Feelings on Papparazi ??

[NoUsername]

Since we are all photographer here and we often photograph subjects in public i'd like to hear peoples opinions on papparazis. I just watched a program on tv where a top hollywood publicist was on a show with a well known papparazi and he was very rude and condecending to the guy. Many people refer to them "stalkarazzis" and what not. Do the paparrazi go too far or are they totally ethically okay ? They way I look at it...the celebrities always critize the papparazi but they never critize the people who buy the magazines. The paparazi wouldnt be out taking these peoples pictures if they werent making money off of them by selling millions of magazines. When you sell millions of magazines it means the fans of the celebrities are the ones funding the "intrusions" in the first place. So why dont celebrities critizes their fans ? Real simple, there are 100 paparazzi but there are 50 million fans. If you critize the fans for wanting to see pictures of you then you lose your fan base. I feel like the papparazi are often made the scapegoats and take the wrap for doing the dirty work that all fans want to see.

On the other hand I think some paparrazi need to leave celebrities along when they are out with family and that stuff. I saw a video of Kirsty Alley with her 7 year daughter on the beach in malibu. They were just trying to have some fun, mother and daughter and this paparrazi just stood there filming for hours. I think those kinds of situtations you shouldnt be filming them. I think maybe they should do like most of us here do, take your picture and then leave them alone. We dont stand there for hours following them around.

What do you guys think ? I know for sure though that for the money some of them are getting for those shots I would wait for hours to snap the money shot.

[greatphotos]

I think maybe even among papparazi there's a code of ethics. Well, I said "maybe" :) If I were a papparazi, I would shoot freely and get the shots that would earn me a living, but I would stop short of harassment. Tough call though. If the celeb was in a public place, with no expectation of privacy then maybe I would stay and shoot a while. After all, that's one of the unfortunate aspects of being in the public eye and they know it. Maybe it's a fair trade off for the lavish lifestyle they get to lead.

[greatphotos]

I think a real problem for papparazi is that they're shooting all the time. If a person becomes too desensitized to shooting like that, I think the lines of what is 'harassment' and what isn't become blurred. Know what I mean?

An example would be murder. If someone is killing people all the time, then he has a completely different view of murder than someone who's never killed. Granted that this is a very drastic example, but I'm tired and it makes the point clear enough. ;)

Good point. it's kinda like being in a nudie bar. After the first half hour, the novelty wears off a bit. But only a LITTLE bit :teeth:

[SnappinT]

The celebrities that papparazi hound have to deal with that sort of thing on a daily basis, the kinds of girls that we get pics of do not, we take our pics and leave them no worse off than they were before.

As far as the papparazi goes, while I can see that they can go too far the complaining celebrities need to remember the people who buy the magazines with those pictures are going to go see the movies and watch the TV shows the celebrities are in.

...and papparazi is great on a pizza.

[Shark]

In my opinion, the job of the paparazzi is to get the photos of the celebrities out in public, going to an opening, walking into a restaurant, walking down the street in New York, that kind of thing. From what I've seen on the covers of the rags, and seen on T.V. it looks to me as though they definitely go too far with it. Like a couple people said, it's obvious if you are out in the public, you are fair game for having your picture taken, but after you get a couple shots of them doing what I mentioned above, it's time to back off. How many times have you seen the consecutive photos of two celebrities standing on a balcony, in the same position, just talking. Or, the vacation photos of the celebrity family on the beach, in their beach house, shit like that. I don't know, in my opinion, they have to have their personal time when it comes to situations like that. It's kinda hard to totally escape that zillion dollar lens that can capture you from a half mile away. That's when it's up to the photographer to understand when it's time to back off. Just my opinion.

[Deathtrot]

I hate to hear movie stars bitch about having no privacy. Nobody forced them to become famous and recognizable. I'm not saying they don't deserve to be left alone in their own homes, but when they're out in public, they are fair game and have no right to assault photographers just because they might be tired of being photographed. In my personal opinion, I have no respect for "celebrities". I've always thought that most of them aren't worth the money or attention they get at all. There are so many artists, musicians and photographers who are infinitely more talented than someone like Matt Damon or Brad Pitt, yet toil in relative obscurity for a lifetime. Sometimes, if they're lucky, they gain all their fame after they die. Sorry for going off-topic. I just hate commercialism and media sensationalism. I could go on for hours.

[Jimian]

Maybe one way to curtail it is for the press to refuse to buy these photos.

If a photographer has no market for certain images, he'll have to find other subjects that he can sell. But it's not likely. SOMEONE (say, the owner of an upstart magazine looking to make a splash) will step in, pay for them, and publish those candid shots.