost their careers, but not at other moments when it serves them not.

Some celebrities have become so entitled that they believe they can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[The Ween]

halle berry and jennifer garner are trying to make paparazzi photos illegal in California when they are in PUBLIC. they claim it scares their children.

but as a celebrity, i feel you give up your right for privacy in a PUBLIC place. of course, privacy should be guaranteed on their own property like anyone else, but in public, there should be no argument. they are PUBLIC figures. why they would subject their children to the photos of paparazzi is beyond me, but that burden shouldn't fall on anyone else or be made into law. they sure like the enormous paychecks they make for being a public figure. now they want to change law expressly for them. the law should be created for ALL to follow and adhere to, not to benefit a select few because they don't have the common sense not to take their children to a public place. in england, because of princess diana's fatal crash, they have made this into law which is ridiculous. diana's car had privacy glass so there was no reason to speed to get away from the paparazzi to begin with. also seat belts would have probably saved their lives, but that's another debate.

what do you think about a law that prohibits you from taking the photo of a public figure in PUBLIC?

They were complaining about the photographers harassing their kids not themselves. They don't have a problem with pictures taken of themselves, but those TMZ and other guys were stalking their kids. I don't blame them there.

 

[RIDDICK]

Also yeah, just make TMZ illegal already

 

[karamazov80]

Funny how many celebrities want paparazzi around at some moments to boost their careers, but not at other moments when it serves them not.

Some celebrities have become so entitled that they believe they can have their cake and eat it too.

This is pretty much my thought on it. Some celebrities do want privacy, or privacy in certain circumstances. Some eat up all the public attention and would get more if they could. But it is part of the profession. I don't think legislation will get very far, because the TMZ's of the world will throw a lot more money at this than will celebrities or those advocating celebrity rights IMO. Considering that, celebrities who don't like it may want to consider another profession where their success isn't directly related to their public appeal.

 

[CelticPredator]

People who work for TMZ aren't human anyway. So why not destroy them?