[The Slim Reaper]

Annie selling her authorised baby photo rights to hello, then fighting for Megan's rights to do the same. You love to see it.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

I think that's what they are doing by suing

Royal, Celebrity or normal person, you have the right to privacy in your own home and to not expect the safety of your child to be compromised by unauthorised photographs being taken.

Absolutely right Annie..

[Swan]

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Swan

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

Even if they did have professional pictures taken of their kids it is vastly different than a random bloke taking pictures of them using a drone.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

Even if they did have professional pictures taken of their kids it is vastly different than a random bloke taking pictures of them using a drone.

Can you seriously not see the difference?

Oh i see the difference, i also see the hypocrisy too. It's the whole 'we don't want media attention, actually we do, but on our terms only'

That's not how it works when you're an A list celeb like they are.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

People who think like you honestly disturb me.

A parent can pick and choose where a picture of their child is take and put, taking a photo with a photographer in a safe environment is totally normal, flying a ****ing drone over a home to slyly sneak pictures of kids is disgusting.

People like you disturb me too when they can't quite grasp what im saying, and heaven't read my other posts in this thread.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Swan

Sad thing is, watch in 6 months when they make a deal (for a huge sum) with OK for pictures of their kid to be plastered all over the rag.

That's not really the point though is it Swan , and even if they do decide to do that it's irrelevant.

Arranging a photo or magazine deal is on your terms and it's a mutual agreement. How can you think a drone / paparazzi flying over someone's home without their permission is the same ??? .

Even the biggest lime light lover would still need privacy to recuperate and relax .

[jet]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

That's not really the point though is it Swan , and even if they do decide to do that it's irrelevant.

Arranging a photo or magazine deal is on your terms and it's a mutual agreement. How can you think a drone / paparazzi flying over someone's home without their permission is the same ??? .

Even the biggest lime light lover would still need privacy to recuperate and relax .

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by jet

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

Put yourself in their shoes would you be happy? , yeah so what ?? What about famous actors in Hollywood are you saying they don't deserve any privacy Either? .

This isn't Sandra bullock walking down the street with shades or Chris Hemsworth in a coffee shop ie public places .

If bullock & Hemsworth were in their gardens & homes then it would be crossing the line for paparazzi to photograph & spy on them .

why is thst hard to understand ? Especially when Harry & Meghan have a child they're trying to protect .

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Put yourself in their shoes would you be happy? , yeah so what ?? What about famous actors in Hollywood are you saying they don't deserve any privacy Either? .

This isn't Sandra bullock walking down the street with shades or Chris Hemsworth in a coffee shop ie public places .

If bullock & Hemsworth were in their gardens & homes then it would be crossing the line for paparazzi to photograph & spy on them .

why is thst hard to understand ? Especially when Harry & Meghan have a child they're trying to protect .

Because it means agreeing with something Meghan is doing... they despise her that much that they refuse to see things rationally.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by jet

As has just been said on Sky News, there was an agreement with the UK press not to take any photos of them or any royal children unless they were authorised. They walked away from all that knowingly into a lion’s den.
They can live anywhere they want to, but they chose LA, the paparazzi capital of the world? If they really want the privacy they insist they do, does that make any sense?

No one wants to acknowledge this Jet or to admit that they lied about their reasons for leaving the UK, if they had been upfront to begin with it might have been a different story

[bots]

in america, the laws differ state to state but the principle is

Photography may be prohibited or restricted by a property owner on their property. However, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not within the bounds of the property.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

in america, the laws differ state to state but the principle is

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

You can hone on on google earth if you had a mind to on peoples property so not sure what the law is

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully, not quite sure why Harry and Meg’s can’t do the same, .cake and eat it springs to mind with these two

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

You can hone on on google earth if you had a mind to on peoples property so not sure what the law is

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully, not quite sure why Harry and Meg’s can’t do the same, .cake and eat it springs to mind with these two

He managed a very secret life indeed

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

He managed a very secret life indeed

Princess Anne is the hardest working Royal and we don't hear a word about it
she is the perfect Royal tbh, seen but not heard

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalt...irus-pandemic/

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

He managed a very secret life indeed

I wouldn't say hanging out in pizza express in woking was particularly secret.

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Anne, Edward and Andrew (until now) managed to avoid much public scrutiny and have lived their lives pretty peacefully

I mean

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Mitchell

I mean

Some charity event? what’s your point, Anne goes about her duties and there is no fanfare, she is the future Kings sister just like Harry is the future Kings brother, if he really wanted a quite life it’s there for him, how often do you read about Anne ...rarely yet she carries out the most duties

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I mean are we not all open to drones flying over our property taking photos? or is there a law against it?

According to Californian law:

"This law prohibits entering the airspace of an individual in order to capture an image or recording of that individual engaging in a private, personal or familial activity without permission. This legislation is a response to the use of UAS by the press in covering celebrities and other public figures."

[Liam-]

So taking pictures of someone’s child on private property isn’t creepy, as long as the person is in the public eye? That’s beyond ridiculous, but anything to attack Meghan I suppose

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Liam-

So taking pictures of someone’s child on private property isn’t creepy, as long as the person is in the public eye? That’s beyond ridiculous, but anything to attack Meghan I suppose

It would be creepy if the person wanted them for themselves yes, but I assume they were taken for money? .so no I don’t find it particularly creepy, just someone seizing an opportunity

[LukeB]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It would be creepy if the person wanted them for themselves yes, but I assume they were taken for money? .so no I don’t find it particularly creepy, just someone seizing an opportunity

But they could have. taken it for money and their own pleasure... no one actually knows what they are going to do with that picture thats how wrong it is. It’s still creepy regardless

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LukeB

But they could have. taken it for money and their own pleasure... no one actually knows what they are going to do with that picture thats how wrong it is. It’s still creepy regardless

It no more creepy than someone in the bushes with a long lens its just a new twist on that

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

It no more creepy than someone in the bushes with a long lens its just a new twist on that

That's creepy enough as well tbf