Paparazzi Photography, should it be banned?

Is this type of intrusive photography giving us photographers a bad

press! Hence, the various legislation taking place in many

countries. I�m not offering an opinion, more interested in your

thoughts.

What are you doing Allen, asking a serious question?

Of course!<div></div>

I don't see the problem. They're taking care not to trample the flowers.

The publicity game is how all concerned make a living - and there is a demand for public appearence shots. I told the paparazzi to get lost only one time and they have respected my wishes since.

Let be honest, isn�t the "paparazzi card" a good excuse for Governments to restrict the rights of photographers in general. A serious and gradual eroding of freedoms. We have only to look to France to see this erosion of liberties! All with the excuse of not upsetting " the good and great"

I think that since there are forms of harassment outlawed, couldn't hanging out following persons be a form of it? Perhaps businesses have favor in the eyes of the law due to lobbying. Personally, if I was famous and paparazzi followed me everywhere I'd be in the news for swinging at some. :P

paparazzi are part of the celebrity phenomena. it goes wtih the territory. these stars that make $20,000,000 for a film and then cry about being pestered must think that they are actually worth that much to society. they are worth that much because their star status can propell a mediocre movie to success. take notting hill, for instance, if the movie was made with two far better looking actors who could actually act, it would have been a flop. but people came to see it because of the celebrities. they are celebrities, in part, because of hte paparazzi. julia roberts never complained about the paparazzi before she made it big.

 

i do believe, however, people willing to pay for the paparazzi pictures should be banned.

 

ed

While it is true that France is setting a terrible example with all the trials involving photographers

and owners of... anything apperaring in a pic, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the

paparazzi. True, they tried to blame Princess Diana's death on them, but I think the matter has

been ruled out by the courts.

 

I do not appreciate paparazzi, and I think they cross the line of decency too often, but I respect

their work and their right to make a living.

 

If they exist, it's because public demand is there. If pubic demand is there, it's because the

newspapers have fed the public with scandals and celebrity «peeping-tomming» from the

beginning, not the other way around. I think the biggest culprits are the owners of the tabloids

and other assorted toilet paper media. The Robert Murdochs of this world.

 

Also, let's not forget that many «victims» of the paparazzi actually were made rich and famous

thanks to them in the first place.

 

Just the notion of banning paparazzi is opening the door to censorship. Where do you draw the

line between paparazzi and photographers lining the side of the red carpet at the Academy

Awards show? How do you define a paparazzo?

 

People say that when a celebrity is on private grounds, she has the right to privacy and should

not be assaulted by photographers. Indeed. That's probably where the line should be

drawn.But when you're a celebrity, as soon as you're on public ground (street, stores, beach,

bars, restaurants, theaters, airports, etc...) you're fair game.

Maybe just the Paparrazzi part.

I wonder how many young women (and men) are adversely affected by being bombarded with staged, unrealistic (and increasingly photoshoped) images of beauty - standards that they cannot possibly hope to reach. If these same icons of glamour (who profit so handsomely from their image, after all) are caught looking less than at their best, it probably does society a favour - their personal embarassment being outweighed by the good it does for the masses. I don't bother with these pictures myself, and I abhore cruelty (there is an image of Cameron Diaz with poor skin that has featured heavily in the UK recently) but I think it's naive to condemn the pap's - all imagery is pushing some idea or other; the stars' promotional images are hardly more "ethical" than the intrusive pap. shot. Let's face it, neither the promotor nor the pap. cares too much about the effect their pictures have on others. It seems pretty obvious to me that the rich would wish to protect their ability to package themselves - by invoking the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to achieve their end, they really are behaving very cynically indeed (The UD was certainly not drawn up to protect movie stars).

Why is it that so many people think that laws banning this or that will solve problems? Even laws banning murder don't stop murder.

 

Regarding photography: I'm in the camp that believes we can photograph anything, anywhere, at anytime.

 

We have a small lake park where I live that requires a $400 yearly permit to photograph families or bridal couples if it's commercial...the rangers judge "commercial" by the size of the camera...and, if it has an external flash...the flash equals "pro" anytime (never use a big flash unless you want to be kicked out or fined!). I enter National Parks in fear that my 4x5 will be confiscated and I'll be escorted from the park for ripping off the Half Dome or Lone Cypress trademark.

 

This has got to stop. I'll take my camera wherever I go, even if it's an all "plastic-fantistic," and will not be found by the magic wands at the gate!

Paparazzi laws? Forget it! I have more respect for the paparazzi than I do for some of the scumbag airhead Hollywood liberidiots they follow and photograph. We have a celebrity obsessed society, but the problem is not with the paparazzi. It is with the fans that make these nincompoops celebrities.

"...scumbag airhead Hollywood liberidiots ..."

 

Eliot, you work in a hospital, right? Surely you must have access to some effective medication? Do yourself a favour, man.

