The Pappa-rotsi again...

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
11:17 PM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
Location
Detroit Area
It's a classic struggle, isn't it? The right to privacy as a concept has existed in many countries - yet most of them state that we give up our privacy when we step out in public. And celebrities would be nowhere without publicity, which photographers give them. And the public demands candid shots of stars - or the photographers would not be so well-paid to obtain such shots. Who is to blame? What can be done? You can argue either side, and I'd probably agree with you...

Fun, huh?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=585386

Fatal attraction: DiCaprio warns struggle with 'stalkerazzi' could end in death
By John Hiscock in Los Angeles
22 November 2004


Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake could be facing criminal charges in Los Angeles after police were called to investigate the latest incident in the increasingly violent clashes between stars and packs of photographers who shadow them, known as the "Stalkerazzi".

Detectives will present a case to prosecutors against Diaz, 31, currently the highest paid actress in the world, and her partner, the pop star Timberlake, following a fight with photographers outside a Hollywood hotel.

Celebrities complain that they are being overwhelmed by large groups of photographers who will do virtually anything to get a picture of them. Yesterday the film star Leonardo DiCaprio warned that someone could get killed unless a law is introduced to rein in the paparazzi.

With candid photographs of stars fetching huge amounts of money from the growing number of glossy celebrity magazines, competition is fierce and photographers are resorting to ever more aggressive tactics.

DiCaprio, who stars as Howard Hughes in Martin Scorsese's film biography, The Aviator, and is dating the supermodel Giselle Bündchen, is one of the photographers' prime targets. "Paparazzi are horrible people," he said yesterday. "I hate a lot of them to death and I wish they wouldn't follow me around and make my life miserable, but I have to find a way to deal with it until there's a law. I hope there is for my sake and the sake of many others because there may be an accident someday and we may lose somebody."

The photographers claim they are in the firing line and easy meat for any celebrity who wants to attack them without fear of the consequences.

Diaz and Timberlake's altercation occurred as photographers tried to take pictures of the couple near the Chateau Marmont hotel on Sunset Boulevard. Saul Lazo and Jose Gonzalez allege they were attacked by Diaz, who screamed and cursed at them. They told police that Diaz snatched Lazo's camera and tried to take the other one before Gonzalez fled.

Representatives for Diaz and Timberlake said they were "ambushed" and that they acted in self defence. The Los Angeles police captain Michael Dowling said: "We put a case together and now it's out of our hands." The city's district attorney's office will decide what charges, if any, will be pursued against Diaz and Timberlake, said a spokeswoman, Jane Robison.

Prince Harry also made headlines recently when he struck out against photographers who surrounded him as he left a West End nightclub, and Gwyneth Paltrow announced she was planning to press charges against paparazzi who follow her and her husband, the Coldplay singer Chris Martin, around London. "I think the tabloid media goes too far sometimes," Ms Robison said. "I think that people are entitled to a private life and private moments with their families."

Some photographers believe the recent film Paparazzi may have encouraged celebrities to go on the attack. Produced by Mel Gibson, who is famously intolerant of photographers, the film focuses on an action film star who is hounded by four villainous paparazzi and, after they nearly kill his family, resolves to exact bloody revenge.

Frank Griffin, one of the leading Los Angeles paparazzo and co-founder of the celebrity photography firm Bauer-Griffin, believes the film was "made out of spite". He said: "It's hypocritical because although they say photographers are the scum of the earth, celebrities love what we do for them."

After Arnold Schwarzenegger was harassed by two British photographers, who were jailed, and after George Clooney and Tom Cruise led a barrage of anti-paparazzi criticism, a law was introduced in California in 1999 making it illegal for photographers to intrude on private property for their pictures. The effect was to swell the hordes of photographers waiting outside anywhere where celebrities are known to frequent.

Some scuffles have resulted in injuries. The rock star Tommy Lee, the then-husband of the Baywatch star Pamela Anderson, fought with a photographer who suffered a fractured pelvis

At least one photographer believes the celebrities are partly to blame. "These people earn lots of money. They are very promiscuous with their love affairs. That leads to these pictures being taken," said Alan Zanger, who used to work for UPI until becoming a freelance celebrity photographer. "When the photographers came to take their [Diaz and Timberlake] picture, they should have posed for a picture and then went to their car, and that would have been the end of it," he said.
 
Think of Prince Diana...

I had a funny experience with a star; it was in February 9, 2002. My wife and mother-in-law were in the Lyric Opera in Chicago, submitting themselves to some Wagnerian fun, and I was around town, with my Nikon F80 and several rolls of film... and kinda bored.

