Paparazzi Photography, should it be banned?

Banning paparazzi is like banning drugs (or alcohol). The demand for their product is overwhelming, and as with drugs, going after the supply is a futile exercise. More people are interested in the cut and color of Princess Di's swimsuit than in Politics or Philosophy. Let's face it, Western civilization is in a state of decline.

The first requirement, should you wish the tread the Vinderloo Path, is to slog through this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Zkd

I will admit that the most memorable magazine cover in my lifetime was Stern's cover of a pair of naked tits in a shower entitled "Ist das Diana?". These guys really suffer for their art.

As some said here, there's a demand for pictures of celebrities, so paparazzianismo will survive. (Even if there were laws to ban it... who would ever go after government member buddy R. Murdoch and his likes?) Celebrities, otoh, need paparazzi to survive. There's an odd symbiosis of media and celebrities, which is displayed as parasitism to the public. But if you ever think the odd lawsuit against one intrusive paparazzo + editor is characteristic, you've already been deceived:<p>Imagine aged star Plasticia Surgery, in dire need of money. She contacts editor Yee Ellow, who promptly sends staff member P. Parazzo to her premises. He photographs her leaving her house with a large hat--voilà, the headline: "Why does Plasticia hide?" The next day, poor Plasticia with sunglasses. The following one, an "exclusive" interview with her. Etc. etc. Once you've finished her/finished her off, the next celebrity's ready.

FWIW, the latest GQ magazine (here in USA) has a long article on the subject

buried at the back. Don't know the month, but cover has young woman on

motorcycle. Story is about agency in LA that specializes in paprazzi type stuff.

Paparrazzi: how are you going to bann the first right. I am proudly a Paparrazzi photographer. They have been tring to shut us down for years good luck!

You have no idea how often we're invited to shoot celebs or wannabe celebs. And, celebs wouldn't have to deal with

"aggressive" paps if they just smiled and gave up a shot. All of these celebs were hamming it up to cameras one day in

their life. Now, that they've made it, they have no use for us, and trying to push some sort of ban. Too bad we can't ban

bad acting. These celebs should use their public voice to try and stop famine, war, and political oppression, not the First

Amendment. Worried about their public image more than freedom of speech. Oh, and someone should tell them that

Hollywood, New York and London isn't a good place to live if they don't want their photo taken. Bottom line: take care of

your kids, don't cheat on your spouse, don't drink and drive, and all of the sudden, there's no story, you're boring, and

you'll walk by me with camera in hand, and I'm too busy to edit your photo. btw, kate moss doubled her endorsements a

year after being dropped from them all for snorting coke in front of a snapper. No news is bad news for celebs. If they all

wore a shirt saying "end war", or vote for so-and-so (not bush), they could harness the energy and change the world.

Maybe we could shift our concern to banning guns and missiles,<div></div>