Tits declared serious business as royal couple make criminal complaint over topless photos - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JesterUK;37690404]I'm fairly certain that taking photos of people changing through their window is illegal. Why are the press allowed to get away with it?[/QUOTE] Because she was outside. If this was a photo of her showering or in bed, it'd obviously be illegal. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;37690418]She wasn't sunbathing by a public pool, where she was at she obviously had some expectation of privacy.[/QUOTE] Expectations rarely meet reality.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37690539] Expectations rarely meet reality.[/QUOTE] She was on private property away from the public, she had every expectation of privacy.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37690539] Expectations rarely meet reality.[/QUOTE] There's no reason they shouldn't in this case. The paparazzi is ridiculous with the level of intrusion into those people's lives they have. There's no reason one should have to worry about being stalked constantly and never be able to be naked or act "outrageous". If it were anyone else other than the paparazzi and a celebrity it wouldn't play out anything like it probably will.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;37690706]There's no reason they shouldn't in this case. The paparazzi is ridiculous with the level of intrusion into those people's lives they have. There's no reason one should have to worry about being stalked constantly and never be able to be naked or act "outrageous". If it were anyone else other than the paparazzi and a celebrity it wouldn't play out anything like it probably will.[/QUOTE] True, on the other hand everyone knows this is the way it is (even though I agree it shouldn't be), so she could have expected it when she took her top off. It's ridiculous to get this mad when you know there is a chance it'll happen, part of being a celebrity is having your privacy greatly invaded, that simply is the reality today.

[QUOTE=TaniaTiger;37690365]How the fuck can you fill TWENTY SIX pages about the same pair of tits? You can sum the story up with just "royal couple go on holiday and sunbathe in the privacy of their own hotel, some croissant got hold of a long lens camera. Nation greatly disappointed to find that she looks better with her clothes on. Give it a month and we'll have all forgotten." Why do people even give a shit about celebrity (celeb-titty heheheh) gossip, it's just mindless bollocks[/QUOTE] I read that magazine once, in one of them there was a 6-7 page special about Belen Rodriguez's nudes :v:

[QUOTE=NitronikALT;37690789]I read that magazine once, in one of them there was a 6-7 page special about Belen Rodriguez's nudes :v:[/QUOTE] now thats something I wouldn't mind seeing

[QUOTE=digigamer17;37689327]It's just breasts... Who cares? The photographer should be sacked though if he's a bit pervy.[/QUOTE] Can you honestly not see the problem with someone using an extremely long lense to take photos of someone who is trying to be in a seculded area? Seriously? Not to mention they have broken French laws.

[QUOTE=Jsm;37692172]Can you honestly not see the problem with someone using an extremely long lense to take photos of someone who is trying to be in a seculded area? Seriously? Not to mention they have broken French laws.[/QUOTE] It's his job to get photos of celebrities.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37692604]It's his job to get photos of celebrities.[/QUOTE] Its not his job to break laws and invade people privacy. Even if you consider that his job then its still no excuse for it.

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;37690300]ITT: nerds with high standards[/QUOTE] Who cares?

[QUOTE=Paramud;37692604]It's his job to get photos of celebrities.[/QUOTE] Let's reuse an earlier analogy and say that it's my job to shit on your floor. I'd take it you'd have to problems with me doing so, what with it being my job and all.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37692604]It's his job to get photos of celebrities.[/QUOTE] And some people's job is to rob houses.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;37693098]Let's reuse an earlier analogy and say that it's my job to shit on your floor. I'd take it you'd have to problems with me doing so, what with it being my job and all.[/QUOTE] I don't think you'd find a good market for that. [QUOTE=Kljunas;37693205]And some people's job is to rob houses.[/QUOTE] That'd be more of a profitable hobby, really. My point was he's likely not doing this out of some perverse desire to be a voyeur. He's doing it because it's his fucking job.

Didn't somebody say that it was visible via the street or something? No idea how that works but...yeah.

I heard the photographer was a mile away

[QUOTE=Paramud;37693451]I don't think you'd find a good market for that. [/QUOTE] Maybe I'll do a kickstarter and see. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693451] My point was he's likely not doing this out of some perverse desire to be a voyeur. He's doing it because it's his fucking job.[/QUOTE] So he's just an asshole instead of a creepy asshole?

[QUOTE=Paramud;37693451]My point was he's likely not doing this out of some perverse desire to be a voyeur. He's doing it because it's his fucking job.[/QUOTE] It's his job to photograph famous people. It's not his job to photograph famous people naked. Nowhere in the job description of a paparazzi is it stated that their job is to take photos of celebrities nude. They can sell it and people for whatever reason thinks it's ok, yes, but that doesn't make it part of the job, and it's because people treat celebrities like objects, like they were porn models and existed purely for our entertainment and any dignity and respect was completely stripped off of them because people knew who they were. "I and my friends know you, so you are no longer a human being. We will take photos of you nude, and if you get a son or daugher we will stalk him/her too and take photos of them." You and everyone else who thinks this is alright because they are famous is a complete and utter dick and need to dig deeper in yourself. "Oh but they are celebrities, they should see it coming because they became famous" does not cut it and is the kind of arguments we made as kids.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37693451] My point was he's likely not doing this out of some perverse desire to be a voyeur. He's doing it because it's his fucking job.[/QUOTE] Once again is it his job to break the law? [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] The fact he did it for his job is even worse than if he did it being some voyeur. No fucking ethics just as long as he gets that paycheck.

