If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Donald Trump takes the position of all good Republicans, says Kate Middleton only has herself to blame for being photographed topless   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 85
    More: Dumbass, Kate Middleton  
•       •       •

2442 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Sep 2012 at 3:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-19 03:51:00 AM
msnbcmedia1.msn.com

What Donald Trump topless might look like...
 
2012-09-19 03:55:36 AM

Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...


That suits him in a Wilson Fisk/Kingpin kinda way
 
2012-09-19 03:56:41 AM

Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...


Funny, but that may be an improvement.. unless people start calling him Kingpin.
 
2012-09-19 03:58:03 AM
Doh! Too slow.. was trying to mark that Funny as well, but it wouldn't go through..
 
2012-09-19 04:01:52 AM
Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby
 
2012-09-19 04:05:34 AM
Trump's Twitter feed is bitter screed. No wonder he is such a huge ass with so much perpetual butthurt.
He's like a giant festering hemorrhoid on the anus of life.
 
2012-09-19 04:10:23 AM

garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby


Welcome to Fark?
 
2012-09-19 04:11:39 AM

garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby


Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.
 
2012-09-19 04:30:52 AM
Because any expectation to privacy when you're far away from any other civilization is completely ridiculous.
 
2012-09-19 04:39:39 AM
I bet Trump has bigger tits than Kate.
 
2012-09-19 05:09:18 AM

Atomic Spunk: I bet Trump has bigger tits than Kate.


Bigger yes, nicer, not so much.
 
2012-09-19 05:15:00 AM
I keep seeing these headlines and thinking Kate Upton. How disappointing it is when my brain realizes it's mistake. :(
 
2012-09-19 05:24:30 AM

Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...


What's strange is, Lex Luthor has never gone birther on Superman, who isn't even from this planet.
 
2012-09-19 06:53:22 AM

Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...


Funny - my first thought was that he looked like Daddy Warbucks.
 
2012-09-19 07:03:44 AM
Trump's dump. Someone needs to explain the concept of reasonable privacy. Has anyone checked his hotels for hidden cameras lately?
 
2012-09-19 07:12:36 AM
So, wait...are we actually discussing whether the hot royal chick with her tits out SHOULDN'T have them babies photographed? OF COURSE they should be! And not grainy, long distance crap, either. I want up close, perfect and preferably with my tongue on one of the nipples.
 
2012-09-19 07:18:34 AM
Even a broken watch can be right twice a day.
 
2012-09-19 07:24:28 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.


Really? Victims?

If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.
 
2012-09-19 07:31:15 AM
Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.
 
2012-09-19 07:34:58 AM

SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.


She did not go to a topless beach.
 
2012-09-19 07:35:52 AM
For once, he may actually have a point. When you don't want a certain type of photo to be taken of you, but you know that every step you take outside your home is followed by a gaggle of paparazzi who will be paid tens of thousands of dollars (or whatever currency is appropriate) if they can manage to take that exact type of photo -perhaps [i]hundreds[/i] of thousands, in this particular case- and will act accordingly, does this not put the onus on you to likewise act accordingly? This is not something most people have to deal with, but it is part of the price of celebrity.
 
2012-09-19 07:40:04 AM
He's a dick but he kind of has a point. Now there is nothing against sunbathing nude on a private boat, but when you're now married to a prince you should know that people are following you everywhere. Don't be surprised when this happens.
 
2012-09-19 07:41:22 AM
So, what I am hearing is it would be ok to put cameras in bathrooms of places famous people go because they shouldn't expect privacy.
 
2012-09-19 07:46:48 AM

redheededstepchild: So, what I am hearing is it would be ok to put cameras in bathrooms of places famous people go because they shouldn't expect privacy.


Reductio ad absurdum. Next?

We don't live in the world of My Little Pony. These people exist, and there is no way to stop them from existing, especially if we are to continue to have a free press. Given this, it is far better to act accordingly and plan in a way that sidesteps the problem, rather than continue to bemoan a thing that is not going to go away. Don't curse the darkness; light a candle.
 
2012-09-19 08:12:10 AM
Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.
 
2012-09-19 08:21:23 AM

ChrisDe: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.

She did not go to a topless beach.


Was it a public beach?
 
2012-09-19 08:25:46 AM

redheededstepchild: Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.


Depends where you are.

"any respect for privacy" is not allowing shiat like this through windows, while the photographer is on public property, etc

Once you start saying you can't take pictures from public areas with a telephoto lense (which is what you are arguing now) you are opening up a legal can of worms. How exactly are you going to define "to far"?

