You gotta fight. For your right. To photograph . . .

From the Yahoo news story <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_en_mo/france_brangelina_bustup">Police:

Paparazzi, guards, fight at Jolie chateau </a>:<p>

 

<i>The police captain said both sides filed legal complaints accusing the other of battery and causing injury.

She said she believed the injuries were bruises and scratches and "nothing nasty."<P>

 

Nevertheless, the guards got doctors' notes giving them four days off work; the photographers did not, she

said.</i><P>

 

My kind of paparazzi . . . ; )

The kind that sneaks on to private property and instead of leaving when told (well, I assume they were confronted and told to leave, maybe even manhandled a little, but when you are tresspassing, what do you expect. That sort of behavior might get you shot in some places in the US) decides to take a swing at body/security guards? Sounds like they type who give a bad name to paparazzi to me.

From the article, it sounded more like the guards were the ones who instigated the violence. Which didn't turn out so well for them.

Perhaps it didn't turn out so well for the guards, but it also sounds from the article like these photographers were trespassing? Correct?

 

Look, everyone should be able to be free from violence. And I don't pretend to know the facts on any side of this story. But if they in fact did dress up and sneak onto someone's property to try to get pictures, then I think they were pretty likely breaking the law already, and behaving in a way that would probably by general agreement be unethical.

I would hate to be hit round the head with a huge Nikon :-))

Isn't it funny how paparazzi always seem to know where certain celebrities (you know, the ones who are featured

in celeb magazines and programs every week) are, but other very-famous stars very rarely appear in gossip rags?

It's almost like some publicists are making sure the paparazzi know where to find their clients. Hmmmmmmm . . .<P>

 

Casting paparazzi as the unethical bad guys just adds spice to the celebrity-obsession game. Another rather

telling quote from the article:<P>

<i>The police captain said she had no information on the nationalities or the names of the photographers.<p>

 

"I won't hide for you that this kind of thing is really not the type of problem that interests us," she said.

"There are, in my opinion, far more important things than paparazzi taking photos of a glamor couple."</i><P>

Do you really think police in an area where stars make their homes would take such a cavalier attitude if

paparazzi were a genuine menace?

Probably. I can imagine that the police just don't really care about this sort of thing. Police rarely care about anything short of serious crimes. A bit different then France, but I know of several people who have had cars or homes broken in to and in a lot of cases with the vehicle break in's they had a hard time getting so much as a police report and couldn't get an officer to come out and even take pictures or anything else for the report. The home break-ins they basically showed up, wrote a report and told them good luck. I don't insist that law enforcement spends hundreds of man hours attempting to track down someone who stole a few thousand dollars of stuff, but a little effort might be nice.

 

Just like I wouldn't insist that police care a heck of a lot about tresspassers or people who may, depending on how things really went, be guilty of simple assualt, but that doesn't mean the people in question weren't knowingly breaking the law and shouldn't simply be let off with a scolding. Just my 2 cents.

"Nay, come not near th' paparazzi; keep out, che vor<br>

ye, or ise try whether your costard or my Nikon be<br>

the harder: ch'ill be plain with you."<br>

<i>King "Leer"</i>

What "rights" are we talking about here? The pap's only rights were to be treated humanely after their clear transgression of trespassing. Their rights to photograph ended at the front gate, at least in the USA. <br><br>

 

This is a real non-story to me...who is this Jolie person anyway?

I don't suppose any of this has anything to do with Jolie and Pitt making huge sums (rumours run as high as $20m) from images of their new progeny?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25662828/

 

Regardless of the beneficiaries of this excess (don't forget the highly paid magazine executives who arrange publication, agents, etc.) I suspect that such deals erode the moral right to privacy, whatever the law may say in France. Hence the lack of sympathy from the Gendarmerie, I'm sure.

Mike, that's pretty presumptious. Certainly some of the celebrities whose names show up in these stories aren't blameless, but we don't know anything like that as fact for this story, do we?

wouldn't wary about paparazi, they know business inside out, celebs even more so

"You gotta fight. For your right. To..."

 

I've had the beastie boys in my head all day now :)

<i>I suspect that such deals erode the moral right to privacy, whatever the law may say in France. Hence the lack of sympathy from the Gendarmerie, I'm sure.</i>

<p>

Baloney. The money goes to charity and the point is, better the charity than some sleazy paparazzi who manages to get the first shot.

""Nay, come not near th' paparazzi; keep out, che vor

ye, or ise try whether your costard or my Nikon be

the harder: ch'ill be plain with you."

King "Leer""

 

nice try lex, but 'paparazzi' as a word was introduced by fellini in "la dolce vita" in the '50s.i dourbt they had nikons back then too -- most likely they were using Canterburys, a very simple pinhole camera with a built-in sundial.

You don't necessarily have to be trespassing.In fact I think most photogs who are hassled/told to leave aren't! I know in Malibu the private security people hassle photos on the beach (NOT private property!) They have no right to do so,but they do.Seems the rich just think they own it all even if they don't.

Reported today Hally Berry is pursuing legal action against trespassing photographers. Given that some of the celebs have had to deal with violent or unstable "stalkers" and the like, it's not surprising when they get "on the property," the guards and/or cops respond seriously.

Sorry, Eric, I didn't know the Welsh word for paparazzi. I suspected it would involve a guy wearing a leek in his cap while stalking celebrities to quickly sketch them with chalk on a rock.

 

These outraged reactions to "the paparazzi" crack me up. Some folks are like kittens. So easily distracted by a bit of dangling string.

"some sleazy paparazzi who manages to get the first shot" sounds like an excellent description of the hired photographer for the paid for shoot. Also, don't imagine that the gravy train ends with the payment by the magazine: being seen to make charitable donations (the important factor here is being seen) appears to have quite an influence on Hollywood careers. Meantime the story rumbles on:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25823776/

 

More discussion of the practice of selling baby photos:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25243448/

These paps would be "Uncle Bobs" if they showed up at weddings. Just they get paid and don't behave as well.