The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1221  
Old 08-30-2014, 10:45 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 12,483
Minors have special rights, I belive it's illegal to take pictures without the parents' consent. When the parents (who are public figures) are with the kid (who is a public figure) in a public place you can take pictures, even without consent (IMO).

These pictures look 'illigal' to me meaning W&K could sue. But it won't stop such pictures and the opportunities for paps will only increase the older George gets, hiding away a toddler is not that difficult. W&K&G have their right to privacy but it will be breached again and again and again, at least outside the UK. It's your right to sue but it will cost you a lot of time, energy and money and will make you bitter (if William can me any more bitter about this topic). So maybe at some point they just let go as long as the british mags don't take part in the distribution.
__________________

  #1222  
Old 08-30-2014, 11:34 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
Legally speaking (at least in the U.S.), a "public figure" as a rule of thumb is anyone famous, whether or not they chose to be famous. This would include George, Blue Ivy Carter, North West, and any other famous baby. Their rights to privacy in a given situation, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Is there a British definition to "public figure?"



I am under the impression that in Europe, the press can't take photos of a minor without the parent's permission. In the U.S., I believe this is different - if they can be seen from a public place, you can publish the photo (I think). I think Infanta Cristina learned this to her dismay when the family moved to Washington (before the Noos scandal was in the picture). I could be wrong about this -these are my general impressions on the subject.



Was this photo taken by paps or a member of the public, such as Instagram, etc? I am wondering if the privacy laws have kept up with the advent of social media, etc - where the public in effect has become a part of the press.



Is anybody aware of this, I am curious?

In the US, several outlets, including People magazine, E! and Entertainment Tonight have started declining publishing paparazzi photos of celebrities' children.

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/...790683,00.html

At least two actors-Dax Shepard and Kristen Bell-started complaining publicly about the intrusion of cameras into their baby's life and security.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4698061

At the end of the day, unless kids are at a public event with their parents, they should not be photographed. There is an ethical and human line that such behavior causes.
__________________

  #1223  
Old 08-30-2014, 01:55 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,803
I know here in California, a new law was passed concerning the paps and children of celebs.

New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times

I've noticed that quite a few media outlets have stopped publishing photos of celeb children, unless they have the parents consent.
  #1224  
Old 08-30-2014, 02:20 PM
GracieGiraffe's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Giraffe Land, United States
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by soapstar View Post
I know here in California, a new law was passed concerning the paps and children of celebs.

New law restricts paparazzi access to children of celebrities - Los Angeles Times
I read the article - paps are not allowed to take "harassing" photos - I wonder how "harassment" is defined. It agree that famous children need privacy, which the often don't have (I've seen MANY photos of Jennifer Garner taking her kids to the playground, I can see why she supported the bill) - but I get the feeling from the article that the press is going to challenge the law on constitutional grounds, and because of that definition the press might be right that laws already in existence proscribe the conduct. It might be one of those laws that has no effect, no matter how well intentioned. Let's see.

It will also be interesting to see how the laws of privacy keep up with social media, and will all the things on the internet. Just did a google search on my son, who is a minor - I was a little shocked that he has an online presence, just from school newsletters, etc. What is my point here - the modern world has destroyed the privacy of all of us - I am not sure what the parents of famous babies, such as George, can do. It seems to be a losing battle. Not that he does not have a right to a private life - but I'm not sure what privacy he will get in reality. It is this disturbing trend that makes me think royalty will die out - not because the public wants them out - but the royals themselves won't be able to take any more.
__________________
The future George VII's opinion on infant carriers,
"One is not amused."
  #1225  
Old 08-30-2014, 05:36 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 3,803
From what I gather, it's photos taken without the parents consent. Basically it cuts down on paps stalking children (celebs and politicians).

Quote:
Under a new state law, a photographer can be sent to prison for trying to take a photo of a celebrity’s son or daughter without permission — either by following the child or lying in wait — and causing the child to suffer “substantial emotional distress.”
Halle Berry has talked a lot about how paps wait outside her daughters school so they can get photos. She said it's gotten to the point where her daughter is scared to go to school.

I don't know how it will be enforced, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. Photographers hanging out at schools, parks, etc. so that they can take photos of celebrity children, is beyond creepy.

There is also an anti-paparazzi bill on the books. That one was passed in 2009 and it makes it easier for celebs to sue media outlets if they use photos that invade their privacy. So any photos on private property or with a long lens, etc.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how privacy and social media work. The famous used to only have to worry about the professional photographers, but now everyone has a camera and a platform.
  #1226  
Old 08-30-2014, 05:45 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,565
George is an adorable little one but I don't think he is "very blonde". To me he is more strawberry blonde, and I can picture him turning into a redhead like Harry once he grows up. I remember reading that the red hair comes from Diana's family (from the first Duchess of Marlborough?), so it is likely that George could be ginger. There was also red hair in the Tudor family (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were both redheads, and I remember reading that Mary I was auburn, which IIRC is kind of like red hair but more brown) however the RF is only distantly related to them.

