Latest on MJJC

It should be illegal to take photos..

Amber Dawn

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
777
Points
0
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
For Paparazzi to take photos of Children and publish them without written permission. I came accross this site that had a photo gallery of different celebrity kids. Photos of kids coming from school, at playgrounds, near their homes PRIVATE Places if the parents took their kids to a premiere that would be a different story but honestly it turned my stomach. I feel bad for little Suri Criuise and Brittney's little boys these children are on the front cover of every magazine. And for what!


I hope someone takes action pronto. Does it take something BAD to happen to any of these children before its made illegal?? I understand peoples interests in celebrities but these kids deserve their privacy too.. They are NOT Celebrities..

:mat:
 
The children I nanny were put on websites (have now been taken down) without permission. Had photos at airport, in front of their home. Just because they are wealthy. Lucky I search the internet a lot & came across it.
It's disgusting nothing is private anymore.
I did modeling for 2yrs so all photos that were taken were put on modeling website & we all had a login so no one could steal our photos but when the agent died in 2001 the website closed & was moved to a site with no login. Our photos were stolen & now our photos are eevrywhere illegally even putting on head's on other bodies & vice versa its sick.

It will keep continuing & will never end sadly
 
I'm not defending the paps, but technically it's the public's fault. If people weren't so nosy and wanting to see pictures of certain people, the paps would have no business and the magazines & newspapers wouldn't pay them a lot of money for pictures.
 
boxer Mike Tyson had just lost a daughter, and paps were getting in his face, while he was with his other child. there is no excuse for that. they don't get a pavlov's dog pass. otherwise, we can all make that excuse.
 
DuranDuran said:
I'm not defending the paps, but technically it's the public's fault. If people weren't so nosy and wanting to see pictures of certain people, the paps would have no business and the magazines & newspapers wouldn't pay them a lot of money for pictures.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here.
Once people stop buying stupid tabloids and caring about every little detail that goes on in others lives like drama whores :p...only then will the madness stop. "To buy it is to feed it..."
It's the public who is mainly to blame. Although no, it still shouldn't justify these paps going to extremes.
 
vncwilliam said:
boxer Mike Tyson had just lost a daughter, and paps were getting in his face, while he was with his other child. there is no excuse for that. they don't get a pavlov's dog pass. otherwise, we can all make that excuse.
Click to expand...
Until someone makes a law about it, the paps have all the power and can do whatever they want. Princess Diana died because of paps and they stood around and took pictures of the wreck. No one did anything about it or made any laws to control paps. If a celeb decides to retaliate and hit them, the paps sue them. The paparrazi are only giving the people what they want. They're not taking pictures for their health, but because the media is paying them. Why is that? Because people are nosy and want to know what someone else is doing. It's not just with celebrities either. It's the same as gossiping about people at the job, school, club, family members, church, etc.
 
Didnt michael or debbie say about some celebrity who's kid was photographed by the press and he ended up getting kidnapped and killed? Im sure iv heard that as the reason that michael keeps his children covered, possibly in lwmj take 2?
 
randomchild said:
Didnt michael or debbie say about some celebrity who's kid was photographed by the press and he ended up getting kidnapped and killed? Im sure iv heard that as the reason that michael keeps his children covered, possibly in lwmj take 2?
Click to expand...

I'd have to look to be sure but I'm thinking MJ was referring to the Lindbergh baby. You can read about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindberg_baby
 
um for suri her parents welcome it and brit takes her kids to public places to be seen w/ them to push the issue of her being a 'good mom' kevin is the same way
 
ChrissyBrown said:
The children I nanny were put on websites (have now been taken down) without permission. Had photos at airport, in front of their home. Just because they are wealthy. Lucky I search the internet a lot & came across it.
It's disgusting nothing is private anymore.
Click to expand...

That's really wrong. Brings up another issue. When people put their photos of their kids on Myspace, Facebook, other social networking sites. I had a friend that posted photos of her daughter on facebook and she had this thing attached to the photo where like if it was posted elsewhere she could track down the photo. Anyway she found the photo posted by some random on a PARENTING forum claiming it was their child. Sick.



