What camera shot Kate Middleton (Page 2): Your missing my point, but the law doesn't state any limitations on equipment when taking pictures of people out in public, it also doesn't...

TdogKing

Your missing my point, but the law doesn't state any limitations on equipment when taking pictures of people out in public, it also doesn't make it subject to prosecution of people out in public. I understand you think its invasion of privacy but if a camera can see you you are out in public. Do I think its right...not really..but do I think she's ignorant to believe she's not being watched at all times...yes I do.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I agree. In this country you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being in the middle of a massive private estate and being photographed by someone was on private property isn't reasonable but since he wason a public road is it still reasonable? No, using a 600mm lens with a 2X extender and cropping it to enlarge a small part isn't reasonable. He was prabably paid more than his equipment was worth for the photos. I was the naked eye concept..... if I can't clearly see it without enhancement I might be violating the privacy rules. The ethics should come into play.

BigBear wrote:

quote=TdogKing The pictures show she was out wher... (show quote)

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

TdogKing wrote:

Your missing my point, but the law doesn't state any limitations on equipment when taking pictures of people out in public, it also doesn't make it subject to prosecution of people out in public. I understand you think its invasion of privacy but if a camera can see you you are out in public. Do I think its right...not really..but do I think she's ignorant to believe she's not being watched at all times...yes I do.

Since you say "if a camera can see you you are out in public" I guess you are also one of the privacy invaders!! That would also mean that if you are inside your own home or apartment and the windows don't have 'blackout' shades pulled, then you are "out in public"!!!

Your basic logic is very flawed!!! When you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY in an area where there is NO PUBLIC ACCESS within an easily visible distance, then you ARE INVADING PRIVACY if you use extreme long-telephoto lenses and any other high-tech equipment to SPY on them!! Just being outside of a building does not mean that you are OUT IN PUBLIC!!!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Jer wrote:

I agree. In this country you have a reasonable ex... (show quote)

Just remember that for the type of IDIOT that took the picture, THERE ARE NO ETHICS INVOLVED! The "Gossip Rags" that publish this CRAP are totally without ethics and think that they are ABOVE THE LAW!!!

TdogKing

All I'm saying is how it works in society in todays world.I never said I agree or anything of the sort, and for that matter ,I'm not a 'privacy invader'as you call me. I'm just telling you like it is.I understand you have all those "code of ethics" that you live by and thats ok, but those are yours you made up and are not the law.If you change you clothes with the curtains open you are inviting the world in and that how its works.If you are famous you know all of this and to get caught is pure stupidity on her part.Ladies and Gentemen of the Jury, I rest my case.

PhotoStar Loc: Calgary, Alberta

Kate was comfortable enough to go out like she did, and took more than reasonable effort to get some privacy. So what if that revealed some bits. Leave her alone. Yes its possible to catch something like this, but its not in good taste. I wonder how someone knew they'd be there in the first place. But knowing the publics pension for controversy I don't think the royals were too smart and under estimating the lengths someone would go to to get a picture. Still, you have to be a bit of a dare devil to do it. If she covered her face, she's just be a naked body, then who'd care, they'd not know who she was for sure.

Catalina30 Loc: Deep South

The point that we are missing is that if folks would not buy this trashy magazines, the tabloid (and the paparazzi)would be out of business. No demand, no supply.

PhotoStar Loc: Calgary, Alberta

I don't think most here buy the magazines. I know I don't, never have. I hate bad pictures or low quality ones. Nudity doesn't bother me, but that's another topic. I agree publishing the photos was not good taste. But they are going to have to fight now for what happened. Discussions help us clarify our beliefs and our reasons, which is a good thing in my books. And if someone has beliefs different from mine, that's okay too.

TdogKing

Kinda funny is look at the weekly photo contest here and this weeks topic is....you gussed it 'public places'...scroll through the entries thus far at what the general people think as public places...just saying

richnash46 Loc: Texas

TdogKing wrote:

I don't think Paparazzi are doing anything wrong b... (show quote)

Confusedious Says:

If you want fame and fortune, you have to accept the negatives that come along with that as well as the positives; if not, then forsake the fame and fortune!

;) ;)

william48 Loc: New Philadelphia,Ohio

If you are standing inside your home but fully visible through a window and a photographer takes your picture from the road or side walk is that an invasion of your privacy?When I Googled the privacy questions I found this scenario was discussed. The answer was that it was not an invasion of privacy according to this article. It seems that if you can be seen from public access you are considered in public and by standing in full veiw of the window you are displaying yourself.

I do not know if the photographer broke any laws but the publishers seem to have stepped over the line and used these pictures without permission of the subjects if these where considered to be private pictures taken in private. It may well be that these pictures where taken in public and if that is the case, then Kate may have learned a lesson.

This family was a victom of the press again. Will they ever learn?

lost_found

rayford2 wrote:

JoeB wrote:

Check this link out;

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/how-paparazzi-get-pics-that-make-royals-snap-20120917-262pm.html

The editorial seems more concerned about Royal Family pictures. I guess anyone else doesn't matter.

Paparazzi photographers have no morals; their main interest is the money.
One of the lowest occupations on earth.

right up there with politicians?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

When it comes to big money the law has never been much of a deterant. Whether it's paparazzi shooting the Royals, prohibition or Samsung ripping off Apple. A paltry slap on the wrist and you still made thousands, millions and even billions in profit, even after paying a billion in fines, not to mention that Closer gets FREE worldwide advertising.
Maybe it should be a wake-up call more than anything else. This time it was only the harmless press, next time a terrorist plot. Maybe some of you ex-military can tell us if a sniper can do damage at that distance. We live in a crazy world. This time, small foul-small harm.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

SharpShooter wrote:

Maybe it should be a wake-up call more than anything else. This time it was only the harmless press, next time a terrorist plot.
Maybe some of you ex-military can tell us if a sniper can do damage at that distance.

I suspect so - - Photo at 1.3 kilometers - about 1/2 the distance of these:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/09/27/longest-sniper-shots-in-history/

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

There is a 1200mm lens for a mere $120,000. That with a 2x extender would definitely the death of privacy.
I do agree, that this wouldn't be an issue if people won't buy the papers who publish these photos. Famous or not, you should have a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. What is going on here is a form of high tech harassment.
I won't do it but there are a ton who would.