What's the big deal with boobs? You see one, you've seen them both.
A Spanish court has ruled that celebrities exposed by the country's jub-hungry tabloid press must accept that they're a legitimate news target for the cameras, whether they happen to be wearing a bikini top or not. According to El Mundo, the Civil Division of the High Court has overturned a 2003 decision in favour of former …
Just because she's a semi celebrity shouldn't mean fat pigs are allowed to publish photos and make money on her back.
They want a photo ?
Fine, cough up for it.
Photos taken during public events such as Cannes Festival or movie promotion tours are a thing.
Photos taken while invading someone else's privacy are another.
Would YOU like your topless photo on the frontpage because your tits are of "general public interest" ?
3) Nothing in this world fills me with greater rage than celebrities whining about invasion of privacy. As soon as you agree to a photoshoot for your own self-publicity then you have signed a Faustian deal in which you essentially belong to the media and the public at large. That's all there is to it. I have spoken.
If someone wants to get their kit off in public then they need to understand that it is IN PUBLIC. I'd support their right to do it, but they can't complain about then being watched.
What the flip has this to with IT, Sci. Tech or anything of relevance to our stumblings?
You seem to have mistaken me (for one) for someone who gives shit!
And another thing......... I'm seriously considering starting a campaign to make The Reg a Celeb Free Zone. Anyone else with me?
How about the tag line: Ignore a Celeb today! Go on try it!
That's the point though, the photos are not invading any privacy, because they were taking in a public setting.
If said photos were of here laying topless/naked on her bed, taken through a window with a mega mega mega zoom lens, then yes, that would be invading privacy, but these were taken on a beach, where there are many other members of the public who were able to see the subject in 'it's' original context.
Here's an idea, Big-G - why don't you try refraining from clicking on any story with words like 'celebs' and 'topless' in the headline?
Alternatively, if you'd like, we can create a special version of the Reg just for you which we'll send to your inbox promptly at 9am each morning which contains nothing remotely amusing, frivolous or unconcerned with matters of consequence. Would you like that? And a biscuit? You may have a biscuit. Would you like a biscuit?
I'm with Terry Pratchett on this one.
There's thing's that the public are interested in. And there's things that are in the public interest, which the public aren't interested in (but perhaps should be).
This is definitely the first one, not the second.
I mean: if she's walking around like that in public, fair enough. But it's a bit rich to call it public interest.
But surely, and I'm no expert in Spanish law, but surely if you splash that picture across the front cover of your rag in order to sell more copies she's entitled to some payment for commercial image rights?
Sure, the celebutard loving public may find this lady's norks newsworthy and a tits-n-giggle article is probably fair game in that context but to plaster her picture all over the front page surely has to go beyond the boundaries of *ahem* celeb exposé and into commercial (advertising) use?
is of no consequence.
If the nerds and nerdettes only want hard tech stuff can I suggest they stay locked in there basement knocking one out furiously to some odd japanese manga stuff and leave those of us who can and do appreciate the finer female form to enjoy a fine rack displayed in a beach setting.
Paris, lets see her rack on a beach
Ah, well, breasts are an excellent model for explaining class hierarchies, inheritance and interfaces.
There is still some debate as to whether jubbly is a subclass of booby or whether it should directly inherit from the 'breast' base class. Most should, of course, implement the IFondleable interface.
See, everything has an IT angle.
Being one to have grumbled about the excessive number of non-entities in the UK only famous for being gormless, can I ask if we can swap a few for the Spanish equivalent? Miss España María Reyes looks far more tasty than the Big Borther dross we have here. I'd be much less inclined to grumble if we got a few more pics of her and a lot less of Jodie Marsh or the like.
Oh, and number 4! In finest Jeff Murdock style.
/mines the dirty-old-man Mac....
"Here's an idea, Big-G - why don't you try refraining from clicking on any story with words like 'celebs' and 'topless' in the headline?
Alternatively, if you'd like, we can create a special version of the Reg just for you which we'll send to your inbox promptly at 9am each morning which contains nothing remotely amusing, frivolous or unconcerned with matters of consequence. Would you like that? And a biscuit? You may have a biscuit. Would you like a biscuit? "
Will you yourself be dropping by to hand feed us biscuits then? If so yes please
"Yes, I know it says topless but articles like this generally have a black line over the photo or a link rather than a picture of the breasts mid article."
What is NSFW?
I only clicked the link because it promised topless. Why should I then have to look at a blacked out pictiure? If it was something as repulsive as an MPs expense account, fair enough, black away.
But these were a fine pair of human breasts. The female human form is supposed to be found attractive by most male humans, as that's natural, so why would we wish to hide it? You see, there's the birds and the bees....
@THEBIG-G: Not to come off like a flamer, in neither way, but you do read like one of those sad anoraks that our dear BOFH despises. You know, the one's that go off on meandering stories about trainspotting, the foibles of the 8085 instruction set and why Captain Kirk is better than Piccard.
@Ms. Bee: Can I have one of your biscuits?
Seriously, If I was on a beach topless (not something likely to happen FYI) and someone put a picture up where everyone could see it, I would not try and sue them, I'd be more likely to go "Whoops, maybe I should have covered up" and try and draw as little attention as possible to the picture. Not get it splashed around the net to people who've never even heard of me! Maybe she just wanted a little more exposure...
PS, like the new icons :)
An imperial pint *is* what is used in England. Imperial = empire = British (in this case) => England part of Britain etc. etc.
I think you mean a US pint as it is being different as our colonial inbred cousins are rather deficient in the pint department (something like 470 ml rather than the real man's 568*)
Anyway, any fule kno you have milk with biscuits and pints with other pints (and other pints, and other pints and other pints and other pints and kebabs and chips and fight and wake up with an "oh my god!!!! how pissed was I last night????). You some sort of foreign Johnny by any chance?
*ml are by definition of being French completely anathema to anyone who does not like cheese, snails and surrendering but in this case it is the only neutral measure that suffices.
What may be "acceptable" on a beach isn't necessarily acceptable in any other context.
So a celeb on a beach may still have a right to privacy beyond the context of the beach - especially if the photo was taken without permission.
Just because a celeb is in the public's eye, doesn't mean they are totally owned by the slavering public.
Icon addressed to the Spanishs judges...
"Whoops, maybe I should have covered up"
what in the same way Suzi Perry goeson twitter and tweets "'Whoops Naughty wind I've just seen something on youtube that should'nt have happened... thank goodness for french knickers..." geeze that vid has a lot of views now!
No! surely if you don't want publicity you don't mention it. at all..
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022