Supernova said:

What's great is, no I won't. I've successfully beaten my Org addiction! I very rarely pop in to hate on Prince or check on something with Lenny (namely, Cindy's absence). As for whatever Prince does next...it doesn't matter to me. His heart isn't in the music anymore, and he believes the shitloads of hype they throw his way. I just sold my Summerfest tix yesterday - at a loss - and I'm relieved that I won't have to bother. I'm free - it's a good feeling.

I hope the photographer wins...I think it's unfair for famous people and their bodyguards to act as owners of the world...he was in a public place, not in his bed or inside his territory, so...this is unjust!!!! Sorry, Prince...as much as I love you and appreciate your work, I am being fair!

newdawn said:

Of course you can.

It's not polite.

It's probably rude.

But unless a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (for example they are in sitting in their living room) you can take all the pictures you want.

If you've never walked the path of a celebrity, how can one rendered a judgement about what is a violation of privacy and what is not of the victim? How can you say it's sick to pry in the man's personal life which you have judged to be private, but say it's not a violation of privacy for someone to take his picture; wasn't he certainly experiencing a personal moment when he was simple trying to get to his destination?

Does a man of fame have a right to a moment's privacy even in an airport? It wasn't like he had given a concert for the people waiting for their flights. Shall he buy a private jet to accomphish this goal of wanting to be left alone when he is not working?

Yes, I would have been overly excited to see Prince at the airport. As a matter of fact, I would have watched him until he boarded his plane or until my flight was ready to leave. I would have waved at him, there is nothing wrong with speaking to strangers, more of us should try it sometimes. However, I never would have approached him or even came within a hundred feet to look at him, and I certainly would not have snapped his picture. Although we know him, we don't KNOW him, and he certainly doesn't know us.

I think he is right to countersue, you have a right to ur privacy, famous or not.

Besides, Prince is hot right now, Gold diggers will commense to digging if he let's them.

Peace and love everyone.

SummerRain said:

cool for you - i would snap his picture and if he seriously tried to take my camera i would sue his ass. end of story. and i would win, too.

i'm not going to climb up a tree and take a picture of him having a wank in his garden, but i can take a picture of what i damn well want at an airport.

can't wait till he comes to england and i can get my nikon out...

TheFrog said:

Well, psychotics like you are the reasons why Celebrities need bodyguards. But you are right, you have the right to take a picture of anything you want at an airport, but you don't have the right to take a picture of another individual, a person, not a thing, when you feel like it.

Prince just seems like a major prick. Over and over again he seems the total asshole. Oh well.

Prince is a nice a guy because if it was me, not only would I have countersued, i would have put a restraining order on the guy.

SummerRain said:

don't you?

SummerRain said:

lol!
i'm as psychotic as a fluffy bunny for goodness sake! no-one needs a bodyguard when i'm around because i have absolutely no desire to get up close and personal with a celebrity; i just may (and frankly i may not give a shit) want a picture for my photo album. i'm not seriously going to go and camp out at the airport, for heaven's sake - i've got far better things to do with my time. this is just a point of principle i'm making - prince is point blank WRONG on this issue. if i climb a tree and take a picture of him in his garden - fine, i'm infringing his privacy. he's a public figure in an innocuous public place - he is straight up going to get sued by me if he tries to take my camera.

how on earth is that psychotic ? how on earth was my earlier post psychotic ?
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 10:24:22 2004 by TheFrog]

it's rude 2 take someone's

picture without their permission

it is not fair game 2 violate

the privacy of a public figure

even if that person is in public

prince should win this case

starkitty said:

I don't take pictures of anyone without there permission in an intimate setting. Prince was in an intimate setting when this guy took his picture. The only scenario I would support that doesn't violate the man's right to privacy is if Prince was at a club or a at concert, and his face happened to be in the picture because people were taking pictures of their friends. This guy diliberately took a picture of him for self intended purposes without permission. His reasons for snapping Prince's picture is irrellevant because he took it without his permission.
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 10:38:50 2004 by SummerRain]

TheFrog said:

I certainly do not want to get into a word war with you because the issues at hand are not about you and I. It's about what is right and what is wrong. So, I apologize for referring to you as being psychotic.

