A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Casual Photo Conversations > Paparazzi Photography, should...

Featured Equipment Deals

Latest Equipment Articles

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50 Read More

10 Stocking Stuffers under $50

We've searched high and low to put together this list of 10 small photo-related gifts that any photography lover would be delighted to receive. No matter your budget, these are also fun to give (or...

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


Paparazzi Photography, should it be banned?

Allen Herbert , Mar 02, 2003; 03:04 p.m.

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.

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4     Next    Last

Ray . , Mar 02, 2003; 03:17 p.m.

What are you doing Allen, asking a serious question?

Allen Herbert , Mar 02, 2003; 03:28 p.m.

Of course!


paparazz1

Al Kaplan - Miami, FL , Mar 02, 2003; 03:40 p.m.

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

crackers . , Mar 02, 2003; 04:06 p.m.

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.

Allen Herbert , Mar 02, 2003; 04:44 p.m.

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"

James . , Mar 02, 2003; 05:04 p.m.

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

edward weinstein , Mar 02, 2003; 05:31 p.m.

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

Olivier Reichenbach , Mar 02, 2003; 05:34 p.m.

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.

Marc Williams , Mar 02, 2003; 05:53 p.m.

Maybe just the Paparrazzi part.


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses