Jump to content
Bellazon

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, *Luna* said:

That doesn’t automatically means it’s fun or normal. I doubt you would like to be filmed while you’re checking your luggage or when you’re out and about with your family. 


Pretty much. But apparently some basic respect and decency is not a thing for some people; it's also not even just Candice. It's her entire family, especially her children being filmed that makes the entire thing even worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, *Luna* said:

That doesn’t automatically means it’s fun or normal. I doubt you would like to be filmed while you’re checking your luggage or when you’re out and about with your family. 

 

As a multimillionaire celebrity that profits from paparazzis, honestly, I wouldn't mind. It's par of the business. Also, Candice isn't exactly hiding her kids from public considering that she shares photos and videos of them on her social media.

 

5 minutes ago, Clauds said:


Pretty much. But apparently some basic respect and decency is not a thing for some people; it's also not even just Candice. It's her entire family, especially her children being filmed that makes the entire thing even worse.

 

If you are so against it and you think it's against basic respect and decency, why do you as a moderator then allow photos of Candice and her family from the airport just three posts above you? And why is this case any different of multiple cases of Candice and her family papped on the random streets all over the world? There is literally zero difference.

 

You guys are acting like someone stuck a camera into her back yard. It's an airport, it's no different than any other public place.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarify your ideas, it's okay to put a thousand photos of Candice and her children in the airport but a video of exactly the same does not. What happens here?, I'm a pariah in this forum?. If that's the case, I'm leaving, I have no need to take these rebuffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Schemer said:

 

As a multimillionaire celebrity that profits from paparazzis, honestly, I wouldn't mind. It's par of the business. Also, Candice isn't exactly hiding her kids from public considering that she shares photos and videos of them on her social media.

 

So you’re basically saying that just because it’s part of the business it shouldn’t be considered a big deal? I highly doubt you’d like to be followed around 24/7 - I don’t think the idea of lots of paparazzi following you with camera’s in your face while you’re hanging out with family or even just running errands would be something to look forward to. Also Candice sharing pictures of her children on social media is her decision. She gets to choose what she wants to post and what not. Just because she posts pictures of het children doesn’t automatically mean it’s not weird for someone to film her + her kids without them knowing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, *Luna* said:

So you’re basically saying that just because it’s part of the business it shouldn’t be considered a big deal? I highly doubt you’d like to be followed around 24/7 - I don’t think the idea of lots of paparazzi following you with camera’s in your face while you’re hanging out with family or even just running errands would be something to look forward to. Also Candice sharing pictures of her children on social media is her decision. She gets to choose what she wants to post and what not. Just because she posts pictures of het children doesn’t automatically mean it’s not weird for someone to film her + her kids without them knowing that.

 

This pretty much sums it up :yes: I also doubt Candice is making any profit from this pictures.

 

This same thing happened with the paparazzi that got mad with Martha Hunt because she said she would sue him if he published candids of her undewear, because she's already a lingerie model so she shouldn't be mad at him. People need to have some limits and respect these women's private lives, just because they are public figures it shouldn't make it okay for them to not have some time off from cameras, even if she's at a public place, again, I don't think any of us would be happy with strangers taking our picture while we eat, are at the airport, etc.

 

53 minutes ago, Schemer said:

 

If you are so against it and you think it's against basic respect and decency, why do you as a moderator then allow photos of Candice and her family from the airport just three posts above you? And why is this case any different of multiple cases of Candice and her family papped on the random streets all over the world? There is literally zero difference.

 

You guys are acting like someone stuck a camera into her back yard. It's an airport, it's no different than any other public place.

 

 

Because it's my personal opinion, I am a moderator, not the sole forum owner therefore I don't decide if it's okay to post paparazzi pictures of her children or not. If it was my call to make it wouldn't be allowed to post paparazzi pictures of celeb children, which is a policy that multiple news outlets have adopted already, thankfully. I do however get to express my opinion on the matter which I have already, obviously. It's a thing called democracy ya know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

I highly doubt you’d like to be followed around 24/7 - I don’t think the idea of lots of paparazzi following you with camera’s in your face while you’re hanging out with family or even just running errands would be something to look forward to.

 

Candice is not being followed around 24/7 and no one has stuck camera in her face. At least I don't see any of the shots that were taken from a close range.