[QUOTE=dgg;37693683]It's his job to photograph famous people. It's not his job to photograph famous people naked.[/quote] The two are not mutually exclusive. It's his job to take photographs that will sell. Nude royalty sells damn well. [quote]They can sell it and people for whatever reason thinks it's ok, yes, but that doesn't make it part of the job, and it's because people treat celebrities like objects, like they were porn models and existed purely for our entertainment and any dignity and respect was completely stripped off of them because people knew who they were.[/quote] I never said it was ok. I said that it's a risk you'll have to take if you want to go outside in the nude, and that the duchess shouldn't worry about it. If I walk around my backyard with my dick out, and someone takes a picture of it without my consent, it's still my fault for going outside with my dick out. If I didn't want anyone to see my enormous bear cock, I shouldn't've taken it outside. [quote]"I and my friends know you, so you are no longer a human being. We will take photos of you nude, and if you get a son or daugher we will stalk him/her too and take photos of them."[/quote] That's a problem whether or not the pictures are about nudity. Remember when Britney Spears shaved her head? [quote]You and everyone else who thinks this is alright because they are famous is a complete and utter dick and need to dig deeper in yourself. "Oh but they are celebrities, they should see it coming because they became famous" does not cut it and is the kind of arguments we made as kids.[/QUOTE] Do point out where I said their fame mattered at all. [editline]funbags[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;37693851]Once again is it his job to break the law?[/quote] Whether or not the pictures are obtained legally typically doesn't matter to the types of magazines that print these things. [quote]The fact he did it for his job is even worse than if he did it being some voyeur. No fucking ethics just as long as he gets that paycheck.[/QUOTE] That's an argument I don't disagree with. I'm just pointing out that he probably did [i]not[/i] do this out of a sexual desire, which people seem to be assuming.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37693919] Whether or not the pictures are obtained legally typically doesn't matter to the types of magazines that print these things. [/QUOTE] Hopefully it will when this magazine gets the shit sued out of them.

[QUOTE=Paramud;37692604]It's his job to get photos of celebrities.[/QUOTE] Wow. Just wow. [editline]17th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=zeromancer;37693603]Didn't somebody say that it was visible via the street or something? No idea how that works but...yeah.[/QUOTE] From what I understand its visible from a "street", the fact this "street" is miles away from anything else doesn't seem to come into it. Edit: I just looked my self, its in the middle of a 600+ acre forest. It is pretty well secluded.

Good thing I'm not famous so I wouldn't have to worry about this. Even if I was, would anyone really [i] want[/i] to look at me naked? Probably not. Wait, that's a bad thing.

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;37690123]i find it weird that she's so ridiculously revered for being hot. it's clearly only because of who/what she is. if i saw her in the street and she was a nobody she wouldn't be especially head-turning at all[/QUOTE] The same can be said for movie celebrities.

its just an incredibly grainy picture of a useless flesh sack on someones cheet tho like if its a privacy thing yeah but like its still kind of a public place and also paparazi who follow famous people everywhere????

I'm pretty certain the reason William's so mad about this is because his mother was relentlessly pursued by the paparazzi right up to (and including) her death. So he probably has a little bit of a grudge against people taking pictures of his loved ones when it's really not necessary. [editline]17th September 2012[/editline] His mother was Princess Diana, by the way. Sorry, lapsed into British-ness for a second there.

Oh no someone famous was tanning topless,oh the shame! I never understood why this is such a big deal,so half of the world will see her tits she should be proud of it!

You have no damn reason to say she should be "proud" of it.

This whole thing is just a storm in an A-cup.

[QUOTE=Elgar;37697952]This whole thing is just a storm in an A-cup.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=224487&dateline=1342539260[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]The two are not mutually exclusive. It's his job to take photographs that will sell. Nude royalty sells damn well.[/QUOTE] So people should make drugs because drug dealers buy it is what you're saying. If you get paid for it, then it's alright, just do it. Payment justifies everything. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]I never said it was ok. I said that it's a risk you'll have to take if you want to go outside in the nude, and that the duchess shouldn't worry about it. If I walk around my backyard with my dick out, and someone takes a picture of it without my consent, it's still my fault for going outside with my dick out. If I didn't want anyone to see my enormous bear cock, I shouldn't've taken it outside.[/QUOTE] Going out in the nude in your own property outside of the city with it's own fence is not supposed to be a risk. I do not know how big their property is and how many neighbours they have, but I would assume they are quite far away from anyone else. I am sure that the reason the photo is so terrible is because he had to take the photo in heights from far away, zooming in at maximum and cropping the shit out of the photo to make her visible. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]That's a problem whether or not the pictures are about nudity. Remember when Britney Spears shaved her head?[/QUOTE] Yes, that's exactly my point. The paparazzi is a fucking problem. They don't help society the one way or the other, they deliver gossip and break laws to get it and act like desperate fucking creeps. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]Do point out where I said their fame mattered at all.[/QUOTE] It's what the topic subject is about, you've already said their job is to photograph celebrities, and we don't see anyone taking photos of regular joe, because it's invasion of privacy which is illegal. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]Whether or not the pictures are obtained legally typically doesn't matter to the types of magazines that print these things.[/QUOTE] Which brings us back to the drug dealer question. Illegal images are illegal and the director for the magazine should be punished. Not by making an apology letter or paying a fine since neither of them do anything, but prison. [QUOTE=Paramud;37693919]That's an argument I don't disagree with. I'm just pointing out that he probably did [i]not[/i] do this out of a sexual desire, which people seem to be assuming.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone is assuming he did it out of sexual desire. People are comparing his actions to a creep that takes pictures of people nude for sexual desire, not actually calling him that creep.