Offline
Question to the masses...I personally don't approve of sharing private or paparazzi photos of celebrities as generally those celebrities don't approve or know that they're in the public domain. This means I don't reblog or link to images like this (posed pics with the celeb I think is okay as they're giving tacit consent, I guess?)
Just wondered what the general feel was about this issue?
Offline
This is a tricky one. As regard Papped photos that's a difficult line as they often then appear in magazines and newspapers and we have no idea whether they were Papped or not originally. Decent paparazzi ask stars before they take their pics but it does vary, and according to circumstance. Such as the ones outside the Russian restaurant the other week, which may well have been taken by Paparazzi but were clearly posed for.
Private photos...in the old days one would have assumed they would stay private however in these day of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr etc. the whole game has changed. Celebrities are now fully aware that any photo they have taken with Joe Public will probably be on a social media site of one sort or another, possibly within minutes. As to surreptitious photos this is a grey area but perhaps the dilemma lies moe with the person who goes on to put them onto social media in an uncontrolled way than the people who are then able to see the photos that were taken.
So the line I guess is...does the celebrity know the photo is being taken and have they given approval for it to be taken. The problem with this is often we don't know.
Offline
Thanks for hosting this important discussion.
Following on from Davina, then.
I guess the subsequent question is: which side of the line should be our default position?
If we don't know, should we not post?
Again just to offer a comparison, on my other forum, anything that could not be proved to be official, was not posted. I gave up arguing with one of my other groups, who post all kinds of stuff.
I know it's a grey area. But it's sometimes quite easy to differentiate between a pose and somebody looking like a rabbit caught in headlights, for instance!
Attending official functions ok? A pic of a star's children, NOT?
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Attending official functions ok? A pic of a star's children, NOT?
Yeah there was a pic floating around last year (I think it still surfaces occasionally) that a fan had taken on a Sherlock location shoot with Martin's kids that Amanda kept asking to not be circulated.
I personally prefer to err on the side of caution and respect for celebrities (maybe this thread shouldn't necessarily be in the Benedict forum?). I'd rather not propagate the clamour for unsanctioned photos by participating in circulating them. I feel celebrities are entitled to SOME expectation of privacy, surely?
But I guess Davina is right - it's hard to know now whether a photo is legit or not. Maybe the "is it posed or taken at an official function?" is a good line to draw?
Offline
besleybean wrote:
... But it's sometimes quite easy to differentiate between a pose and somebody looking like a rabbit caught in headlights, for instance!
Thanks for these words
I'm for sure not interested in seeing such rabbits
- and no rabbit kids as well. What is the fun of it? *shrug*
Offline
Oh and sorry, I hadn't even noticed which board we were on!
As far as I'm aware that pic STILL appears on a Google search.
But yes, I think if it's an official event/the pic looks posed, is about the best we're gonna get.
We cross posted.
Having seen the offending photo, I can WELL understand both why it was taken and perpetuated, it is sublime.
But it clearly should never have been taken, never been uploaded, never posted and I do wish it would stop being circulated...why can't Google block it?
Oh and I never saw the Russian restaurant ones!
Last edited by besleybean (October 12, 2012 8:26 am)
Offline
Twitter says (well, a Twitter user concluded):
a handy guide to verboten things
I hope I’m not too forward in this, as I’m not trying to speak for the entire fandom. But when I first got into Sherlock, there were some incidents regarding certain video/pics that I had to learn about piecemeal. While I never reblogged any of the images in question, I know what’s it like to be a new fan and not have the feel of the place quite yet. It can be quite embarrassing when you find that you helped spread something that you didn’t know you weren’t supposed to. There are certain photos that are currently going around Tumblr again, so from this fan’s perspective, here’s what I know (feel free to message me if I’m missing something).
PLEASE DON’T REBLOG THE FOLLOWING:
Any photo of Martin Freeman and Amanda Abbington’s children. Amanda especially is kind enough to interact extensively with fans on social media, and when paparazzi photos of their children appeared online, fans helped get those photos taken down. Please remember that Martin and Amanda are actors/public figures, their kids are not.
Photos from Mark Gatiss and Ian Hallard’s wedding. Both the photographer who took them and Ian have politely asked for those photos not to be circulated. They are personal photos of a private occasion.
“Thrillerbatch,†aka photos and/or the video of Benedict Cumberbatch dancing at a friend’s wedding to Michael Jackson’s “Thriller.†That video was taken from a hacked social media account belonging to Olivia Poulet (Benedict’s ex-girlfriend). Both Benedict and Olivia have asked that it be taken down.
Fake nudes. I was notified that someone is circulating some doctored photos of Andrew Scott. They are fake, but even so, it is still a personal violation for the actors to come across such things. (Ask yourself how you would feel if someone slapped a photo of your face onto the body of a person in a compromising position.)
Just in general, stay away from any photos that are obviously personal and yet don’t come from an official source (like a confirmed Twitter account).
The Sherlock fandom has a good reputation for being protective of the people who make the series that we all love so much, so while the above examples have not been totally erased from the Internet (nothing ever can be), fans have been pretty good at clamping down on their distribution. We all appreciate how much contact “the creatives†maintain with fandom, but that will go away if boundaries and privacy aren’t respected. If you see someone posting any of the above, please be polite in asking them to take them down. A lot of times, things get re-distributed by new fans who are unaware that they’re doing anything wrong.
Let’s respect everyone’s privacy and have fun (and yes, otters and hedgehogs have been officially sanctioned by Benedict and Martin, so go nuts!)
Offline
Wholocked wrote:
I feel celebrities are entitled to SOME expectation of privacy, surely?
The problem is there's no definite boundary between publicity and privacy. And every person has his own interpretation of these notions. Who can say for sure what is right and what is wrong?
Offline
^ I think it's safe to say that personal would be any pictures of family members/private occasions (events that were never publicized)/pictures and videos known to be stolen. Basically, the examples in The Doctor's post. It's not about being right and wrong exactly, more so if you know for a fact that something is an invasion of a celeb's privacy, it is very disrespectful and selfish to post it. Especially when people's kids come in to play - always assume it's private.
Offline
We cross posted, Sam, but yes.
Tho certain things are definitely wrong: posting photos of children e.g.
I confess I knew about the hacking of Olivia's facebook, but didn't realise that's what the Thriller video was. I've seen that listed all over, but have never even wanted to look at it.
With some of the other pix: nudes, photoshops to make the actors look closer than they were...I wish people would even ask: are these actually real?
I admit the photoshop I remain most annoyed about, is the reading one of Benedict and Martin. Mark kindly took that pic and gave it to the fans as a gift. Not only is that not the way to behave in return, but also how likely are we to now be gifted any more such gems?