 

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

Also Candice sharing pictures of her children on social media is her decision. She gets to choose what she wants to post and what not. Just because she posts pictures of het children doesn’t automatically mean it’s not weird for someone to film her + her kids without them knowing that.

 

It's still a public place and people have right to take photos of her. That same rule applies for me and for you. When you are in public, your privacy stays at your home.

 

You guys are more upset by this than Candice, I bet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Schemer said:

 

Candice is not being followed around 24/7 and no one has stuck camera in her face. At least I don't see any of the shots that were taken from a close range.

 

 

It's still a public place and people have right to take photos of her. That same rule applies for me and for you. When you are in public, your privacy stays at your home.

 

You guys are more upset by this than Candice, I bet.

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, *Luna* said:

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

Waiting for that all day long footage :Amelie_wft:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MissPadilla said:

 

If she did it Vogue maybe is keeping it for next year but is kind of strange if they do that.

The only reason (if she actually made the video) that they could save for next year is if she's involved in some big project that hasn't yet been revealed (and talks about it in the video). Which I personally doubt. So I don't think there's any video, sadly. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

Upset? Lol says who? You seriously can’t convince me that you’d like to have anyone (even people who aren’t paparazzi) film you all day long without your permission, follow you around “just because” and take pictures of you. Imagine you’re standing at the register with your groceries and the person behind you just keeps taking pictures of you without stopping. Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public. That’s just ridiculous and you know people wouldn’t appreciate it at all and neither would you. You’d also ask the person to stop or atleast ask them why they feel the need to do that. 

 

1) She wasn't being followed the whole day.

 

2) No one was taking photos right behind her.

 

1 hour ago, *Luna* said:

 Flash here flash there, then a little video because according to you privacy doesn’t mean anything when you’re out in public.

 

It's not according to me, it's according to the law. Learn what the privacy is, learn what public places are and then argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Being followed all day or not or having photos taken from right behind you or from 50 feet away is irrelevant from a legal point of view. And I don't see anybody here arguing about it being legal or not, just that it's disrespectful, which it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, angelcandicebra said:

The only reason (if she actually made the video) that they could save for next year is if she's involved in some big project that hasn't yet been revealed (and talks about it in the video). Which I personally doubt. So I don't think there's any video, sadly. :(

 

It would be a good thing if she did a cover + editorial for them promoting Tropic of C and talked about spring collection but knowing Vogue it won't happen as long as Priyanka, Kendall, Hailey and Hadids will be around. Vogue is nowdays whoever is relevant for tabloids. The Vogue Spain of January is so simple and unknown faces with slow low key editorials for example and US was boring as fuck all 2018...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Schemer said:

 

1) She wasn't being followed the whole day.

 

2) No one was taking photos right behind her.

 

 

It's not according to me, it's according to the law. Learn what the privacy is, learn what public places are and then argue.

1) My all day long example was just that, an example. It doesn’t matter if she’s being followed for 5 minutes or 5 hours. Taking pictures or following and filming a person when they don’t even know it is weird. 

 

2) You’re the one who keeps going on and on about the law. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean I should just agree with it or think it’s normal. The fact that a person with (or without) children can be filmed at an airport/beach/wherever without being made aware of that is just weird and downright creepy and it seems like this video was made by a fellow passenger or someone who was at the airport, not paparazzi who’s job it is to do nothing but run after famous people all day. Leaving your house doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to some privacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2018 at 4:50 PM, MissPadilla said:

 

It would be a good thing if she did a cover + editorial for them promoting Tropic of C and talked about spring collection but knowing Vogue it won't happen as long as Priyanka, Kendall, Hailey and Hadids will be around. Vogue is nowdays whoever is relevant for tabloids. The Vogue Spain of January is so simple and unknown faces with slow low key editorials for example and US was boring as fuck all 2018...

I would love to see her on the cover of Vogue, but I find it extremely difficult to do so, even more so on a solo cover. A solo editorial, just like one she has already done, would be interesting, but knowing Vogue these days I find it difficult. Talking about the Tropic of C in a video for Vogue would be so good for her and brand ... :(
But I hope 2019 brings some very good things to her career, with some covers for some Vogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...