If you have "any respect for freedom of press" you aren't going to muddy the water by adding more criteria by which pictures taken from the public of people outside are illegal.
 
2012-09-19 08:26:44 AM

redheededstepchild: Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game."


Not at all. If we're going to use those metaphors, then it's more like "Welcome to the game. These are the stakes. Here's how to win. We regret to inform you that there is no opt-out at this time."
 
2012-09-19 08:28:19 AM

SineSwiper: ChrisDe: SockMonkeyHolocaust: Well it is. She's a celebrity and she went to a topless beach. Then instead of saying "It's a set of titties that happen to be royal. Deal with it." the Royal Family went all 9/11 about THE SCANDAL!

The days of Queen Victoria going swimming by backing a special coach into a lake and parking a regiment of blind grenadiers around the perimeter is long gone.

She did not go to a topless beach.

Was it a public beach?


Wasn't a beach at all. An outdoor patio of a private home.
 
2012-09-19 08:45:38 AM
You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.
 
2012-09-19 08:47:15 AM

redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.


Which is bad for freedom of press.
 
2012-09-19 08:53:58 AM

Shadowtag: Kell Bartok: [msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 216x298]

What Donald Trump topless might look like...

What's strange is, Lex Luthor has never gone birther on Superman, who isn't even from this planet.


Yeah, but Superman isn't black.
 
2012-09-19 08:59:16 AM

liam76: redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

Which is bad for freedom of press.


No, it keeps people from sneaking into mortuaries to take photos of dead celebs.
 
2012-09-19 09:06:21 AM

redheededstepchild: liam76: redheededstepchild: You're absolutly right. And in france, the laws are written and the courts have desided. Any other country where this photo is printed will also have a chance to deside. And people will continue to be sued. Eventually it becomes a cost/benfit situation. Do I want to pay huge legal fees, and take the risk that I might be breaking the law, or do not print and lose the chance to publish something that would be a huge seller.

Which is bad for freedom of press.

No, it keeps people from sneaking into mortuaries to take photos of dead celebs.


Mortuaries aren't "public".
 
2012-09-19 09:06:43 AM
I'm not trying to defend the paparazzi here but if you are the Princess, you are topless and not indoors, then you may have to deal with the consequences... She should have known better.

Lots of women (hot ones too) go topless in Miami's South Beach but they are not photographed by the paparazzi left and right. If Kate was just Kate, then this would have never happened... but she is the Princess and she should expect very little privacy from now on.
 
2012-09-19 09:08:53 AM
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Trump on anything but he's right on this one. She was topless outdoors. Whether it was a private home or a public beach is irrelevant. The Fark headlines are full of stories where someone did something in their backyards or, indeed, in their house but within view of a window, got arrested and claimed "but...my privacy" only to be smacked-down by the courts.

Kate's incident is no different. If she doesn't understand by now that anything she does, especially outdoors, will potentially be photographed, then perhaps she shouldn't be royalty.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:56 AM
Sorry, I'm with Donald on this one. It's OK as long as the person ISN'T a royal? From another country at that? Come on...
 
2012-09-19 09:19:03 AM
Yeah...welcome to FARK

Where they consistently take normal, common sense quotes, and verbally destroy the person who said them all because of their religious or political views.

Freedom of speech...indeed
 
2012-09-19 09:38:06 AM

FirstNationalBastard: garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby

Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.


As I said yesterday, the Fark OWS crowd loves to shiat on anyone who's rich and/or a celebrity (referring to Ms. Middleton in this case). Trump notwithstanding, it is the far left who are blaming the victim here. If Trump had stood up for Middleton, the lefties here would be going, "Typical Republican, making rich people out to be victims and demanding they have special privileges!!!" But he loves shiatting on anyone if it gives him attention, so in his case it's not about politics but about being a media whore.
 
2012-09-19 09:39:00 AM

Gestankfaust: Yeah...welcome to FARK

Where they consistently take normal, common sense quotes, and verbally destroy the person who said them all because of their religious or political views.

Freedom of speech...indeed


But this is all part of free speech, and is just as important as freedom of the press. It's good to argue about this because a growing understanding of those rights leads to positive changes on how we understand other people. Aren't there enough free boobies in the world that we don't have to pay for pictures taken without consent?
 