Regarding the photos, I do think it is bad that they were published especially since it was without permission. On the other hand, I feel that there are far worse paparazzi photos than these, à la Catherine's topless and her BILD unfortunate wardrobe malfunction photos - those totally crossed the line for me. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these photos of George and his Nanny aren't bad, they are.) I do agree with soapstar that the way the paparazzi hang around schools and parks etc. just to get a glimpse of celebrity children is a little creepy.

I also like Duke of Marmalade think that George is a public figure, but less so than his parents as he is a young child. IMO all royals are public figures, but as I've said, some less so than others, ie. children and parents/adult royals.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #1227  
Old 08-30-2014, 06:10 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
George is an adorable little one but I don't think he is "very blonde". To me he is more strawberry blonde, and I can picture him turning into a redhead like Harry once he grows up. I remember reading that the red hair comes from Diana's family (from the first Duchess of Marlborough?), so it is likely that George could be ginger. There was also red hair in the Tudor family (Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were both redheads, and I remember reading that Mary I was auburn, which IIRC is kind of like red hair but more brown) however the RF is only distantly related to them.

Regarding the photos, I do think it is bad that they were published especially since it was without permission. On the other hand, I feel that there are far worse paparazzi photos than these, à la Catherine's topless and her BILD unfortunate wardrobe malfunction photos - those totally crossed the line for me. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these photos of George and his Nanny aren't bad, they are.) I do agree with soapstar that the way the paparazzi hang around schools and parks etc. just to get a glimpse of celebrity children is a little creepy.

I also like Duke of Marmalade think that George is a public figure, but less so than his parents as he is a young child. IMO all royals are public figures, but as I've said, some less so than others, ie. children and parents/adult royals.
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1228  
Old 08-30-2014, 06:15 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
I understand that. It is just my opinion. I feel that all royals are public figures, children or not as they are and particularly in Prince George's case quite famous, and also photographed a lot. (I couldn't find the correct words to describe what I wanted to say so forgive me if this sentence was a little difficult to understand.) It's worth noting that I also mentioned in my post that I think royal children are not as "public" figures as their parents as they perform less engagements (although not if they are the Crown Prince of Morocco as he performs lots of public engagements at just ten years old) than them.

That is all. Also, I got the impression that you were shouting or frustrated/angry at me given the fact that you wrote "child" and "at all" in capital letters.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #1229  
Old 08-30-2014, 06:31 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,970
not personal to you so apologies if thats how it came across. But I am frustrated that a child is seen as public property. It is so wrong. we dont get this with the children of the Prime Minister or other members of the royal family. I do feel strongly about this to the extent that I don't agree with some European RFs who display their children to the media on a regular basis.

these children will have years of being in the public eye, and I think their early years should be as 'normal' as possible. No one has to agree, its just my point of view
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #1230  
Old 08-30-2014, 07:16 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,045
George had no say in who he was born to. The Daily Mail will blur out the faces of Cameron's kids if they are out with him.

George out on public tour duty with his parents-okay for photos. Long lens into the back garden of Govt House in Australia on day off from tour - photos not needed.

With the technology today you could put a camera on a drone and fly it outsides KP's windows.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
  #1231  
Old 08-30-2014, 07:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
You are so right, tell me how can a child be a public figure is the child has no function role in the public eye.......babies in diapers aren't public figures regardless of whom their parents are. The media is over stepping their boundaries when it comes to children. All the media wants is a picture so that they can sell more papers and make more money........the entire lot of media are just greedy whatever.......
Why doesn't someone start taking pictures of the people in the media and their family and putting the pictures on social media...........bet that would cure them once and for all. They don't want to be know yet they can invade the privacy of a child.........what goes around comes back to you..........
  #1232  
Old 08-30-2014, 10:00 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,826
EXCLUSIVE: William and Kate flirt on romantic countryside date | Royal | News | Daily Express
__________________
Acclamation Manuel II of Portugal: 6 May 1908
  #1233  
Old 08-30-2014, 11:44 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.



re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.

I disagree immensely with the idea that George isn't a public figure (or any other royal title holding child of a reigning family for that matter), but I do agree strongly that pap-type photos of him like these ones shouldn't be taken, let alone published.

First of all, he's extremely high up in the line of succession. He holds royal titles. His birth was marked with a gun salute and the bells of Westminster Abbey being rung. He could very well become King tomorrow, although that would be a tragic event. If he follows the pattern set by William, Harry, and the Yorks, he'll be doing some engagements long before he's 18 - according to Bertie's analysis of the CC in 2000 the Wales boys did 4 engagements each and the York girls did 2 each. William was 18, Eugenie was 10.

Even if he isn't doing some engagements by 10, he will be attending things with his parents well before then - he already has. His parents have already chosen to bring him on some of the engagements they undertake that are appropriate for him, and are likely to continue to do so in the future. He's also likely to continue to make appearances at polo games, and in the future we can expect to see him at events like the Trooping of Colour and balcony appearances, as well as the walk to church at Christmas and other big public family events.

All of this makes him, as a child, a public figure. And the fact that he is, as an adult, going to have to deal with this kind of stuff and the public scrutiny means, in my opinion, that his parents should be teaching him how to handle it all - how to deal with the press and public in public, how to do engagements, how to not be shy around the cameras, etc. This is something that Charles and Diana did with their children, that many (if not all) of the Continental royals are doing with theirs, and is what the Cambridges seem to be doing with George. He goes to events sometimes now and is exposed to the cameras as much for his future benefit as for the opportunity for us to see him.