I meant EXACTLY what I said. I'm sick of hearing about these numbskulls going to some European country where anti-war sentiment is high and bashing the Bush administration. And where were these idiots when the Clinton administration was bombing Serbia and using cruise missiles against Iraq. Let them have the guts to say it here. And then let the public decide if they want to go to see their idiotic movies. I saw Janeane Garofalo on one of the cable news stations. She's really not very bright (and not a very good actress either). I say to the paparazzi, go get them.

Rob. Buy yourself an MP. So you can be at one with Leica's glorious past. :-)

"I saw Janeane Garofalo on one of the cable news stations. She's really not very bright (and not a very good actress either)."

 

My goodness Eliot, how irrelevant can you get? This is such silly stuff you're spewing. Do you ever listen to yourself talking? I'm thinking you must blame a 'liberal' if your car won't start in the morning.

Hi Eliot, last thing I'd ever do is buy another Leica, believe me. I have what I need.

We were discussing paparazzi and I am going to get to paparazzi. But first a point of information. Eliot, are you opposed to the almost continuous bombing of Iraq and unnecessary military actions like the US-Nato led attacks on Yugoslavia in general or only when it is carried out by Democratic administrations?

 

And now to the paparazzi. I have to confess that I do not care for the paparazzi. Not at all.

 

Indeed paparazzi "go with the territory" for the rich and famous. What the paparazzi uncover about them, however, is not what investigative journalists uncover. The paparazzi are out for the odd embarrassing moment, the signs of a trivial scandal, and exposed flesh (exposed accidentally or on purpose). I believe that the usual rules that apply to any other photographer or writer regarding freedom of expression should apply to paparazzi as well. I also believe that the paparazzi and their trash publishers, like the right-wing Robert Murdoch, are the least in danger of losing their rights to freedom of expression. Why? Because they are hooked into global big businesses that not only make billions of dollars from gossip and personal scandal but also support wars, the repression of dissidents and any number of right-wing causes.

 

Paparazzi and their publishers specialize in what George Orwell called "prolefeed" in "Nineteen Eighty-four." To millions of people the most important things in the world consist of who is sleeping with who in Hollywood. The same people tend to believe in Elvis sightings, cows glowing in Iowa, space aliens communicating with the Pope, and anything the Bush Administation tells them--or think it tells them. (Something like 42% of all Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11 without anything like substancial evidence around to prove it.) Not the sort who are about to bother the status quo.

 

I am in almost complete agreement with Todd that photographers should be able to "photograph anything any place any time." (Pervs here in Japan specialize in hidden cameras in women's toilets which I don't regard as free expression; but this is not what Todd had in mind.) The bother is that the poor independent photographer shooting in a National Park, or uncovering something terrible that affects millions of lives--or shooting the Golden Gate Bridge these days--is more in danger of being harrassed, fined and possibly having his or her camera taken away than a paparazzi photographer sticking his camera up some celebrity�s dress.

 

To answer Allen's question: Yes I think intrusive photography is giving us photographers bad press--particularly us street photographers.

 

I also think paparazzi represent a necessary evil that forces us other photographers to consider the ethics of what we are doing. As a street photographer I am always mindful of the paparazzi specter that I believe haunts all of us. There are certain things I won't photograph. I avoid people's embarrassing moments, disabled and disfigured people, and celebrities--unless there there are compelling socially relevent reasons to do otherwise. There is stuff I won't exhibit or publish.

 

The paparazzi we will always have with us as long as as there are publishers who pay them and an audience that lives on titillation. The nice thing is that there will always be Leica photographers like us who know that photography deserves better.

Eliot, Im amaized yet again at you turning a totally unrelated topic (an interesting and unique one in fact) into your "Bush Bashing" podium again. You really are paranoid.

Joel. The subject was about celebrities and paparazzi and I gave my opinion about celebrities and paparazzi. It is the celebrities that have been doing the Bush bashing, in huge numbers, many many of them. Or haven't you noticed. Sorry if it offends you, but IMO it is a fair subject on which to comment.

I am always mindful of the paparazzi spectre that I believe haunts all of us.

 

 

Particularly relevant spectre for street photographers . I can remember 10 years ago people were happy to have their photos taken. Nowadays there is a degree of suspicion especially if you are using a SLR with a Zoom.

Allen, has a paparazzo ever walked with the Vinderloo Masters?

Preston, you must have Italian blood - the first person I've ever seen on an online forum use the singular of "paparazzo". You're welcome at my place for a nice bottle of Teroldego any time.

Thanks, Rob. I think my ancestors were all Saxon and Celtic peasants, mostly hardscrabble types, but a few managed to climb the social ladders. But I'll still drink your wine.

 

You missed Allen's wonderful treatise on the Vinderloo Masters. Look it up in the archives. Funniest stuff we've had around here in ages!