2012-09-19 09:53:13 AM

redheededstepchild: But this is all part of free speech, and is just as important as freedom of the press. It's good to argue about this because a growing understanding of those rights leads to positive changes on how we understand other people. Aren't there enough free boobies in the world that we don't have to pay for pictures taken without consent


So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?
 
2012-09-19 09:56:37 AM

liam76: redheededstepchild: Which is a diffrent way of saying "don't hate the player, hate the game." She was on her back porch, at least a half mile from the road. She has every right to legal action. And, if we have any respect for privacy, we should realize the way to get these guys to stop is to make sure no one profits from it.

Depends where you are.

"any respect for privacy" is not allowing shiat like this through windows, while the photographer is on public property, etc

Once you start saying you can't take pictures from public areas with a telephoto lense (which is what you are arguing now) you are opening up a legal can of worms. How exactly are you going to define "to far"?

If you have "any respect for freedom of press" you aren't going to muddy the water by adding more criteria by which pictures taken from the public of people outside are illegal.


Yea that is sort of where I have a problem with how the royal family are handling this. I mean if I am running around naked in my front yard, or even infront of the window in the front of my house, I would expect there to be consequences based on people walking by. When the cops show up I doubt that me saying I am on private property is going to be a defense for anything. If I didn't want someone to do something, or potentially take a picture, I shouldn't go outside naked.
 
2012-09-19 10:00:51 AM

liam76:
So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?


Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.
 
2012-09-19 10:06:44 AM
If you are peeking thru a window from the sidewalk, or a half mile away from a road, or even clinbing a tree to a shot over a wall or fence, or flying a helicopter over, or spying with a satellite, it's still an invasion of privacy. But my opinion or yours won't matter. It's up to the legal system.
 
2012-09-19 10:16:04 AM
Since he realizes people have no expectation of privacy, then why isn't he clamoring for Romney to release his tax forms for the last 10 years?
 
2012-09-19 10:16:18 AM

Swiss Colony: liam76:
So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.


I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.

Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.
 
2012-09-19 10:44:45 AM
Her regal rosebuds thus revealed
In puddles DNA congealed
From countless voyeurs, masts erected
By titties smaller than expected.


-- Alexander Pope, "The Duchess of Not So Muchess"
 
2012-09-19 10:54:48 AM

liam76: Swiss Colony: liam76:
So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.

Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.


It may be in the public interest to put X-ray lenses on every camera and stare at naked chicks 24 hours a day and post them all to the Nightly News without their consent.. that does not mean it is in the public interest. Her public persona has little to nothing to do with her boobs.
 
2012-09-19 11:26:19 AM

Swiss Colony: liam76:
So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.


These are my thoughts as well. If you're going to make money off someone's picture, then you should have to get their consent. Stock photography websites ask you for a talent release if you submit a picture with any random person in it, But for some reason if they're famous, I can just hide in their bushes and sell the pictures to anyone without their permission.
 
2012-09-19 11:37:05 AM
Isn't it illegal in England to even walk by a window nude? And here she was, outdoor, au naturale. Why has she not been arrested yet?
 
2012-09-19 11:40:16 AM

m3000: Because any expectation to privacy when you're far away from any other civilization is completely ridiculous.


That's the problem though. She shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
She married a Prince. And not just a prince, the most popular and world-known prince. And the next in line to be King.
I'm sure her life of insane comfort and ease will make up for people seeing her sub-par titties.
 
2012-09-19 11:53:22 AM

sure haven't: m3000: Because any expectation to privacy when you're far away from any other civilization is completely ridiculous.

That's the problem though. She shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
She married a Prince. And not just a prince, the most popular and world-known prince. And the next in line to be King.
I'm sure her life of insane comfort and ease will make up for people seeing her sub-par titties.


You realize how you sound, right?
 
2012-09-19 12:26:28 PM

Lolthien: liam76: Swiss Colony: liam76:
So if I can see you from a public area, and not inside, you think I need your consent to take your picture?

Nope. But according to French law you need my consent to publish it. Plus I question whether she could be seen with the naked eye.

There is no doubting she was daft for taking her top off. The pictures should not have been published though. It's nothing to do with freedom of speach - there is no way this is in the public interest.

I didn't say "seen with naked eye". Telephoto lenses and binoculars are pretty common nowadays. I choose to err on the side of free press ont his one and not limit distance to soem arbitrary standard.

Public interest is determined by the public. I may not care, you may not care, but if it sells, it has public interest. When you set some arbitrary line where you can't say or publish X it is a free speech issue.