Pictures should be taken of George - when he's at engagements or events with his parents. When he and his parents are on a tour and they get off the plane to be greeted by whatever dignitaries are there to greet them. Or when they go to a zoo to name an animal, or when he and his mother are watching his father play polo.

Pictures shouldn't be taken of him when he and his nanny are out for a walk or playing in the park. Or when he and his mother or father are out for a walk. I don't care if the paparazzi want to take a picture of William or Kate when they're out and about, but they shouldn't be taking them of George. The difference to me isn't that William is a public figure while George isn't but rather that William is an adult, and George isn't.

When Dax Shepherd and Kristen Bell started the whole movement to ban the paparazzi photos of celebrity's children one of the things they stressed was that we the public need to stop purchasing the magazines with the pictures of celebrities' kids in them, and stop clicking on the links to articles with such pictures. They asked that the magazines stop publishing these photos, or to blur out the faces of the children, but really if we're buying the issues (or giving the articles traffic) then the magazines are making money off of publishing the pictures and have no reason to stop.

This isn't just about George either though. Other royal or quasi-royal young children get the same treatment. Consider Mia Tindall, Sasha Casiraghi, and Raphaël Elmaleh.
  #1234  
Old 08-31-2014, 12:43 AM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.
Queen Victoria was red/auburn like her near-doppleganger Princess Beatrice of York; Queen Alexandra had red/auburn hair; Queen Mary was strawberry blonde; and Diana was the only Spencer sibling who DIDN'T have red hair.
  #1235  
Old 08-31-2014, 01:26 AM
Lady Nimue's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Pacific Palisades, United States
Posts: 2,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by GracieGiraffe View Post
It will also be interesting to see how the laws of privacy keep up with social media, and will all the things on the internet
It may be a moot point now that they will be at Anmer Hall. I would guess that the young lad will be able to romp about the Sandringham Estate freely with no fear of the paparazzi or private phones taking illicit photos. Between Sandringham and Balmoral there will be plenty of privacy. Until school starts. I wonder how they will handle that?
  #1236  
Old 08-31-2014, 05:08 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,199
PLANS are being drawn up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to make a historic royal tour of China, The Sunday Times can reveal-
William woos China to atone for Charles’s ‘waxworks’ jibe | The Sunday Times
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
  #1237  
Old 08-31-2014, 07:25 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 6,063
Prince William and Kate Middleton make escape dash through crowds at KING'S CROSS Station - Mirror Online

Kate and William seen at King's Cross station
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
  #1238  
Old 08-31-2014, 12:21 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Greater London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
not personal to you so apologies if thats how it came across. But I am frustrated that a child is seen as public property. It is so wrong. we dont get this with the children of the Prime Minister or other members of the royal family. I do feel strongly about this to the extent that I don't agree with some European RFs who display their children to the media on a regular basis.

these children will have years of being in the public eye, and I think their early years should be as 'normal' as possible. No one has to agree, its just my point of view
That's OK - I must have got the incorrect impression (I need to stop overthinking). I kind of think it is good that the European Royal Children are seen more often than the British Royal Children, as it will prevent comments such as "how come we don't see enough of _____" and "I wonder why ____'s parents are hiding them from the media" and other similar comments in the media and online. Another reason why I think it is good is that it will make them more confident and prepared for the future, especially in the case of heirs like Prince George. However, I do think they should be entitled to have a normal childhood (or as far as normal can go considering the fact that they aren't your nextdoor neighbour's children) and just be children.

I can also understand the point of view stating that Prince George isn't a public figure as he is still very young now, but deep down still agree with my original post.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #1239  
Old 08-31-2014, 04:39 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 8,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
PLANS are being drawn up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to make a historic royal tour of China, The Sunday Times can reveal-
William woos China to atone for Charles’s ‘waxworks’ jibe | The Sunday Times
Interesting. I wonder if they'll visit an orphanage over there. I think if this couple took up working with orphanages in Eastern Europe and China, so many more children from those nations (especially with special needs) will get homes. The plight of orphans is something that is for one reason or another is put on the back burner.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
  #1240  
Old 08-31-2014, 05:02 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,045
It is the governments . Putin stopped Russian orphans from being adopted by Americans. But that is going off topic.

Regarding a possible China trip- the Chinese government isn't going to let WK and therefore a huge press pack go anywhere that would make the Chinese look bad such as slum, orphanage or factory where there are horrible conditions. I would expect visits to the Great Wall, the Forbidden City, a school and a panda reserve as sort of the kind of engagements you would see.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General News for the Cambridge Family 2: January 2015-March 2017 JessRulz Current Events Archive 1582 03-19-2017 12:27 AM




Popular Tags
art best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia irene urdangarín iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein meme monarchy news nobel november 2016 october 2016 october november 2016 picture of the week picture of the week november 2016 prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia rohans state visit state visit to spain stephanie sweden swedish royal family uae wildlife victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises