Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miller wins nude photographs case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Miller wins nude photographs case

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7195605.stm

    I'm actually not sure what to think on this one...

    One the one hand: sure, the paparazzo was out of line in invading a private set and taking nude pictures of Sienna. On the other hand: isn't she going to be completely nude in the movie anyway? For all to see? What's the difference between the approved production still from the movie (featured below) and the now illegal pic of her (which I now obviously can't post here)? For those who haven't seen the now banned pics, it shows her, on the very same shoot, entering the water and running back out. I'm a bit confused about the perceived harm this has inflicted on Ms. Sienna. Or maybe I'm just missing the point.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    What's the Difference?

    The difference is money and ownership rights.

    She was on a production set, where she was working. She was being paid by her employer for her acting and image. Sure, images of her at that time will be released, but only to paying customers. And she will receive a portion of those proceeds.

    Also, she, as an actress, owns her own image. She sells it (as well as her acting abilities) to people who want to pay her for it. She didn't give the paparazzi the okay to take her picture, so, in essence, they were stealing from her.

    Its the same as someone sneaking into a sound studio where a big-name artist is recording his/her new album, taping it, and selling copies of it themselves. They're going to release the music soon anyway, right?

    If she had been on a nude beach, then I don't think she would have the same right.

    Hope I made sense.

    Stay nude.

    bg

    Comment


    • #3
      "Hope I made sense."

      You made perfect sense.
      There is a big difference between taking pictures in a public place and breaking into a private place.
      A movie set is a private place.

      Comment


      • #4
        Reply to thread

        Sounds as if the photographer violated her rights by taking her picture from private property without permission or asking.

        If the picture was taken with long lens from a public street, road or right of way it would have been another matter. [In the U.S.A.]

        The UK photo restrictions and the U.S. regulations could also be different on the subjects and photographers rights.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by brainyguy9999 View Post
          The difference is money and ownership rights.

          Its the same as someone sneaking into a sound studio where a big-name artist is recording his/her new album, taping it, and selling copies of it themselves. They're going to release the music soon anyway, right?

          bg
          Yeap; very good analogy. It makes sense to me now. There is a fiduciary aspect to the situation that I hadn't contemplated until now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Difference = $$$$$$$$$

            Comment


            • #7
              I was able to find the photos of her on the set. Don't know if they are the illegal ones or not, but she is fully nude. I figure I better not post the link here just in case!

              Comment


              • #8
                As others have said the "difference" is money and choice! She chose to be filmed naked in the movie and was paid for this. The picture was ssnapped without her knowledge or permission for the sole purpose of making money for someone else.

                Comment

                Working...
                X