It may be in the public interest to put X-ray lenses on every camera and stare at naked chicks 24 hours a day and post them all to the Nightly News without their consent.. that does not mean it is in the public interest. Her public persona has little to nothing to do with her boobs.


I am not talking abtou her persona or her boobies. I am saying once you start drawing arbitrary lines of what you think are "in the public interest" and banning or allowing things based ont hat you are restricting free speech.


browntimmy: These are my thoughts as well. If you're going to make money off someone's picture, then you should have to get their consent. Stock photography websites ask you for a talent release if you submit a picture with any random person in it, But for some reason if they're famous, I can just hide in their bushes and sell the pictures to anyone without their permission


A random person is not a public figure.

He wasn't hiding in "their bushes" (in which case I agree that he shouldn't have been allowed to sell or release them).
 
2012-09-19 12:44:29 PM
"Public figure" shouldn't matter. There could literally be a TV show called "Stalking Celebrities at the Airport", and they could make millions in ad revenue and not have to pay the "talent" a dime. That's stupid.
 
2012-09-19 12:46:12 PM
Damn, I thought this was about the other one, Upton.
 
2012-09-19 01:21:33 PM

browntimmy: "Public figure" shouldn't matter. There could literally be a TV show called "Stalking Celebrities at the Airport", and they could make millions in ad revenue and not have to pay the "talent" a dime. That's stupid.


You mean TMZ?

And it may be stupid that people watch, but it certainly isn't stupid that it is legal.

Unless you could video tape or photograph public figures when you see them while you are in public then you could never get an interview with someone who didn't want one, you could never broadcast somoene else's wrongdoing.
 
2012-09-19 01:40:05 PM

browntimmy: "Public figure" shouldn't matter. There could literally be a TV show called "Stalking Celebrities at the Airport", and they could make millions in ad revenue and not have to pay the "talent" a dime. That's stupid.


Why is it stupid? The people being photographed aren't doing any work, why should they get paid or be able to arbitrarily deny a member of the press his craft?
 
2012-09-19 01:56:02 PM

redheededstepchild: If you are peeking thru a window from the sidewalk, or a half mile away from a road, or even clinbing a tree to a shot over a wall or fence, or flying a helicopter over, or spying with a satellite, it's still an invasion of privacy. But my opinion or yours won't matter. It's up to the legal system.


Actually, no. You're 100% wrong on that.

The eyes/cameras don't emit magical rays of voyeurism through windows or fences.

Here's how it works:

Light comes from the sun/lightbulb, reflects on the object (titties in this case) and then reaches MY eyeballs/camera. It's the person inside the house/fence that is broadcasting the image to the world. Not the other way around.

You don't want to bee seen? Don't be seen. Simple. I masturbate regularly and also walk naked inside my apartment. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen me from outside. Why? I take measures for that to be an unlikely situation.

Also, this bullshiat about "privacy" is overblown and a case of "white people problems". So you think a journalist is going to hang around asking for permission for the pictures he's taking on the street? Also, what happens if I'm covering a war/riot/etc? I need to ask for permission? LOL, of course not.

Of course, getting inside a property and planting cameras/microphones is indeed a violation of privacy.

Also, if waiting outside someone's house and taking pictures of them from outside or when they go out is "illegal", then every FBI Van kind of evidence is illegal too. Oh wait!
 
2012-09-19 02:09:21 PM

Jim_Callahan: FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.

Really? Victims?

If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.


Except she wasn't. She was at a remote French chateau and the photographer was over a kilometer away,
 
2012-09-19 03:18:20 PM

sure haven't: m3000: Because any expectation to privacy when you're far away from any other civilization is completely ridiculous.

That's the problem though. She shouldn't have an expectation of privacy.
She married a Prince. And not just a prince, the most popular and world-known prince. And the next in line to be King.
I'm sure her life of insane comfort and ease will make up for people seeing her sub-par titties.


So, by saying she has no expectation of privacy, how is that any diffrent that sticking a camera under a bathroom stall?
 
2012-09-19 03:22:30 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Jim_Callahan: FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.

Really? Victims?

If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.

Except she wasn't. She was at a remote French chateau and the photographer was over a kilometer away,


Simple, don't get nude in "open" places, easy as that.

Also if the "royals" would drop their "royalty" and just be normal people, they would not have this "problem" any more. But hey they like the perks and the do nothing jobs they get and all the free money from the commoners but complain if you photograph one getting nude in a public place.

