bmattock
Veteran
I think this is a valid topic for discussion among all photographers, but I also recognize that it is likely to spark controversy - so if anyone feels offended - I apologize in advance. I will tread as lightly as I can - and I am attacking no one's beliefs here. Just asking questions.
The topic is, as it has often been in recent years, paparazzi. Sometimes called 'stalkarazzi', I am referring to those photographers who earn their livings by selling photographs of celebrities that they have taken.
The public wants and demands such images - or they would not sell and paparazzi would have to earn their living in other ways. And worse - the more the photograph catches the celebrity off-guard, doing something personally embarrassing, or just plain naked, the more the public wants it - and therefore, the more those kind of photos sell.
This creates a kind of never-ending escalation. In the USA at least, a person in public has no legal expectation of privacy. Their photograph can be taken. A 'private' person (ie, not a celebrity or politician, etc) can sue if their recognizable image is used in a way that degrades them or holds them up to ridicule, or if it is used commercially and they did not agree to it. However, a person who is a celebrity is considered to be a 'public persona' and as such, photographers are not required to get their permission to use their recognizable images in all manner of ways, including holding them up to ridicule. Only if a photograph is used in a manner which implies an untruth can a celebrity sue - generally for libel. In other words, you can publish a photo of a celebrity that shows their big belly and say 'Boy is that guy fat!' but you can't say 'Boy is that guy pregnant,' assuming that he is not pregnant. Grin.
So now we have photographers (paparazzi) who stake out the homes of the rich and famous, waiting for them to emerge or peering over privacy walls and hedges with long telephoto lenses, even hiring helicopters to fly over their homes and so on. And of course, this just feeds the anger and resentment of the paparazzi by the celebrites being stalked.
And of course, it must also be said that proper exploitation of their own images - using paparazzi to keep the celebrities in the public eye - that's all part of the game too. Stars know that they can't retreat from life and expect to land that big part in the next monster movie - the casting directors and writers have to be thinking of them when they think of this person or that person for a particular part - so they have to be 'seen' and talked about and yes, photographed. They must appear in the fan magazines and on late night talk shows and so on, or they don't stay fresh. So it is a love-hate relationship, but one which even the celebrities could hardly live without.
Photographers of all sorts have generally and traditionally thought rather ill of paparazzi - that they are very nearly the lowest form of photographer, rather just above pornographer and just below glamour photographer in terms of pecking order or respectability.
Things have been changing. Since the death of Princess Diana, paparazzi have increasingly been examined in the spotlight. But this has hardly stopped them from doing what they do - and indeed, in some ways, the pace has increased rather frenetically. Indeed, it was the sick, sick, public that demanded CRASH PHOTOS of the site of Diana's tragic death, even while that same public complained about the disgusting paparazzi that may have even been part of the cause of that death.
Paparazzi Arrested in LA
Now we have a traffic accident involving Lindsay Lohan, a celebrity, and a paparazzi. It appears, at least from news reports, that the photographer might have actually rammed her car on purpose in order to get photographs of her. Disgusting, if true.
But whether it is true or not, whether you think well or ill of the antics of paparazzi, the problem is this (and I'm sorry for being so long-winded here):
We, as photographers of all sorts, will eventually get the fallout of this kind of thing. If laws are passed to protect the rights of celebrities, essentially changing the 'free press' rights that have encircled photographers like a bubble for many years (in the US, different in other countries), those changes will affect us. And probably not in a really good way.
So, what do we do about this? What does it all mean? And what comes next?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The topic is, as it has often been in recent years, paparazzi. Sometimes called 'stalkarazzi', I am referring to those photographers who earn their livings by selling photographs of celebrities that they have taken.
The public wants and demands such images - or they would not sell and paparazzi would have to earn their living in other ways. And worse - the more the photograph catches the celebrity off-guard, doing something personally embarrassing, or just plain naked, the more the public wants it - and therefore, the more those kind of photos sell.
This creates a kind of never-ending escalation. In the USA at least, a person in public has no legal expectation of privacy. Their photograph can be taken. A 'private' person (ie, not a celebrity or politician, etc) can sue if their recognizable image is used in a way that degrades them or holds them up to ridicule, or if it is used commercially and they did not agree to it. However, a person who is a celebrity is considered to be a 'public persona' and as such, photographers are not required to get their permission to use their recognizable images in all manner of ways, including holding them up to ridicule. Only if a photograph is used in a manner which implies an untruth can a celebrity sue - generally for libel. In other words, you can publish a photo of a celebrity that shows their big belly and say 'Boy is that guy fat!' but you can't say 'Boy is that guy pregnant,' assuming that he is not pregnant. Grin.
So now we have photographers (paparazzi) who stake out the homes of the rich and famous, waiting for them to emerge or peering over privacy walls and hedges with long telephoto lenses, even hiring helicopters to fly over their homes and so on. And of course, this just feeds the anger and resentment of the paparazzi by the celebrites being stalked.
And of course, it must also be said that proper exploitation of their own images - using paparazzi to keep the celebrities in the public eye - that's all part of the game too. Stars know that they can't retreat from life and expect to land that big part in the next monster movie - the casting directors and writers have to be thinking of them when they think of this person or that person for a particular part - so they have to be 'seen' and talked about and yes, photographed. They must appear in the fan magazines and on late night talk shows and so on, or they don't stay fresh. So it is a love-hate relationship, but one which even the celebrities could hardly live without.
Photographers of all sorts have generally and traditionally thought rather ill of paparazzi - that they are very nearly the lowest form of photographer, rather just above pornographer and just below glamour photographer in terms of pecking order or respectability.
Things have been changing. Since the death of Princess Diana, paparazzi have increasingly been examined in the spotlight. But this has hardly stopped them from doing what they do - and indeed, in some ways, the pace has increased rather frenetically. Indeed, it was the sick, sick, public that demanded CRASH PHOTOS of the site of Diana's tragic death, even while that same public complained about the disgusting paparazzi that may have even been part of the cause of that death.
Paparazzi Arrested in LA
Now we have a traffic accident involving Lindsay Lohan, a celebrity, and a paparazzi. It appears, at least from news reports, that the photographer might have actually rammed her car on purpose in order to get photographs of her. Disgusting, if true.
But whether it is true or not, whether you think well or ill of the antics of paparazzi, the problem is this (and I'm sorry for being so long-winded here):
We, as photographers of all sorts, will eventually get the fallout of this kind of thing. If laws are passed to protect the rights of celebrities, essentially changing the 'free press' rights that have encircled photographers like a bubble for many years (in the US, different in other countries), those changes will affect us. And probably not in a really good way.
So, what do we do about this? What does it all mean? And what comes next?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
