“if it is not a famous person doing a public thing, you had to, by law, get the person’s permission with a piece of paper called a Model Release.”
...
Ok.
...
What’s preposterous here are your comments in this thread.
Knowing the people you work (i.e. collaborate) with well* is rather important in the creative fields, and is valid justification for loyalty.
I find it interesting that nobody at Jezebel / Gawker has posted about this story yet: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/…
How did they put people in danger, and what was the danger?
Yes, celebrity ‘news’ magazines are rather absurd, as would be the work involved in a job at one (keeping up with celebrity ‘news’). Again, that’s the job she signed up for. It’s also quite rich that a writer for a celebrity gossip blog is holding this woman up as some kind of hero.
The one where she complains about the fact that working at a celebrity ‘news’ magazine involves keeping up with celebrity ‘news’?
“...will never give their nights, weekends, relationships and sanity again to keep up with an email chain about whether Jennifer Aniston is pregnant at 47 because of those tummy photos and what kind of mom will she be, when really she just had an extra burrito at lunch; but oh, wait, the rep says it’s just a rumor so…
“They’re taking photographs of a crime scene for a recreational purpose. That means that they were present at the scene and their actions may have tampered with or destroyed evidence.”
How does what they did qualify as interfering with a police investigation?
Did you even read the article you linked to?
So... this ‘DASH’ person goes up a “latter” by stepping on a crate?
Amber Rose has a dick?
That’s a nice story.
“It depends on how you define personal use.”
I believe my previous reply was quite clear.