I say screw them, get real jobs, live in amongst the unwashed masses and be like regular people than no one will care who they are or what they look like nude.

Can't have it both ways
 
2012-09-19 03:42:06 PM

Jim_Callahan: browntimmy: "Public figure" shouldn't matter. There could literally be a TV show called "Stalking Celebrities at the Airport", and they could make millions in ad revenue and not have to pay the "talent" a dime. That's stupid.

Why is it stupid? The people being photographed aren't doing any work, why should they get paid or be able to arbitrarily deny a member of the press his craft?


Because their image is being used to sell a product? Why do Nike, Pepsi, etc. have to pay celebrities to use their picture on products but gossip magazines and shows don't?
 
2012-09-19 03:44:12 PM

browntimmy: Because their image is being used to sell a product? Why do Nike, Pepsi, etc. have to pay celebrities to use their picture on products but gossip magazines and shows don't?


You're really asking this?

Because the celebs in those ads are ENDORSING the products. "Use this because I use it too."
Nobody's endorsing a rag magazine.
 
2012-09-19 03:49:40 PM
The first amendment does not protect you from consiquences of that speech. Free press does not mean you have a right to take creepy pictures of kids playing on a lawn and sell it to kiddy porn sites as a warm up. You have pros and cons to freedom of the press. The laws are there and the courts will deside. It just means if you do take these kind of photos and sell them, you can lose any money you make from it. And as a member of the press, you don't have the right not to be sued.
 
2012-09-19 04:02:46 PM

rocky_howard: browntimmy: Because their image is being used to sell a product? Why do Nike, Pepsi, etc. have to pay celebrities to use their picture on products but gossip magazines and shows don't?

You're really asking this?

Because the celebs in those ads are ENDORSING the products. "Use this because I use it too."
Nobody's endorsing a rag magazine.


But let's say NAMbLA magazine decides to put a celebrity on their cover without permission, couldn't they get sued into oblivion?
 
2012-09-19 04:05:51 PM

Phil Moskowitz: You realize how you sound, right?


Correct?...
 
2012-09-19 04:09:03 PM

browntimmy: But let's say NAMbLA magazine decides to put a celebrity on their cover without permission, couldn't they get sued into oblivion?


Depends.

If it's a candid picture, no way they can sue. Well, the can, but could hardly win based on that fact alone.

If it's from a photoshoot, then the photographer can sue since it's his picture and I guess there are cases where the celebrity could sue the photographer if he actually sold the pictures to the magazine, but not the magazine per se.
 
2012-09-19 04:11:03 PM
This kind of stuff reminded me why graverobbing became illegal. Once, dead people were dug up and sold to medical schools and because it wasn't illegal, it was fine. But a senator showed up on a slab and brought the practise into the light, and people realized something needed to change. So it became illegal to dig up anyone's corpse to sell for profit. Regular people included.
 
2012-09-19 05:15:59 PM
You kids saying it's okay to take pics of people nude on private property as long as it is visible from 3 miles away on public property using megatelescopic lenses because it happens all the time and people get charged with public indecency for being nude in their own homes or under similar conditions do realize that this was in France, right? And that the laws there just might be different, right? Or do you think US laws are global? I mean you are not that retarded, right?

On a related note: PUBLISH WILLARD'S TAX RETURNS NOW
 
2012-09-19 05:51:36 PM

dantheman195: Bathia_Mapes: Jim_Callahan: FirstNationalBastard: Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.

Really? Victims?

If people are photographing you naked because they snuck into your bedroom and hid in the closet, sure. If the photographed you topless because you took of your shirt outside in an area that's not a private residence and clearly visible from the highway I'm going to have to live with the weird feeling of saying I'm pretty much with Trump on this one.

Except she wasn't. She was at a remote French chateau and the photographer was over a kilometer away,

Simple, don't get nude in "open" places, easy as that.

Also if the "royals" would drop their "royalty" and just be normal people, they would not have this "problem" any more. But hey they like the perks and the do nothing jobs they get and all the free money from the commoners but complain if you photograph one getting nude in a public place.

I say screw them, get real jobs, live in amongst the unwashed masses and be like regular people than no one will care who they are or what they look like nude.

Can't have it both ways


The amount of tourism they bring into the U.K. is immense. In fact the royal family brings in about £176 million to the U.K. treasury annually. That's over $285 million.
 
2012-09-19 07:23:00 PM

redheededstepchild: Free press does not mean you have a right to take creepy pictures of kids playing on a lawn and sell it to kiddy porn sites as a warm up.


redheededstepchild: This kind of stuff reminded me why graverobbing became illegal.


Well played sir. You had me until these two gems.

Nobody can be that dumb.


Bathia_Mapes: The amount of tourism they bring into the U.K. is immense. In fact the royal family brings in about £176 million to the U.K. treasury annually. That's over $285 million


That is if you include people going to see buckingham palace, etc. Those people aren't going to say fark it no more queen we are staying home, nor will the palace go away if the royal family does.
 
2012-09-19 07:39:54 PM

farkplug: You kids saying it's okay to take pics of people nude on private property as long as it is visible from 3 miles away on public property using megatelescopic lenses because it happens all the time and people get charged with public indecency for being nude in their own homes or under similar conditions do realize that this was in France, right? And that the laws there just might be different, right? Or do you think US laws are global? I mean you are not that retarded, right?

On a related note: PUBLISH WILLARD'S TAX RETURNS NOW


Between you and subby...DAMN lefties are on the defensive!
 
2012-09-19 07:48:28 PM

liam76: redheededstepchild: Free press does not mean you have a right to take creepy pictures of kids playing on a lawn and sell it to kiddy porn sites as a warm up.

redheededstepchild: This kind of stuff reminded me why graverobbing became illegal.

Well played sir. You had me until these two gems.

Nobody can be that dumb.


Bathia_Mapes: The amount of tourism they bring into the U.K. is immense. In fact the royal family brings in about £176 million to the U.K. treasury annually. That's over $285 million

That is if you include people going to see buckingham palace, etc. Those people aren't going to say fark it no more queen we are staying home, nor will the palace go away if the royal family does.


What about those statements is dumb? Both are about reasonable privacy. Please point out the dumb part. I'm too stupid to understand.
 
2012-09-19 08:04:38 PM
It's the diffrence in filming someone walking into a doctor's office and secretly filming them getting undressed in same doctor's office. The exsaples can be interchangable.
 
2012-09-19 08:23:27 PM
Should we get Dixie Carter's rant for women's rights shouted to Mr.Trump again? That would be like 1990-ish again.
 
2012-09-19 09:48:50 PM

epoch_destroi: farkplug: You kids saying it's okay to take pics of people nude on private property as long as it is visible from 3 miles away on public property using megatelescopic lenses because it happens all the time and people get charged with public indecency for being nude in their own homes or under similar conditions do realize that this was in France, right? And that the laws there just might be different, right? Or do you think US laws are global? I mean you are not that retarded, right?

On a related note: PUBLISH WILLARD'S TAX RETURNS NOW

Between you and subby...DAMN lefties are on the defensive!


If you had an ounce of dignity you'd be ashamed Donald Trump was on your "team".
 
2012-09-19 10:47:06 PM

FirstNationalBastard: garron: Who is so obsessed with politics that they would take something as stupid as this and turn it into a blank political statement about members of either party?

// o_0 at subby

Trump was a well known figure in the Republican party show this year. Republicans love blaming victims. The train of thought is fairly clear.


Blaming victims? Trump is a dolt, and I didn't RTFA, but how is what the headline claims false in any way? Kate is one of the most sought-after pics on the planet, knows it, and then took her top off outside. Sorry, but that's just dumb. It's really no different than posting a pic to the internet - public is public.

/Yes, she was on privtae land
//photons don't care about property law
 
2012-09-19 11:22:08 PM

browntimmy: epoch_destroi: farkplug: You kids saying it's okay to take pics of people nude on private property as long as it is visible from 3 miles away on public property using megatelescopic lenses because it happens all the time and people get charged with public indecency for being nude in their own homes or under similar conditions do realize that this was in France, right? And that the laws there just might be different, right? Or do you think US laws are global? I mean you are not that retarded, right?

On a related note: PUBLISH WILLARD'S TAX RETURNS NOW

Between you and subby...DAMN lefties are on the defensive!

If you had an ounce of dignity you'd be ashamed Donald Trump was on your "team".


hey, even a stopped clock is right TWICE a damn day
 
2012-09-20 12:55:35 AM

redheededstepchild: It's the diffrence in filming someone walking into a doctor's office and secretly filming them getting undressed in same doctor's office. The exsaples can be interchangable.


I get what you're saying. It's like if you take a picture of your dog wearing a funny costume and post it on a forum populated by dog lovers who like to see dogs wearing funny costumes, or you take a different picture that shows the dogs balls hanging down from that funny costume and posting it on craigslist with a very strange description, but in the latter picture the dog is also dead and has been dug up.
 
2012-09-20 01:18:50 AM

rhiannon: redheededstepchild: It's the diffrence in filming someone walking into a doctor's office and secretly filming them getting undressed in same doctor's office. The exsaples can be interchangable.

I get what you're saying. It's like if you take a picture of your dog wearing a funny costume and post it on a forum populated by dog lovers who like to see dogs wearing funny costumes, or you take a different picture that shows the dogs balls hanging down from that funny costume and posting it on craigslist with a very strange description, but in the latter picture the dog is also dead and has been dug up.



Yes, but the second picture was taken by someone else, who dug up your dog, and you were unaware the dog was even dead.
 
2012-09-20 06:28:02 AM

redheededstepchild: What about those statements is dumb? Both are about reasonable privacy. Please point out the dumb part. I'm too stupid to understand


Not selling pictures to kiddy porn sites is about reasonable privacy? really?

Grave robbing is about privacy, not robbing?

redheededstepchild: It's the diffrence in filming someone walking into a doctor's office and secretly filming them getting undressed in same doctor's office. The exsaples can be interchangable.


In a doctros office where you are expected to change is not only private property where you can't film, but also has well established protection as a place where you can expect privacy. Outside walking into a doctors office is not the same thing.
 
2012-09-20 07:26:31 AM

liam76: redheededstepchild: What about those statements is dumb? Both are about reasonable privacy. Please point out the dumb part. I'm too stupid to understand

Not selling pictures to kiddy porn sites is about reasonable privacy? really?

Grave robbing is about privacy, not robbing?

redheededstepchild: It's the diffrence in filming someone walking into a doctor's office and secretly filming them getting undressed in same doctor's office. The exsaples can be interchangable.

In a doctros office where you are expected to change is not only private property where you can't film, but also has well established protection as a place where you can expect privacy. Outside walking into a doctors office is not the same thing.


Actually, when grave robbing was legal, bodies were not property, and therefore stealing them was morally repugnant, but there was no way to legally stop it. Much as I believe this kind of photo is. If no one buys the photos, eventully they will stop taking them. That's not supression, that's good taste. If you can't sell your photos because they are beyond the realm of good taste, that's the fault of the person taking them.
 
2012-09-20 08:10:54 AM

redheededstepchild: Actually, when grave robbing was legal, bodies were not property, and therefore stealing them was morally repugnant, but there was no way to legally stop it.


Yeah there was. Make it illegal. Real tough one.


redheededstepchild: Much as I believe this kind of photo is. If no one buys the photos, eventully they will stop taking them. That's not supression, that's good taste.


That is supression. If I say you are allowed to make X type of speech, but you are not allowed to sell it that is a form of supression. How you fail to see that banning things based on taste doesn't limit speech is beyond me.


redheededstepchild: If you can't sell your photos because they are beyond the realm of good taste, that's the fault of the person taking them


What are you talking about? In most places he can sellt he photo. If he is legally not allowed to sellt he photo that is a limit on speech.
 
2012-09-20 08:39:01 AM
If she can't sell her photos because no one wants to buy them, is that a limit on speech? Can we now force people to buy his photos, so his rights are more important than free comerce. We now have to see photos of every moron with a press pass. Can't wait. But when in other countries, you are subject to their laws. Freedom of the press is not something you can waive around when you really want to break the law and if you want to do business in places where the law sides with the victims, you may face some steep penalties. An invasion of privacy is subjective, and if you get down to it, this is why the court did what it did.
 
2012-09-20 10:25:48 AM

redheededstepchild: If she can't sell her photos because no one wants to buy them, is that a limit on speech?


No. But seeing as how people want to buy it and you were trying to equate it to grave robbing (which was illegal but they fought it by making autopsies without clear proof they had the rights to use the body illegal), I thought you were saying ti should be illegal.



redheededstepchild: Freedom of the press is not something you can waive around when you really want to break the law and if you want to do business in places where the law sides with the victims, you may face some steep penalties. An invasion of privacy is subjective, and if you get down to it, this is why the court did what it did


You can waive it around and point out hwo they are limiting freedom of press, but it isn't goign to keep youout of trouble.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report