The Remote Drone
getting up close for 4K pictures /film
does not care , Ammi.

They are not being taken in a perverse way..its the press. Its about selling newspapers and making money. Im not saying its right but its not creepy.

...well, it’s good that drone is getting sued McSuefaced then, Arista...because taking photographs in someone’s home without their invitation/permission is not acceptable at all...if someone was doing that in our own homes, we would definitely feel creeped out by it...

I know who the Duke of Gloucester is but he isnt a prince :shrug:

I would say taking photos of people without their consent or initial awareness of it is creepy.

It may not be the "sexually perverted" kinda creepy, but still creepy regardless imo.

I'm sure you'd be this relaxed if the press were doing this to your kids. So many parents in here defending things that any normal parent would find completely unacceptable,

not 4k :skull:

that is truly a invasion of privacy, if you got best of best camera quality

They are asking for it.


More 4K Drones are going to Photo them.

Its LA
money to be made

You do not know that... you don’t know them as people no one does, their full intentions isn’t clear. The person who took them could secretly be a nonce who sold pics and used them for their own pleasure.

The child is 1 years old as i mentioned, it’s really creepy to do it regardless what the intention is. Makes me shiver that people do it

...the whole point of it is that they didn’t ask for it, Arista...

Well no one spotted him in there , did they? :hee:

The press can be pretty perverse to be fair, remember when trying to get "upskirt" pictures of female celebrities was a thing? Or that time Kate Middleton was photographed topless in the grounds of a holiday home in France by paparazzi with long lense cameras?

Something needs to be done, child/baby pics should always be authorised by the parents, i know they are celebrities but that doesn’t matter. Background checks too because they are dodgy people out there. Children should have protection no matter what.

Even that’s creepy. I don’t know why that was allowed either

...they’re in California, in the land of sunshine and outdoor swimming pools ...who would know if any Meghan or Archie would be naked, if Archie would...even if not, is it appropriate for any of them to be photographed in swimsuits in their homes for instance...or would that be considered creepy, because I find it so...if any photographs appeared online of their child in a swimsuit or naked in a pool...then would they have appeared not diligent enough to have allowed that to happen...

Im not Royalty...and thats the difference. I have clearly stated it is an invasion of privacy and unacceptable but when you are famous or Royal thats the sort of press coverage you sadly get.
Ive seen famous people getting married with paparazzi in helicopters trying to get shots...drones will come in to play now.

I wonder how they knew
It was a camera drone, that it was taking pictures, that the pictures were of the son and that the drone was for them?

I take it lots of people fly drones in LA?

I agree...they can be.

Living in LA
they are asking for it.


They need a Sniper
that can shoot those $5K drones down

That was German tabloid, different laws there

...I think it’s more they are living, they are asking for it...?...except they haven’t asked for it, it’s the media obsession with them regardless of where they are living...

Wow literally anything to have a pop at our Megs.

People actually defending the press though :umm2:

We ho buys the newspapers?

We ho

I don't know why people on the thread who are parents are being dragged for this, they moved away from the UK to get away from press intrusion but then moved to LA 'for a quiet life' did they think the press would ignore them or something, any parent in their position who truly wanted to protect their child wouldn't have done that imo