![]() ![]() To be clear, I have no concern or complaint about anything the journalist herself has written. (I note, however, that the blurring of children’s faces to protect their privacy is a fairly common practice now in the UK and the USA – including in The Daily Mail, where several examples can be found.) In their view, the images were purchased through a reputable agency and being compelled to blur the images, remove them, or get rid of the article entirely would not be in their interest. In our view, blurring her face would cost them nothing. ![]() Their view on the matter is different from ours. We have articulated our privacy and safety concerns to the publication and this has not compelled them to blur our child’s face or remove or crop the images of her. I also have concerns about the wider issue of selling unauthorised images of children, and the market for such images. My concerns are with the photographs themselves, and the position taken by the publication that similar images could be taken, sold and published again today or tomorrow, and that this could happen anytime she is in a public place. In the photographs it is clear that we have no idea we are being watched or photographed. The article names her and identifies her as my daughter. (I will explain what I mean by this in more detail in a moment.) These are the first images that generally come up when anyone searches for my name and the words ‘child’, or ‘daughter’, and they are the only images of their kind. They show our daughter clearly from many angles and make her identifiable to strangers, and continue to do so by their ongoing presence online. The pictures were then sold to the Daily Mail, who published them as a series in August of 2014. We were travelling as a family, returning home from a writer’s festival. I have made a formal complaint to the Press Council in the hope of having identifying images of my young daughter, which were taken by a stranger without our consent or knowledge, removed from or blurred in an article published in the media and still available online.Ī few specifics: The images of us were taken in an airport when we had no reason to believe any photographers or press were nearby. As a somewhat public figure over the years I’ve had plenty of good and bad press, and well, even some of the nasty criticism has surely been deserved. ![]() The issue isn’t unflattering press or even a false claim. With the paparazzi pics to prove it, here are 15 celebs who are clearly editing their social media pics (plus 5 who haven't got a thing to edit).For the first time in my life I have filed a formal complaint with the Australian Press Council. Kylie Jenner might hardly ever leave the house, and this is precisely why. And when they do, camped outside are the paparazzi. ![]() Celebs can't hide inside their $10 million mansions forever. By and large, we're getting 5% the real celeb and 95% careful lighting, makeup, and the most important component of all–a skilfull editing team who can delete the blemishes and give the image the once-over. When Beyonce found out that H&M had specifically ignored her requests not to be Photoshopped, she "hit the roof." Celebs like Bey are few and far between, though. Then again, other celebs are slamming Photoshop like they're allergic to it. They all have one thing in common: a seemingly perfect set of social media pics that comes with #Carefree. IG checks might be the first thing we do when we wake up, but what we actually need is a reality check. Kim Kardashian wouldn't have a career without selfies, and the same goes for that "soon-to-be-billionaire" sister of hers. If you think your selfies define your status, that's nothing compared to the celeb world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |