UK injunction granted over golfer Tiger Woods

TheBrooder said:
In my opinion if you make absolutely tons of money by being shoved into peoples faces (marketing, advertising etc.) then if you're found to be flawed then that should also be in the public domain.

You denounce all rights of privacy when your public image allows you to gain millions & millions.
Click to expand...

Yep, gotta agree.
 
I personally disagree and think this current obsession with the personal lives of anyone remotely famous is frankly unhealthy.
 
RDM said:
I personally disagree and think this current obsession with the personal lives of anyone remotely famous is frankly unhealthy.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. Personally I'd rather hear abut none of it, but until I get a say about what images and messages I get accosted with on TV and on my tube ride, why should those sponsored to accost me get to chose the image they accost me with?

If we must be bombarded with all this info, it might as well be balanced and truthful, rather than distorted and deceptive.
 
garnett said:
I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusion. Personally I'd rather hear abut none of it, but until I get a say about what images and messages I get accosted with on TV and on my tube ride, why should those sponsored to accost me get to chose the image they accost me with?

If we must be bombarded with all this info, it might as well be balanced and truthful, rather than distorted and deceptive.
Click to expand...

So ignore it? What products Tiger Woods endorses makes no difference to me whatsoever. Tiger Woods the brand is just like any other brand, feel free to ignore it as much as you like. Tiger Woods the person however is a different matter and I feel that a certain amount of privacy should be a right. Having naked photos published without your permission is wrong.
 
RDM said:
So ignore it? What products Tiger Woods endorses makes no difference to me whatsoever. Tiger Woods the brand is just like any other brand, feel free to ignore it as much as you like. Tiger Woods the person however is a different matter and I feel that a certain amount of privacy should be a right. Having naked photos published without your permission is wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we're going to have to disagree. Separating Tiger Woods the brand and Tiger Woods the person? You are a marketer's dream.
 
not really it's like Tom clancy brand.

EA(iirc) bought the rights to his name for games out right.

He no longer has any say nor input in the tom clancy line just gets a cheque for each one.
 
garnett said:
Sorry, we're going to have to disagree. Separating Tiger Woods the brand and Tiger Woods the person? You are a marketer's dream.
Click to expand...

Sadly I am a marketeers nightmare, I have zero brand loyalty and am not swayed by celebrity endorsements. The fact that I can easily seperate the brand from the person makes that sort of marketing pointless in my case.

Do you honestly think that people should have no say on if nude photos of them appear in a paper or magazine?
 
RDM said:
Do you honestly think that people should have no say on if nude photos of them appear in a paper or magazine?
Click to expand...

Clearly no if they use the media to plaster their faces on all our magazines every week. I'm equally bemused why celebrity endorsements add to the attractiveness of a product. Basically if push yourself on people via ads you can't start complaining when the pictures aren't the ones you like
 
Who cares, it should be private anyway.

What I don't get is why the police release the 911 calls every time it's a famous person. What right have they got to do that? :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom