Prince Harry and Meghan involved in near fatal crash

Oh, let me count the ways I love this. How nuts is it that their attorney(s) think that they can demand anything?

But it’s ok to take pictures of people without their permission and then use those pictures to make money?  And after taking pictures of someone without their permission that will be used to make money if these individuals, who did not give their permission, should ask for copies of the pictures for whatever reason are being ridiculous?

Sorry I strongly disagree with that thinking.

When a public figure is out in PUBLIC, there is no permission required. And the photographer who took the photo owns the copyright. I am not condoning bad behavior when paparazzi cross the line such as trespassing on private property or endangering someone’s life, but taking photos of subjects in public for editorial use is part and parcel of our free press and protected free speech.  You may not agree with it, but that's what it is.

       I'd really like to answer you, but I just got done medicating myself for prevention of my migraines and I'm extremely high. 

       I'll be back with a coherent answer tomorrow. 

There are limitations when it comes to freedom of speech.  One of them I just read is the right to privacy.  I believe a strong argument could be made that when a person is out in PUBLIC they should not lose their right to privacy.  

When I go out and do whatever nobody bothers me.  Certainly not swarms of photographers.  I hazard a guess that majority of the people on this board don’t have to worry about being swarmed by photographers either.

But when the celebrity of the months goes out say to go to the grocery store, they could be and in many cases they are surrounded by photographers snapping pictures to make money with.    At that point the celebrity loses their right to privacy by not being able to run a simple errand without dodging photographers taking their picture. Something the vast majority of Americans never experience.

The idea that when one is seen as a celebrity they should  lose that right to privacy that the majority of us enjoy when we step out the door is not right.

So in my opinion the right to privacy should be extended to include one being free from being accosted on the street by those who are trying to make a buck off their likeness and without their permission because they are seen as a “celebrity “.   It’s the right thing to do.

There are limitations on just about everything and this should be one of them.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces when other people can see you and your actions. Try undressing the next time you’re at the park and see if you can invoke a right to privacy.

Listen, I’m not excusing those who will harass and break laws, and H&M are not the first nor will they be the last to complain about the paparazzi. I’m certain it’s not pleasant to have your every move photographed and scrutinized. The thing is you can’t turn on or off the paparazzi at will. You can’t expect them to shove off when they shoot unsolicited photos, but then depend on them for publicity when you need it. As long as media outlets buy the photos, which is not illegal, I think it’s rather naïve of H&M as notable figures to think/expect paparazzi will only take pics if they have their permission to do so or only when H&M can exercise editorial control over the end product. At some point, they have to accept the fact that they’ll be photographed wherever they are in public, which again, is not illegal, whether it suits them or not. Of course they’re entitled to privacy like anyone else, but there are things beyond their control when they’re physically in the public sphere or a place where no expectation of privacy can reasonably exist.

I understand all that but once again there are limitations on Free Speech which means others can be added.

Sometimes I watch this New York live streamer on YouTube. I was watching him right after the US hit some Russian Oligarch with sanctions.  Several have homes in NY and the New York Post printed their addresses.  Most were in the Upper East Side so this guy decided to walk them so we could see. Didn’t see anybody until the last house and there was a TV station filming.  What he did was pause across the street from each house and then move on.

After the last house he was walking down 5th Ave by the Plaza Hotel.  All of a sudden the feed died.  One minute he was talking and the next minute he was gone.  He started streaming about 10-15 minutes later and you could tell he was upset.  It seems while he was streaming his phone and stuff just stopped.  A man in a dark suit had used some device to cut the signal and then proceeded to tell this guy to never stream on the street where the last house was again. He then walked across the street and got into a black SUV with a couple of other guys and they just sat there watched him for a bit.  So while he telling the story I’m yelling at my iPad that he should go tell them to bug off because he every right to livestream on that street. Of course I’m 3,000 away so I can be brave. We decided that guy was part of the security team for the guy in the last house flexing his muscles.  But that security guard was wrong to do what he did.

So I understand all that BUT at the same time this streamer has the right to stream on public property a “celebrity “ should have the right to step outdoors or get in a car after an event and not be surrounded/followed by photographers. To me a person doesn’t have to be indoors to have their privacy infringed upon.  Or have someone get in your face.  So maybe a change/new limitation is in order.

I know you are going to disagree with this. 😀. So I will say we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.   But seriously something needs to be done.

Of course they need those photos, they want to be sure Oprah has them for her special and it’s  material for the book.

Give her a minute to see what Twitter says

So many things happened that don't make sense to me:

• Why they didn't find a way to leave the event from a more private exit instead of through paparazzi that were at the venue for this event?
  
• If there were 4 SUVs in their entourage, why not split up so no one would know which car they were in? This would at least minimize the number of paparazzi that followed them.
  
• How did they feel more safe fully visible in Sonny's taxi cab with one guard than in one their own SUVs with tinted windows?

They came out of this looking like complete fools to me - that the police, the mayor and Sonny the cab driver are making statements is absurd.  But they double down and demand photos to increase their security procedures which so presumptuous but also unnecessary since they are on the internet. ha!  I loved Backbridge's response.  

My feelings about them are fairly neutral and I understand some of their concerns but they embellish/lie and use so much hyperbole...it's hard to take them seriously.

Not directed to anyone in particular. Just the ones who love to hate them. If that’s not you, then no.

A high speed car chase would be news even if H&M were not involved because it’s nearly impossible to attain any speed at all in NYC traffic. We’re they in a hovercraft or something?

       Actually I was feeling fantastic. I use medical marijuana every day to prevent migraines and since I've been using it for the past 4 years (on the advice of my neurologist) my migraines have decreased from occurring 25 days a month to 4 days a month. I've had migraines for 43 years. I've tried every pharmaceutical drug ever invented to treat them (practically) but MM works the best I've ever tried and it's fun for me too. I also use it to treat my migraines when I get one and it works extremely well to abort (stop) migraines too. I'm grateful my doctor suggested I try MM as a treatment. The fun part for me is mother nature's way of a reward for dealing with the pain of migraines for so many years. 

Anyway, I told you I'd come back to this thread with an answer and here I am. Lots of the Peas have given terrific, thought provoking answers to your questions and comments. Here's mine: The paparazzi exist. It's a fact. In one way some  celebrities owe part of their success to paparazzi-if it wasn't for those photos being published at the beginning of their careers and the exposure they provided, who knows if those celebrities would have even made it as far as they did in their careers? Meghan was an actress before she married Harry. She has had experience with paparazzi and knows the ins and outs of dealing with them-and the good they have provided for her career in the past. She also knows the negative side and should by now know how to avoid them. 

It's also a fact that when you are in public if you are Joe Nobody or if you are a celebrity it is legal for anyone to take your photo. That's the law. It's also a law that whoever takes the photo (clicks the shutter) owns the copyright to that that photo and gets to decide who to sell the rights to reproduce it to or not sell it at all. In fact, that copyright stays with the photographer even after death for a certain number of years. 

I think Meghan's problem is that she likes to be in control. Of everything. She wants her cake and she wants to eat it too. That letter demanding all copies of all photos, videos and/or films taken by the freelance photographers was in one way insulting to the photographers and in another typical Meghan wanting to be in control of everything. In my humble opinion. 

As another Pea pointed out there were numerous ways H and M could have tried to avoid the paparazzi that night from slipping out a back door, to breaking up their 4 van entourage, to never leaving the vans with their tinted windows. Personally I think the entire thing was a farce to play up the "poor me, I'm a victim" scheme complete with Princess Diana overtures. 

I think they bring all of this on themselves. I've always believed you can tell more about someone from their actions than from their words. Harry and Meghan had a very good chance to live a private, quiet life away from the Royals, the press and all of it when they made the decision to leave the Royal family. They could have settled somewhere privately in Canada or America, gone forward, doing their charity work quietly and living a peaceful, quiet family life. But is that what they did? No!  From the Oprah interview, to the Spare book, to the Netflix series, to Harry's numerous TV interviews-they constantly bring attention to themselves. Not to mention how they air dirty laundry and lie again and again. I don't respect them anymore. I can't. 

"going to agree to disagree" that's your catchphrase for "I'm right and I won't hear otherwise." Get off your high horse.