Then, lo and behold! Who do I see around the corner of Petterino's restaurant, on the same street where the Goodman Theater is, but Brian Dennehy? I believe he was doing "A Long Day's Journey into The Night" that year, but that afternoon he was walking briskly, wearing a coat and grabbing the lapels in such a way he covered his face while walking kinda close to the wall of the building.

I couldn't help but ask him "Are you Brian Dennehy?"

He stopped, came a bit closer to me and said "Yes..." To which I excitedly replied "Do you mind if I take your photo?"

You should have seen his face! 😀 He virtually screwed it up, seemed intensely annoyed but said, very reluctantly "Yes." I, still excited, managed to forget everything I keep in mind when I carry a camera (what f-stop? what shutterspeed? Do I use fill flash?) but had the presence to shift the camera from aperture priority to fully automatic mode to take the photo that appears below. I just thought "if the camera tells me it needs flash, I'll pop the fill-flash."

According to my wife, he looks like a very nice person.

But you should have seen it. After my big-smiled, heartfelt Thank you, he muttered "you're welcome" and proceeded down the street with the lapels of his coat this time covering his face, and walking really close to the wall! 😀

Let me add, however, that the expression of his face the second before just convinced me that I'd never could be a papparazzi.
 
Last edited:
These celebs make mega-millions by putting their faces out in public and on the screen. To me they give up the right to being left alone in public because of the business their in.
On the other hand, when thier at home or on private property, they should be left alone.

BTW- Are they all "girlie-men"? Letting a woman take your camera??? Give me a break and grow some balls!
 
Hmmm. Most Paparazzi carry Digital Cameras. How about us building and marketing BIG ELECTROMAGNETS that we can sell to those being hounded and they CAN ZAP the Digital cameras without touching the PHOTOGRAPHERS! They will back to film in NO TIME! TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE!

ZAP, ZAP, digital cameras go down one by one...
 
You'd need a 10,000 volt zapper for that... but I'm sure it'd be a good deterrent. Imagine all the sensors ruined!

Come to think about it, there's a caveat in the manual of my F80: never get close to a source of power like that. So, it'd affect all AF gear too!
 
Actually, those little pocket stun-guns put out a lot more than 10,000 volts. The celeb could fein interest in the Papa-Ratzie's camera, then whip out the stun-gun - Zzzzzap!
Fried electronics ~ ; - )
 
It seems to me there's a fine line between taking photographs of celebrities in public and intruding on their private lives. On the one hand, they should expect that people will want to take photos of them, and the few celebrities I have seen in public handled requests for photos from fans and well-mannered photogs very gracefully and became not so gracious when the stereotypical paparazzi swooped in. There is, though, a slight but significant difference between "going out in public" and "making a public appearance" (such as at a charity event); a celebrity going about their daily life is not making a public appearance and thus has a reasonable expectation to the same degree of privacy everyone else enjoys. Both the public and the paparazzi are at fault here, I think, one for encouraging the intrusion into personal space and the other for actually doing it.
 
dkirchge said:
It seems to me there's a fine line between taking photographs of celebrities in public and intruding on their private lives. On the one hand, they should expect that people will want to take photos of them, and the few celebrities I have seen in public handled requests for photos from fans and well-mannered photogs very gracefully and became not so gracious when the stereotypical paparazzi swooped in. There is, though, a slight but significant difference between "going out in public" and "making a public appearance" (such as at a charity event); a celebrity going about their daily life is not making a public appearance and thus has a reasonable expectation to the same degree of privacy everyone else enjoys. Both the public and the paparazzi are at fault here, I think, one for encouraging the intrusion into personal space and the other for actually doing it.

Good points, Doug! I remember when I was a kid, you could sometimes see a Cubs player walking along the street - he'd be noticed, maybe someone would want to shake his hand or offer 'advice' but they got mostly left alone. Now they wouldn't dare, would they? They'd be mobbed, possibly even hurt. And that's not including the paparazzi.

Do celebrities have 'private lives'? Well, I dig your point, but I also note that any one of us could be subject to the EXACT KIND AND TYPE of prying and swooping and all of that if for some demented reason some paparazzi wanted to do that to us - it's just that they don't care where we shop or what we buy or whom we have affairs with (not that we have affairs, but still). So one might say that celebrities already have the same rights as the rest of us - to protect them specially because they're picked on by the paparazzi is to say that they deserve EXTRA rights that the rest of us don't have. Is that right? I'm just asking, I'm not saying I have the answer.