DuranDuran said:
I'm not defending the paps, but technically it's the public's fault. If people weren't so nosy and wanting to see pictures of certain people, the paps would have no business and the magazines & newspapers wouldn't pay them a lot of money for pictures.
Click to expand...

Sad but I'd be a idiot if I didn't agree what you said is true. People are nosy as heck when it comes to a lot of these celebrities.


Soso Deaf said:
um for suri her parents welcome it and brit takes her kids to public places to be seen w/ them to push the issue of her being a 'good mom' kevin is the same way
Click to expand...

Thats sad.. Its nobodies buisness how she raises her child. She shouldn't have to prove to the world she's a good mom.

I'm sure the kids don't mind or might not even be aware of it now. When they are teenagers though I imagine it would be tough to figure out who likes you because of you or are they trying to get closer to you because of your last name. Some of these kids are growing up in a 'bubble' what happens outside of that bubble is frightening.
 
Amber Dawn said:
That's really wrong. Brings up another issue. When people put their photos of their kids on Myspace, Facebook, other social networking sites. I had a friend that posted photos of her daughter on facebook and she had this thing attached to the photo where like if it was posted elsewhere she could track down the photo. Anyway she found the photo posted by some random on a PARENTING forum claiming it was their child. Sick.

The families won't allow me to put up photos of their children & I would never anyway.
I totally understand where you are coming from all friends that have children have put up photos of their babies, pregnant stomachs etc unless your profile is on private then yes people will access your profile & steal your photos from their own purposes.

One of the families I nanny for took in families from the bushfires here in February this year & since they were pretty much the only people in Victoria to actually do this well we had the photographers & news reporters on their doorstep. We never gave out a single piece of information & we kept the families hidden especially a lil 2yo girl who lost her parents & sisters in the fires. Lucky the family has a hummer whoo hoo with tinted windows & it seats 9. We were able to take people back & forth from the suburbs to the bush without anyone knowing who was inside although we did get idiots who almost ran us off the road trying to take a peak inside thinking we were celebrities.
For about 2 months we felt like celebrities we were followed by reporters, had people waiting outside the gates of friends house from dawn till dusk (that wasn't a problem when your in a hummer cause you can just one them over lol), constantly had police at the house & when we did reach bushfire towns we had police meet us then block the roads so no one was allowed in.
It's all over thank goodness & all families except for 2 couples who now live on friends property in kit homes & the lil 2yo Sophie have left but geez what a experience.
With the weather the way it is here I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again next year
Click to expand...
 
DuranDuran said:
I'm not defending the paps, but technically it's the public's fault. If people weren't so nosy and wanting to see pictures of certain people, the paps would have no business and the magazines & newspapers wouldn't pay them a lot of money for pictures.
Click to expand...

you're right....
 
DuranDuran said:
Until someone makes a law about it, the paps have all the power and can do whatever they want. Princess Diana died because of paps and they stood around and took pictures of the wreck. No one did anything about it or made any laws to control paps. If a celeb decides to retaliate and hit them, the paps sue them. The paparrazi are only giving the people what they want. They're not taking pictures for their health, but because the media is paying them. Why is that? Because people are nosy and want to know what someone else is doing. It's not just with celebrities either. It's the same as gossiping about people at the job, school, club, family members, church, etc.
Click to expand...

believe it or not, there are photogs who choose not to participate in the madness. they have a backbone, and they don't go by public consumption. and they don't die from starvation. everybody makes their own choice. and they have to live with that decision, alone, in the end.
 
Last edited:
I actually find this really weird.
Why doesnt anyone need permission to publish images or stories?

Does that mean someone could take a photo of any of us (without us being awear) & put it in a magazine & write whatever they wanted??
haha because thats gonna happen! but you get what I mean...can that occur?

Its just weird!
 
Luci said:
I actually find this really weird.
Why doesnt anyone need permission to publish images or stories?

Does that mean someone could take a photo of any of us (without us being awear) & put it in a magazine & write whatever they wanted??
haha because thats gonna happen! but you get what I mean...can that occur?