I guess in this situation, the person taking the pictures was simply selfish in my opinion. Why can't we consider the feelings of others before we react?
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 10:37:43 2004 by SummerRain]

SummerRain said:

well, it's very graceful of you to apologise but no offence intended - it made me laugh. i agree that we should think about the feelings of others before we act. it's a question of balancing rights of individuals. everyone agrees that there's a line which must not be overstepped in relation to the right of privacy. people just disagree on where that line should be drawn.

personally (and i'm not a US lawyer, but i'd be horrified and staggered if this went to court and prince won on the facts known to us) i think that a public figure in a public place such as an airport has to live in the real world - the right to privacy is, on the whole, very warily enforced (at least in the UK) because it dangerously infringes on other rights if you're not careful. if prince was taking a leak - fair enough. That's over the line. But just getting off a plane? not in my book.

we should think about the feelings of others before we act - true, and i think that's particularly important in the case of prince / his bodyguard. taking a picture in the open of a public figure without his consent vs. forcibly removing a camera off someone (which is battery)?

i love the dude's music, but he's banging his head against a brick wall on this one, i really think so.

I think Prince has gotten a little too full of himself. What pisses me off is that people strive half their lives to reach fame and fortune. When they get it, they become complete assholes. Now, how would Prince or any other celebrity feel if the public suddenly lost ALL interest in them? What if no paparazzi or fans or reporters or anybody was clammering to get an interview, take a picture, get an autograph, or anntie up their hard-earned-money to buy concert tickets and memorabilia, not to mention CD's and all the other sundry goods? What if all that disappeared overnight and no one gave a rat's ass what he did! I bet his ass would do a 360.

Don't get me wrong. I love Prince as much as the next fan, but sometimes his Gemini self gets on my damn nerves. I know Geminis...they can be some of the most charming folks to grace the face of the earth, but they can be snakes in the grass as well. They LOVE control and have a very very difficult time relinquishing it. If they don't have it, they'll take their ball and go home.

So I agree with the person who said earlier that if Prince doesn't want to be bothered in airports, charter a private plane and hanger! How dare he get pissed because someone took his picture in a public airport. And Prince probably did allow his bodyguard to take the boy's camera. If Prince claims he did not instruct the bodyguard to do it, then he should have told the man to give the camera back and apologize for any misunderstanding. And while I'm at it, bible thumpers are the worst offenders...

it would be different if he had been on his own private property but he was out in public and he wasnt a journalist and even if he was there would be no case anyway .
its sad this is happening the guy was just a fan like all of us here and it seems as though hes being made an example of

SummerRain said:

i'm not saying it's good etiquette, i'm just actually curious if one has the right.

but i believe that's been established.

Hello? It was in an airport! A public place. Are people really that ignorant about the laws that govern public spaces? He did not need anyone's permission to take that picture. I am astonished people would try to argue Prince was in the right in this situation.
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 13:05:30 2004 by freakebear]

Rudy said:

Talk is cheap, and you're still here.

Supernova said:

Ditto Supernova

Because if you was really threw with prince and the org, you wouldn't be here flappin your jaws. If you are so threw with Prince why don't you go on your current idol's website instead of somebody you are supposedly done with.

You're free. Free yourself on some other org!

freakebear said:

EXcuse you, the airport is a public place but he was there for an intimate (personal) reason, therefore making the setting intimate when the guy took the picture. This man appears to be a stalker, in my opinion.

Thank you..
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 15:04:14 2004 by SummerRain]

TheFrog said:

Where is it in the constitution that states that an individual or individuals have the right to take pictures of others against their will for private purposes?

