In Germany we called it "Person des öffentlichen Lebens" (public figure) and when you are a VIP, well-known or celebrity (or whatever you want to call it) you have to live with coverage and photos or you.
( to be a bit sarcastic: when someone gets millions of money for a film, music or whatever, he/she should have at least one disadvantage , especially if you use the media for your career) I don't talk about Ben but I don't have any sympathy for people who are at every event that exists who put there face in front of every camera and then they are whining about paparazzi photos of them on the beach or elsewhere. 

ancientsgate wrote:

Aww, I just went to the Daily Mail website and looked at these supposedly controversial pictures of the three of them, and honestly, the photos looked lovely to me. Ben and Sophie are not paying a bit of attention to whoever took the pics. It's just the three of them, the baby in a stroller, and a couple of pics have Ben carrying him up against his shoulder. No photos of the baby's face, just an infant in blue. And there's an adorable pic of Ben pushing the stroller, looking down into his son's face, and making a wonky googley-eyed face at him, the way one might with a smiley infant. Too cute for words.

See, I don't see this as an invasion of their privacy, not at all.  They were on a crowded public street, no one disturbed them, no one was threatening them, etc. At least here in the US., this kind of photography is perfectly legal. So...  I guess I just can't get worked up about any of this.

The baby's name, which we all have been led to believe is Christopher Carlton Cumberbatch (say that fast two or three times, I dare you, lol) has apparently not been released in an official way yet, if the Mail is to be believed anyway.

 

I do hate the paparatzi in general.  They will do horrible things to get their photos.  However, the pics of Ben and babybatch did cross my tumblr and they were very tame.

And AG, that pic of Ben making faces at the baby was so precious it made my heart hurt. 
 

This Is The Phantom Lady wrote:

But does that make it okay?

That isn't the question for me, because okay or not is too simple. There are a lot of things in the world that aren't okay. It's difficult to illegalize it, isn't it?! If someone finds a way then hooray! But for now there's nothing we can do about it, except for not posting them here or reblogging them on tumblr.

Like I said I wasn't talking about BC in my rant about media whores. That's a complicated topic.
By the way, I don't want photos of his son either.

 

Last edited by Ivy (September 22, 2015 12:30 pm)

This Is The Phantom Lady wrote:

But does that make it okay?

Not everything is okay to everybody. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the old saying goes. Where some see "art", some see pornography.  It's just extremely important that no restrictions are put on the free exchange of information, opinions and art, because to do so would reduce us to something way less than free, and that would never be a good thing. 

The good lord gave us taste someplace besides in our mouths, and we should use the taste we have to judge what we should listen to and look at and what we should stay away from. Which is why I said, a few comments ago, that I never go to twitter or tumblr or facebook, looking for fan stuff. There's just too much there that I disagree with, and yeah, I might miss some blessings, too, but in order to protect myself from the ugliness, I choose to stay away.  We all have that freedom. If something is making us sick to our stomachs or sick at heart, we'd be foolish to continue to expose ourselves to that, IMO.  Just my two cents.
 

Ivy wrote:

And I also can relate to people who beat the shit out of paparazzi, I know I would if I'm in the right mood. And you would see my middle finger a lot in these pics.  

Beating the shit out of a pap will get you thrown in the hoosegow, and you will be in front of a judge in the morning,  with bail set and a court date. Big trouble. They are NOT doing anything illegal, unless they touch you or try to run you off the road or something like that. Yes, the one being photographed does have rights too, not to be physically  interfered with, but that's the end of it.

The celebs have to be careful they don't come off as pissed off 7th graders in any photos. Making unpleasant faces and giving everyone the finger would hardly be good PR, and those who do that kind of thing are either drunk or very misled about how to protect their own good reputations. They need to let whatever's said and whatever photos are taken just roll off their backs, because trying to fight fire with fire will only make them look childish and unattractive.

 

Vhanja wrote:

But as a photographer, I thought you had to ask for permission to use any pics where individuals featured prominently? I've always heard that if you take pictures of a crowd or generic people in the background (for instance, picture of a park where some people are walking in the background), you are free to use them as see fit. But if you take a pic where a specific person is prominent, you would have to ask their permission to use the pic in public.

Photos taken in a public setting I believe are public domain. On the street, in an airport, in their car, no one is paid for their image or asked their permission, as they would have been for a formal photoshoot for a magazine or a book or TV interview, etc. It is considered polite to ask a celeb if you can photograph them or to pose for a selfie with them, etc. Most will comply if they have time and the fan is polite about it.  But the paps are a breed unto themselves.  They do what they do and sell images to the highest bidder (although some are working for specific info or fan outlets) and here in the US anyway, what they do is considered legal and completely above-board.  It might seem unsavory to some, but unsavory is not illegal.

 

I saw the pictures and if we talk about the same ones, I think they are alright. Mainly because the are not used to discredit or mock, but they are normal, matter-of-fact and show the family very positive. Also no face picture of the little one. Both parents are well-known, so this is bound to happen. I would agree it's part of an actor's life. I would have expected worse from the Daily Mail, to be honest.

Also, I think most fans who would get the chance for such pics while spotting Benedict would put them on tumblr. There are many many already out there which would raise the same argument about privacy if we took a closer look. It's interest, not an evil thing per se. For me, the occasional picture is not the problem. I find it problematic if paparazzi follow them round every second. Do they? We cannot really know. If they do, they are doing a good job of not publishing all their pics, because these are the first ones I've seen at all.

ancientsgate wrote:

Ivy wrote:

And I also can relate to people who beat the shit out of paparazzi, I know I would if I'm in the right mood. And you would see my middle finger a lot in these pics.  

Beating the shit out of a pap will get you thrown in the hoosegow, and you will be in front of a judge in the morning,  with bail set and a court date. Big trouble. They are NOT doing anything illegal, unless they touch you or try to run you off the road or something like that. Yes, the one being photographed does have rights too, not to be physically  interfered with, but that's the end of it.

The celebs have to be careful they don't come off as pissed off 7th graders in any photos. Making unpleasant faces and giving everyone the finger would hardly be good PR, and those who do that kind of thing are either drunk or very misled about how to protect their own good reputations. They need to let whatever's said and whatever photos are taken just roll off their backs, because trying to fight fire with fire will only make them look childish and unattractive.

 

Oh I'm aware of the consequences my dear, but I'm an aries I'm quick-tempered and impulsive. I don't plan to become a celebrity and then beat the shit out of paparazzis don't worry.   like I said in earlier postings, celebrities have to live it.


By the way, I live in Berlin the times that I'm photographed without my permission are uncountable. Just because people want to make photos of buildings, a restaurant or their friends. And I can stop walking or hiding somewhere just because someone with a camera is near me, I have stuff to do and a life to live. And if I would like to take a photo of the National Gallery in London I wouldn't ask all the people on Trafalgar Square to leave either, so taking pics without asking people for permission is quite common.

So back to the topic I guess I've seen the baby pics but I would never post them or reblog them.

Last edited by Ivy (October 8, 2015 11:50 am)