paparazzi...slime or outstanding reporters... hmmm

[Sundancefisher]

https://calgarysun.com/news/national...f-3755ea20f469

In my opinion, someone who skulks around stalking someone for photos is slime and the practice should be illegal.

Canada should make it illegal. Could attract lots of money into Canada.

[CaberTosser]

Probably qualifies as stalking and should have legal repercussions. The U.K. press is probably the worst for it globally. I try to avoid clicking on obviously intrusive articles so as not to encourage the behaviour.

It’s one thing if a person is an elected representative (and even they deserve some privacy), but to stalk & harass people simply because of family lineage is the action of a repulsive person/group.

[riden]

I'm curious how this will play out. BC's privacy act may or may not apply from what I have read on it. It's never been tested in this type of situation.

That said, I am having a hard time feeling sorry for them here. The unauthorized pictures were taken in a public park. How can you expect privacy in a public park?

They have several active lawsuits against paparazzi...... I wonder who pays?

[Trochu]

Should have listened to me, I did suggest this wouldn't be an issue if they moved to Strome.

[AndrewM]

If you are making money off being famous should you expect privacy? Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by AndrewM

If you are making money off being famous should you expect privacy? Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

So I consider Tom Hanks the best actor in the world. Because he chose that career and does it well should he have to live with being stalked?

Granted ... some behaviours attract the undesirable attention of undesirables.

Someone like the Kardashian make money on being stalked...

[Bigjohn87]

Should be illegal to take photos or videos of people for any reason without their consent.

[urban rednek]

Let it be noted that I despise the paparazzi and everything they stand for. However, the courts in North America have made it abundantly clear that there is no right to privacy, nor should there be an expectation of privacy, outside of your own home. There are private cameras and surveillance systems everywhere, whether they are noted by signage, or not.
There is no easy solution for someone who is being hounded in order to provide entertainment for the masses.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn87

Should be illegal to take photos or videos of people for any reason without their consent.

So, essentially no pictures, ever? Seems a bit unreasonable.

[saskbooknut]

This is very different from innocent inclusion in photos as part of the surroundings.
This is stalking, plain and simple.
Public figures, seeking publicity at a public event, are not expecting privacy.
People going about their private lives deserve protection from newspaper harassment.

[.257Weatherby]

Originally Posted by riden

I'm curious how this will play out. BC's privacy act may or may not apply from what I have read on it. It's never been tested in this type of situation.

That said, I am having a hard time feeling sorry for them here. The unauthorized pictures were taken in a public park. How can you expect privacy in a public park?

They have several active lawsuits against paparazzi...... I wonder who pays?

How can one expect privacy anywhere when in public?
We are fare game to having ones picture taken while in public.
But, I do despise the pimps who stalk them for cash money for taking possibly compromising pictures to sell in the name of journalism.(grr I just upchucked in my mouth).
We had a local Charter outfit refuse to take out a charter when he realized they wanted to go and get pictures of the mansion from the water and not a movie scouting foray.
Kudos to that guy.
Harry has enough on his plate with his wife and son let alone being stalked by media, not to mention possible retaliation for his Military Service against terrorism.
Welcome to BC The Duke (former) of Sussex.
God Bless Bless the Queen .
Rob

[Talking moose]

They are just as or more scared of you as you are of them.
But that’s no cue to let ones guard down.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Trochu

So, essentially no pictures, ever? Seems a bit unreasonable.

I think it actually is, whether it's worth pursuing, is another point.

Grizz

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn87

Should be illegal to take photos or videos of people for any reason without their consent.

Whilst I don't agree with paparazzi, making it illegal to take any photos is ridiculous.
There is a whole genre of art/historical photographs that have cultural as well as artistic merit by photographers such as Cartier-Bresson and of course the famous Afgan Girl by Steve McCurry.

[Dean2]

They are clearly slime. That said, there is a lot of money and a big market for their stuff. Like drug dealers, no demand no one would be doing it. As far as the Royals being camera sensitive, well Bohoo, Hoo. I could care less if they don't like being photographed in public. Stay home.

[EZM]

I guess I see both sides of it, but when paparazzi chase them around and harass them, there is a line they cross …… in the context of ….

If you are in a public event - expect to get photo bombed - you, as a public figure, at a public event are on your own

If you are walking your dog in a public park - expect a few snaps, but you have the right to your space and have the right not to be harassed in your private life in a public place.

If you are at home in your yard - and there people climbing trees and popping out of trash cans to secretly photograph you ..... I'd say that crosses the line. You are in/on private property, living your private life.

I'm not sure how/what the distinction can/should apply to the law, but I guess that's the way I see it anyways.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Dean2

They are clearly slime. That said, there is a lot of money and a big market for their stuff. Like drug dealers, no demand no one would be doing it. As far as the Royals being camera sensitive, well Bohoo, Hoo. I could care less if they don't like being photographed in public. Stay home.

I read last night, that after Di's death there was an arrangement made between Buckingham Palace and the media/paparazzi in regards to the Royal family. So even though they have lived as celebrities, they also have been protected from the paparazzi in the past.

Now, the arrangement doesn't apply to Canada and they are no longer Royals. So apparently they are getting more attention then they are used to ...... surprise surprise. I wouldn't have expected that.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by EZM

I guess I see both sides of it, but when paparazzi chase them around and harass them, there is a line they cross …… in the context of ….

If you are in a public event - expect to get photo bombed - you, as a public figure, at a public event are on your own

If you are walking your dog in a public park - expect a few snaps, but you have the right to your space and have the right not to be harassed in your private life in a public place.

If you are at home in your yard - and there people climbing trees and popping out of trash cans to secretly photograph you ..... I'd say that crosses the line. You are in/on private property, living your private life.

I'm not sure how/what the distinction can/should apply to the law, but I guess that's the way I see it anyways.

Don't forget that they're also deliberately digging through their trash cans. I think many celebs have likely taken to alternate methods for trash disposal than simply leaving it out. Even shredding won't do for private papers, they'd have to incinerate.

[Sundancefisher]

Apparently BC has surveillance law in their privacy law. You can’t follow someone around watching what they are doing. I wonder if this is because of their film industry.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by EZM

I guess I see both sides of it, but when paparazzi chase them around and harass them, there is a line they cross …… in the context of ….

If you are in a public event - expect to get photo bombed - you, as a public figure, at a public event are on your own

If you are walking your dog in a public park - expect a few snaps, but you have the right to your space and have the right not to be harassed in your private life in a public place.

If you are at home in your yard - and there people climbing trees and popping out of trash cans to secretly photograph you ..... I'd say that crosses the line. You are in/on private property, living your private life.

I'm not sure how/what the distinction can/should apply to the law, but I guess that's the way I see it anyways.

I can only think drone technology makes privacy even harder to protect when in your yard or home

[riden]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Apparently BC has surveillance law in their privacy law. You can’t follow someone around watching what they are doing. I wonder if this is because of their film industry.

No expert, but this is what I read.

It's an Act, not a law. So you can only sue civilly using the Act, the police don't enforce it.

It was designed with perv's and voyeurs in mind, not working photographers. So it's possible that hiding in the bushes is not "surveillance" but using a long telephoto lens to take a pic of Harry in his bathroom or bedroom would likely be"surveillance".

The law has never been tested in court with celebrities and photographers. So it is all speculation to some extent.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by riden

No expert, but this is what I read.

It's an Act, not a law. So you can only sue civilly using the Act, the police don't enforce it.

It was designed with perv's and voyeurs in mind, not working photographers. So it's possible that hiding in the bushes is not "surveillance" but using a long telephoto lens to take a pic of Harry in his bathroom or bedroom would likely be"surveillance".

The law has never been tested in court with celebrities and photographers. So it is all speculation to some extent.

Cool

Thanks for clarifying.

[Don Andersen]

When profits are to be made, morality, decency, respect and truth disappear for most news organizations.

Don