What *is* personal space? The usual definition is what we own - we are safe inside our homes and our cars and so on. But if we get on a bus, the guy in front of us can spin around and preach at us - or snap a photo in our faces. If we walk down the street, same thing. The paparazzi probably step over the legal limits all the time - on the hope that they won't get popped for it - but otherwise, ambushing someone coming out of a restaurant, while annoying in the extreme, I'm sure, is perfectly legal. Should it be forbidden? What about politicians - are they covered by the new shield laws too? Can they hide their amorous affairs or their clandestine meetings with shadowy underworld figures?

Well, you see where I'm going with this, I'm sure. Hey, I see where you're coming from - and I think most of the paparazzi are not interesting people and not worth my time - and I support the end of their profession by not buying the magazines or watching "Entertainment Tonight" and so on. But they also represent the sharp edge of the rights that all of us photographers would preserve - the right to bear witness, to inform the public - we're all in favor of that, yes?

It is a shame that people like Larry Flynt represent the extreme edge of the rights of the written press - and that the paparazzi represent the extreme edge of the rights of the photographic press - but there it is. I think we muzzle these sorts at our own peril - but that doesn't mean I like them, either!

Well, what to do. Messy old world, eh?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

PS - Oh, and by the way - I've been warned not to 'start trouble' with this thread - and I have no desire to do so. Really folks, I just posted a news story that I thought was applicable to our world of photography - and thought it would make interesting discussion. I have no intention of offending anyone - I respect all viewpoints - and I would hate to create a shouting match on this wonderful forum. If I offend anyone, please just let me know and I'll shut up, ok? Thanks!
 
Princess Diana died not because of paparazzi, but because she simply neglected to fasten her seat-belt.

Other points here all valid. It'd be nice if all journalists had the same sense of common decency that most of us have, but then, as I've said before, I'm a hopeless utopian idealist.
🙂

Cheers,
Steve
(Di Caprio oughta be a little more carefull with his words, though, because if something *does* happen accidentally, this could be thrown in his face legally...)
 
I guess I am just like Doug here. If you are a celebrity that cannot go anywhere in public without being mobbed, that is horrible and wrong. Making a public appearance is another story. Just because they make millions doesn't mean they should be prevented from going to the corner store, out to dinner, or out to walk their dogs. There is a huge difference between a press photographer who covers events and someone who follows celebreties around and ambushes them with either super telephoto lenses or close up flashes etc.
 
Originally posted by st3ph3nm Princess Diana died not because of paparazzi, but because she simply neglected to fasten her seat-belt.

I thought she died because her driver exceeded the speed limit as well as not fastening her seat belt. Having a paparazzi in tow doesn't exempt anyone from laws and basic safety. Bad decision on the drivers side IMO, and unfortunately a lot of people paid the price for it that night.
 
Excellent points, Bill and Steve. For the record, I agree with you. I think my essential objection to the whole paparazzi thing is that seems to me an unnecessarily rude, intrusive process and I find it hard to believe that this method is the ONLY way to get interesting shots of a celebrity (plus, do we really need to see shots of Celeb X picking their nose or something, I mean, come on...). Leaving that aside, I do know legislation is most definitely not the answer to this problem, much as the celebs might wish it to be so.

Obviously I'd never be a good paparrazo (I hope that's the correct singular form, the only Italian I know is what shows up on menus). I'd be too busy trying to ask permission to shoot to actually get it 🙂

Interesting thread, Bill, thanks for starting it.
 
I agree with your whole outlook on celebs and their privacy, dkirchge. Things are a bit out of control. The fuel is the media that can pay $45,000 for a single image and make money on it. Whats driving it is the insatiable appetite fo the public for these images and stories. Because there is such a great payoff for photographers, they are willing to take changes in getting those images. A vicious cycle. The more famous they are, the more the images go for, the harder and looser the photos play.

Only after sitting on this image for a few years did I find out what it was worth. Had I known..... but, I just walked into this shot and wouldn't go hunting to get something like this. I would be terrible at it, and probably would try to ask permission before snapping a photo a Hugh Grant with another woman while cheating on Elizabeth Hurley (why on earth would he...., oh never mind).
 
Stephen,

Sign of my age. I don't recognize either of those two, but the shot itself is very nice. I presume they are famous?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
sfaust said:
I thought she died because her driver exceeded the speed limit as well as not fastening her seat belt. Having a paparazzi in tow doesn't exempt anyone from laws and basic safety. Bad decision on the drivers side IMO, and unfortunately a lot of people paid the price for it that night.

Absolutely. But think about this. The driver survived. He was wearing his seatbelt.

Cheers,
Steve
 
Back
Top Bottom