Its just weird!
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's called "Cheaters". It films ordinary people without their knowledge, but before the footage is shown they do have to get permission. Some people in the footage (like ones in the background) do deny, but the show just blur out their faces, but are still seen and/or heard. I guess shows like "Cops" might qualify as well. Also people (not paparazzi) who film or take pictures of random stuff, like the guy who filmed on camcorder Rodney King getting beat up by police in the early 1990s. Or school kids who film fights and put them on Youtube.
 
Amber Dawn said:
For Paparazzi to take photos of Children and publish them without written permission. I came accross this site that had a photo gallery of different celebrity kids. Photos of kids coming from school, at playgrounds, near their homes PRIVATE Places if the parents took their kids to a premiere that would be a different story but honestly it turned my stomach. I feel bad for little Suri Criuise and Brittney's little boys these children are on the front cover of every magazine. And for what!


I hope someone takes action pronto. Does it take something BAD to happen to any of these children before its made illegal?? I understand peoples interests in celebrities but these kids deserve their privacy too.. They are NOT Celebrities..

:mat:
Click to expand...

Yeah it sucks, but there isn't anything you can do about it, short of turing the country into a dictatorship. When it comes to freedom of speech, expression, and the freedom of the press there is no middle ground. You either have it or you don't. If you start making exceptions to this rule than the government will make exceptions for circumstances you aren't even aware of, therefore you will have no way of deciding whether or not you even have the right to know.

You might not like it, but it's the price you pay for your freedom. and it is the law. Constitutional law I might add. In order to change it, you would need 3/4 of the states to ratify an ammendment. Not happening.
 
DuranDuran said:
Yeah, it's called "Cheaters". It films ordinary people without their knowledge, but before the footage is shown they do have to get permission. Some people in the footage (like ones in the background) do deny, but the show just blur out their faces, but are still seen and/or heard. I guess shows like "Cops" might qualify as well. Also people (not paparazzi) who film or take pictures of random stuff, like the guy who filmed on camcorder Rodney King getting beat up by police in the early 1990s. Or school kids who film fights and put them on Youtube.
Click to expand...
for documentaries or the purpose of getting the news across you don't need permission. Often times documentaries choose to blur out faces.
 
vncwilliam said:
boxer Mike Tyson had just lost a daughter, and paps were getting in his face, while he was with his other child. there is no excuse for that. they don't get a pavlov's dog pass. otherwise, we can all make that excuse.
Click to expand...

he should have punched the guy.
 
amygrace said:
I agree with you here.
Once people stop buying stupid tabloids and caring about every little detail that goes on in others lives like drama whores :p...only then will the madness stop. "To buy it is to feed it..."
It's the public who is mainly to blame. Although no, it still shouldn't justify these paps going to extremes.
Click to expand...

but even here we ar ejust as guilty. we at MJJ constantly post news stories and photos about the lives of everybody who ever had anything to do with MJ. If Liz Taylor were to be diagnosed with breast cancer a story about it would probably be posted here before the doctor even had the chance to inform his patient.
 
I sort of agree.

While I would love watching Michael's children grow and see how they are getting on, I also understand that the paps need to respect their privacy.

I'm a photographer myself, but even I respect peoples privacy. I don't like the paps. To me, photography is a form of art.
 
GameGirlAdvance said:
I sort of agree.

While I would love watching Michael's children grow and see how they are getting on, I also understand that the paps need to respect their privacy.

I'm a photographer myself, but even I respect peoples privacy. I don't like the paps. To me, photography is a form of art.
Click to expand...

^^^ Exactly! :clapping: Paparazzi are like the bottom feeders of photography. It's absolutely not art nor is it ever about art either. I'll never stoop that low. Ever.
 
I agree with you. I think if they want to take pics of his kids, then they should ask the Jackson family for a photo shoot, etc. Not to resort to hounding them on the street.
 
Last edited:
Earth_Song1 said:
I agree with you. I think if they want to take pis of his kids, then they should ask the Jackson family for a photo shoot, etc. Not to resort to hounding them on the street.
Click to expand...


That reminds me of something, Wasn't it Prince William who hated that he got hounded by paps every day that he said one day out of the entire year he would give interviews and let Paps follow him around that ENTIRE day in exchange for his privacy the other 364 days of the year. I thought that was a wonderful idea..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top