Jennifer Aniston/Photographer

[boomhauer]

I'm sure most of you have heard about this. Is it just me, or is this photographer absolutely clueless? I keep reading this article to see if I'm missing something. How can this guy be serious?

Back at Aniston


Jennifer Aniston has been attacked by the photographer who took snapshots of her sunbathing - for being barely dressed on her own property. Aniston, 36, slapped photographer Peter Brandt with a lawsuit, after learning he'd taken pictures of her while she soaked up the sun in her garden, but now the snapper is hitting back. He tells ABC News, "She's the one who went out there topless. I didn't go looking for it." Brandt says he was only looking to take photos of Aniston and her new beau Vince Vaughn, and he denies that he was trespassing on her property, as the star's lawsuit asserts. He continues, "She has no fences around her backyard. I did not trespass. When I saw her come out topless, I go, 'Oh, God, this is not what I want, this is not what people want to buy anyway.' I haven't sold those pictures anywhere. You know, they're suing me and all the publications who are publishing them, and I haven't sold them anywhere. Sending the topless pictures along with (the other photos) was maybe my mistake. But I wasn't intending to sell those." According to papers recently filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Aniston is seeking monetary damages and a cease-and-desist order against Brandt, whom she claims observed her "from a great distance through invasive, intrusive and unlawful measures."

 

[Mermaid02]

Not only is he clueless, he's a liar. He knew those pictures would be a hot commodity. "Oh God, this is not what I want..." what a joke!

 

[boomhauer]

No kidding. How about this part:

"She's the one who went out there topless. I didn't go looking for it."

Um, then why did you take the pictures?

She has every right to do whatever the heck she wants - It's her property.

Sorry pal - You're screwed. Invasion of privacy.

 

[crz4mm2]

" When I saw her come out topless, I go, 'Oh, God, this is not what I want, this is not what people want to buy anyway.' I haven't sold those pictures anywhere. You know, they're suing me"

Sure, sure. I believe him.... Of course he didn't mean it at all Got some land you wanna sell buddy?????

 

[HoneyPooh]

Yea and he "sent the topless pictures" with the others by accident....

 

[AnaheimGirl]

I go, 'Oh, God, this is not what I want, this is not what people want to buy anyway.'

Hmm, if it's not what you want, and not what people want to buy, why snap the pics? What a liar!

 

[SamRoc]

This is kind of on the same lines about crazy photographers. I saw Anglelina Jolie on tv the other night and she was being mobbed by them. They were flashing so many lights in her eyes she could barely see where she was going. They were pushing into her and were circling her like wolves. The security had to yell at them and push them back. And Jessica Simpson was also on this news report, where the photographers crowded around her when she was leaving lunch and even surrounded the car she was in and didnt let them leave. Finally when they did get off of her car, about 4 big black SUV's rushed and followed her. It scares me to think they may cause another accident that killed Princess Diana. I know that actors do court the media to help them for publicity purposes, but it seems like the photographers are out of control and actually dangerous now.

 

[Geoff_M]

While not a fan of Paparazzi, I think it's worth noting that if the circulation of magazines wouldn't jump 25% everytime one of the members of the latest celebrity pack appeared on the cover along with the latest rumor about their personal lives... these media feeding frenzies wouldn't take place. We've met the problem... and it's us.

 

[Linnie The Pooh]

I guess if you're a celebrity as famous as Jennifer Aniston, and you go outside topless, you do run the risk of being photographed that way. I've heard about it happening to others too so she had to be aware of the chance she was taking. However, a person should be allowed to do whatever they want on their property.

That photographer is an idiot. No one would believe him!! Yeah, a huge celeb like JA topless is not what he wants. Pulease!!

Those paparazzis that follow celebs are out of control and ridiculous in my opinion. Who wants the pictures that bad of those celebrities? Not me. I guess people do otherwise there wouldn't be a market for it.

 

[Nancy]

I'm one of those people that buy the magazines, but I would buy them even wothout the nemerous pictures they have....most have all the same shots anyway. I do the photographers go way overboard in their quest to get pictures and someone else is going to get killed or seriously injured because of that. So he didn't want to take topless pictures, then why did he? At that point he could have walked away and came back another day.

 

[Planogirl]

I don't even buy People any more and I'm not even sure if any of the idiot photographers work for them. I think that celebrities should be left alone unless they're at some kind of public event. Mobbing and spying on people because they make movies is ridiculous IMO.

 

[Nancy]

I think the magazines like People and Us buy their pictures, they all seem to have the same shots.

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm one of those people that buy the magazines, but I would buy them even wothout the nemerous pictures they have....

There's a reason that those magazine are often willing to pay up to six-figures to Paparazzi for an exclusive photo of:
1) Celeb with latest love interest.
1a) Celeb alone after latest break-up.
2) Celeb's wedding/honeymoon.
3) Celeb's new baby.
4) Celeb in an embarassing situation.

It ain't for "bragging rights". They know the jump in circulation with those photos trumpeted on the cover more than offsets the costs to procur the images.

 

[hockref]

If you know the paparazzi are always following you why would you go outside topless??? I don't care if she was in her own yard, I don't walk around my yard naked.

It's called publicity...she has two current movies and this is all free publicity.

Sunbathe in a bathing suit and this won't happen.

 

[cardaway]

While not a fan of Paparazzi, I think it's worth noting that if the circulation of magazines wouldn't jump 25% everytime one of the members of the latest celebrity pack appeared on the cover along with the latest rumor about their personal lives... these media feeding frenzies wouldn't take place. We've met the problem... and it's us.

Hate to say it, but I agree with Geoff on this one.

 

[CharlesTD]

If you know the paparazzi are always following you why would you go outside topless??? I don't care if she was in her own yard, I don't walk around my yard naked.

It's called publicity...she has two current movies and this is all free publicity.

Sunbathe in a bathing suit and this won't happen.

I agree whole heartedly it is fine for the celebv to take thier top off in a movie when they are getting paid for it but when somone else is getting paid because of that then they throw a tantrum. You know you are in the spotlight and everything you do and say is noted and printed and photgraphed then why take the chance of having something like this happen. Does it suck for the celebs yes but they know the downside of being popular and famous yet they still do things that they know will end up in the local rag and in a national rag so they really only have themselves to blame for it.

 

[boomhauer]

Though the point of the thread isn't whether she's right or wrong (it's about the photographer being a liar), I agree, and I disagree.

Everyone has a right to their privacy in or on the grounds of their own home.

 

[Geoff_M]

Everyone has a right to their privacy in or on the grounds of their own home.

Again, while not defending the taking of the photos, legally that statement isn't always true. The standard in court is where someone would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a given situation. If you are in a backyard with a totally enclosed privacy fence and are not viewable from public or other private property, then you would be granted privacy protection. However, if this is not the case and someone can see you without going to extraordinary lengths, such as erecting a ladder to peer over a fence, then you're legally "fair game".

I don't know the particulars in this case, but if the Paparazzi (I don't consider him a "photographer") took the images while standing along adjacent public property, or from a nearby hill with a telephoto lens, then she doesn't have a lot to legally go on other than do a lot of "saber rattleling" trough your lawyer (which she is doing). She'd have no more legal grounds than if I ran around in my front yard in the buff.

 

[drakethib]

Didn't this happen to her before?

Why on earth would she take the chance again?

I do the the photographer is a piece of trash but come on, she had to know that there is a risk of this if she wants to bounce around half naked.

I think she just wants some attention since Brad dumped her and she has a new movie so she is crying wolf.