Everyone is focusing on the CAMERA and not the RIGHTS of whom was violated.
[This message was edited Fri Jun 18 14:58:39 2004 by SummerRain]

SummerRain said:

well, i'm not a US citizen so i'm not going to pretend to know how your legal system works. but i'm guessing the constitution doesn't say you can pick your nose in public either (and i'd struggle to see how that would fall within freedom of expression). even countries with a constitution (unless they cover every eventuality) generally afford their citizens rights which aren't specifically laid down. but that is a side-issue, really, and i'll hold up my hands and admit i don't know enough about the US constitution to address that point.

however, on your second point - it's not that i was focussing on the camera and not the rights - i was specifically focussing on the rights. i was suggesting that if one believes that taking a picture of prince in an innocuous place in public is wrong (and i personally don't), then even if that is the case, a far, far greater infringement of rights took place with the taking of the camera. I don't personally think we need to get that far, because i don't see that taking the picture of a public person in a public place in the first place is wrong. But if we do go that far, then prince's bodyguard (and prince if he either ordered it, or he was vicariously responsible for the bodyguard's actions) is far more in the wrong than the fan who just wanted a picture of his idol.

SummerRain said:

How about we focus on the law? In the U.S., courts have generally found that taking photos of people or events that occur in a public place and that are generally observable by anyone in that place does not typically constitute an invasion of privacy. That is why Prince's case will be hard to win.

As a practical matter, if photographers had to to get the permission of every celebrity they took a picture of in the public, the tabloids would've been shut down a long time ago.

SummerRain said:

You're joking, right? You think the kid is a stalker because he took a picture?

Whatever reason Prince was there, a public place is a public place is a public place. And there is no law against taking someone's photo in a public place. Nobody has a right to privacy in a public place. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

SummerRain said:

Prince should take thr rough with the smooth. He courts publicity when HE wants it but doesn't want his photo taken unless HE controls it.

Besides, the whole issue is about assault. Are you SURE that if Prince or Trevor ASKED the kid to delete the photo he would have. ASSAULTING the kid and STEALING his camera was not an adult and sensible way to resolve the issue.

What your saying is that Prince has the RIGHT to steal the camera and assault a 15 year old kid ?!?!?!

.

SummerRain said:

So now it's not an "intimate setting" but an "intimate (personal) reason"?

Now I know that you either
a) must be joking or
b) have a strenous relationship with semantics and logic

CokeJohnson said:

Have you ever thought that the box you try to put others in is the box you need to be in? OR are you so far gone off of yourself that you don't understand that the chicken came before the egg and you the believe the explanation of life is spontaneous generation?

Because of your tendencies, maybe you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the word "intimate" does not refer to only a sexual appetite. I don't know, I am simply speculating as you are. You know yourself better than I.

But all this hate is irrelevant because when clears the smoke clears, all the that matters is how much love is in our hearts.

Again, this is not about you and I, or what we think about each other, it's about what is right and what is wrong. So don't post another attack against me. Debate the facts. On second thought, I refuse this discus this with you further, because I feel like I am talking to "president" Bush....

Furher comments from you whether they are bashing or not will be ignored. Your futures comments to me will be pointless, but your profile I've derived from your conversaitons indicates that you'll post anyway because you like to be heard, and you have issues with aggression. You probably think NO means YES.

Thanks for listening.

I wish you peace and love.

freakebear said:

I never said he was, I said appeared to be one. But what if he was? You can't know someone by appearances only, so are you saying a stalker has the right to collect personal information about a particular indivdual with the intent to gain access to that person simply because he waited until the victim was in the society? I believe that's why there is a clause in the consitution that advocates the right of privacy. It gives tools to protect ourself from these types of perpetrators.

Universaluv said:

How many photos do you own of Prince? Or maybe you don't remember how Princess Diana died.
[This message was edited Sat Jun 19 11:28:55 2004 by SummerRain]
[This message was edited Sat Jun 19 11:29:32 2004 by SummerRain]