|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Aug 20, 2010 20:52:21 GMT
I'm just curious - I'm not necessarily saying we'll stop posting them.   Please note: the poll runs for seven days, and you can change your vote before it closes. |
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Aug 20, 2010 21:51:47 GMT
i have not seen one here that seemed to involve any excessive action on the part of the paps. if ever it comes to that, i will be the first to holler.
but i doubt very much that our distinguished and beloved mods would post questionable photos.
as a group, we seem to tend towards focusing on "authorized" photos anyway.
but sometimes i must say that i wonder if there are possible consequences from the use of copyrighted photos, other than "take them down, women". i wonder if the board could get in legal trouble. but, if since was the case, we would all be in prison by now.
|
|
|
|
Post by judypatooty on Aug 20, 2010 23:12:49 GMT
I agree with Tipou on this.
I don't think Roof puts himself in the typical situations where the pap photos are so questionable. You don't see photos of him stumbling out of LA nightclubs falling down drunk. I think any celebrity realizes that if they go shopping at the Grove, the chances are very good that a pap will take a photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by rugirl on Aug 20, 2010 23:41:55 GMT
I know that shopping at The Grove similar public places puts him in the spotlight, so to speak, but video and photos of him at dinner or on a plane (as appears on YouTube) I think are really out of place. Also pictures of Billy, I think. But since the board doesn't ever do this, thank you mods, we should be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by kygal on Aug 21, 2010 0:01:21 GMT
I must admit I like to see or read anything I can about Rufus. I do want to respect his privacy and be respectful of him...but I also like to see pictures of him out and about. Its just part of the territory for anyone in the public eye (not saying that makes it right though). Some of the paps seem to be very rude and aggressive these days. Seems Rufus is able , for the most part , to enjoy his activities of daily living without to much intrusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Aug 21, 2010 2:51:24 GMT
I'm with the general consensus here, and i tend to think we take pap photos on a case by case basis.
I tend to think "out shopping" type shots are fair enough, but we would probably draw the line at photos taken at a private event, especially those that involve Billy or other members of his family.
It's a difficult thing to have a blanket policy on - as i said, i think we need to take them on a case by case basis as decided by admin/mods.
It's not like we're overrun by new photos of him, so somethimes we just have to take what we get!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by walt on Aug 21, 2010 7:46:44 GMT
I'm afraid that nowadays the privacy of any famous person is affected not only by the paps, but also by anyone with a mobile or digicam.
So I think much depends on the decision what is regarded as privat or not.
Being a Rufus-fan, I'm of course glad about every picture of him, but I would not like to see anything that must clearly annoy him.
And I appreciate that our admin/mob are very sensible about this problem. It's just like numbat said, it depends on the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by nell on Aug 21, 2010 10:44:04 GMT
This is a really tricky one. I guess I made my opinions known over in the Twitter thread. I'd like to clarify though that I'm not critisising anyone for posting photo's on this board. Far from it. Like I said before we all love to see new pics of Rufus and that includes me, particularly when they're recent shots and show him looking happy and healthy. I think we've got it about right here. Avoiding anything particularly invasive. It's difficult to say this is ok or that's ok I think as numbat said it needs to be a case by case basis.
I'd say the only thing we need to avoid is putting up photo's in a situation that Rufus would object to. Yes he's in the public eye but that doesn't make him public property.
On the other hand I'm sure he realises that publicity is a good thing too.
However, if ever a pic of Rufus coming out the gents doing his flies up comes out I don't think the board would the the right place. Therefore please pm it to me ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Aug 21, 2010 11:00:21 GMT
but sometimes i must say that i wonder if there are possible consequences from the use of copyrighted photos, other than "take them down, women". i wonder if the board could get in legal trouble. but, if since was the case, we would all be in prison by now. Shhhhhhhh!!!! Technically, I suppose the answer is yes, but once photos are posted in several places, I suspect it would be difficult to argue exclusivity any longer. Besides, in the main we put links to the source, so if anything, they get more traffic to their sites. Quid pro quo?  I'm with the general consensus here, and i tend to think we take pap photos on a case by case basis. I tend to think "out shopping" type shots are fair enough, but we would probably draw the line at photos taken at a private event, especially those that involve Billy or other members of his family. Exactly. Like most people have said, if he's out and about he knows he might get papped - it's part of the territory in his line of work, more so with the higher-profile work he is doing. There is a world of difference between pics taken where he knows paps are around, and those taken clandestinely, with telephotos lenses, in a private home or somewhere like that. The only pics of Billy allowed are those from events that Rufus has taken him to and where he is clearly aware his son is being photographed. Quite!! ;D I'm pretty sure that was a typo, but  nonetheless! |
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Aug 21, 2010 11:04:34 GMT
Sorry, Nell, I was composing my last reply while you were posting yours. I'd like to clarify though that I'm not critisising anyone for posting photo's on this board. Far from it. I didn't think for a minute you were criticising, Nell - it was fair comment, which is why I thought it would be a good idea to see what everyone thinks, via a poll for those who'd rather not comment publically. Oh, how fickle! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stama on Aug 21, 2010 11:27:34 GMT
I am well aware of our copyright in our country. I think other countries are similar to this. That is one side issue. Nobody here does not violate this, I think. Another side of things is a taste of conscience and it is very good here. Rufus is an actor and that his profession sometimes bear the loss of privacy, he knows it very well and he behaves in such a way, I think. What is moral and what is our personal moral consideration, I have a conscience yet. I agree with all or so, I think, therefore. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by walt on Aug 22, 2010 8:30:19 GMT
:-[I'm sorry, I did not want to offend anyone, I was just in a hurry and intended to use an abbreviation for members of board....  |
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Aug 22, 2010 10:38:36 GMT
Oh, Walt, sorry, I was just teasing - I thought you meant to put "mod" for "moderators"! Nothing to be sorry for or embarrassed about, honestly!
|
|
|
|
Post by ukelelehip on Aug 22, 2010 18:22:33 GMT
...now can we get the twitter lady to post the photo she took of him with her iPhone??...
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Aug 22, 2010 19:52:54 GMT
just the fact that one of our mod would ask the question and that we are discussing the issue shows that this board is unlikely to show questionable material.
i trust us to go on "business as usual" style.
... what about the twitter lady taking pics of rufus and keeping them for herself?
|
|
