Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!


bmurray 10 50 Scotland
13 Feb 2008 10:46AM
I would like to find out the opinion of real professional photographers on the paparazzi. I, personally, think that it should be made illegal to take and sell a picture of anyone if the taking of said picture infringed their personal safety. How do you feel about this?
Is it really necessary to hide in someones garden just to get a picture of what they look like in the morning without their make-up on?
What business is it of ours whether a celebrity wears underwear or not?
Why do they complain when they are punched in the face or have their cameras broken?
when i look through the galleries on this site and others it is painfully clear that there are a limitless amount of people, places and things that can be photographed without the need to impose yourself. I just think it is a sickening act and noone can argue the 'freedom of the press' card because there is no social benefit from these pictures. it a filthy penetrative act and should be treated accordingly.
am i right? or am i missing something?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Geoffphoto 12 13.5k United Kingdom
13 Feb 2008 10:57AM
Interesting point - but sadly while there is huge money to be made, 50,000 for a pic of Brittany for example, somebody will always do it. This very point was made today on the BBC website - here .

Now if people were not so damn interested in slebs and keep buying the mags...............!
MattyEdwards 11 44 1 United Kingdom
13 Feb 2008 10:58AM
Thats the problem, supply and demand. While there are countless sad celebs desperate to live out their lives in public, and countless people desperate to buy the latest mag with the pics in, its always going to happen.
pepperst 10 2.3k 4 Wales
13 Feb 2008 11:04AM
People have wanted the images since the invention of the 35mm and improved printing presses, look at weegee.

As sam said the last ime it came up, if you get offered 2 months wages for one shot on the telephoto of a closed film set then why not, I know am not rich enough to say no.

That said its not something I like about photography but if people keep paying for the pictures then they will get taken.
bmurray 10 50 Scotland
13 Feb 2008 11:08AM
Thats my point though, if it was made illegal to buy these pictures then they would never be taken. the magazines use unscrupulous methods to sucker people in to buy them, they are catergorically exploiting the lack of intelligence of a certain group of people. We should be encouraging people to think for themselves not bullying them into buying a magazine because it has bright colours on it. i know this is a huge issue but the older i get the more annoyed its making me. I chose to stop buying papers and magazines about 10 years ago because i finally allowed myself to admit that they were full of lies and supposition and yet there is not one work van or staff room in the country that doesnt have a copy of the sun or the mirror. im going to slowly haemorrhage if i go on. i should have made it a simple: Real photographers, are the paparazzi the spawn of satan>? yes or no.
keith selmes 14 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
13 Feb 2008 11:12AM

Quote:it should be made illegal to take and sell a picture of anyone if the taking of said picture infringed their personal safety
Any action endangering personal safety probably is illegal already, regardless of whether taking pictures was involved.

Injuries to photographers would be a slightly different matter. Assaulting or running over a photographer probably isn't legal or justified, unless the photographer has already committed an assault, or they've endangered themselves by placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle for example.
And if someone is courting publicity and it goes wrong, they shouldn't really be damaging the people who provide the publicity.
(I'm thinking especially of Spears and mother running over a tog with the SUV)
pepperst 10 2.3k 4 Wales
13 Feb 2008 11:14AM
Dude can you split your text up please Smile

I think you are boarding on censorship with your idea and that is something that should never be allowed.

Spawn or satan?

Some members probaly but the majority: No

Canon users on the other hand!

runs off to hide before he gets arse kicked
Geoffphoto 12 13.5k United Kingdom
13 Feb 2008 11:18AM
Now Brian, please don't start getting upset - As a working pro for over 20 years, I personally think that the antics of some of the so called paps are well overstepping the mark and I won't do it. ( I have been asked to stalk somebody with the camera and refused !! ) But if it's your job and the rewards are so great, and providing that you are within the law then there will always be paps who don't forget have been around for over 50 years.

(Hope this makes some sort of sense !! )
keith selmes 14 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
13 Feb 2008 11:19AM

Quote:I chose to stop buying papers and magazines
I sometimes buy specialist magazines, or a local newspaper, or the financial times. Otherwise I'd agree - the "news" is pretty selective and unreliable, and suggest they're generally aimed at selling papers and promoting the owners politics. TV news isn't much better.
Its only worth reading them to find out what garbage they're pushing out to form public opinion - that can be pretty revealing sometimes.
pepperst 10 2.3k 4 Wales
13 Feb 2008 11:24AM

Quote:TV news isn't much better

TV news gets worse every month I am sure of it.
Most it is guess work or opinion, when the glasgow car bomb happened the most reliable and accurate news channel turned out to be al jazera (and I am sure I spelt that wrong).
I tracked the story on them, cnn, sky and the bbc. oh and fox but thats not a rel news channel anyway.
cameracat 14 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
13 Feb 2008 11:39AM
All media frenzy is the same, Be it a single photographer following a so called celeb, Or the hoards of TV news stations doing the same.

Where is a " Pap " any different to the BBC/CNN/SKY news crews.......!

It's down to a price for living in a " Democratic " society ( Well! almost democratic )
Geraint 11 715 34 Wales
13 Feb 2008 12:24PM

Quote: We should be encouraging people to think for themselves not bullying them into buying a magazine because it has bright colours on it.

But surely it's the individual's choice whether to buy the magazines or not? I never touch them - I think they're a complete waste of money and can't understand why people take so much interest in the lives of these so-called 'celebrities', but there are plenty others who do buy the magazines. Until they stop buying the mags there will always be call for photos of the 'celebs'.

Off-topic, but it's the same with reality TV. Why do people watch this crap? Life is so interesting without having to watch a group of people lounging around a house all day. But again, if people didn't actually watch these programmes there wouldn't be a market for them.

Plus, an issue that hasn't been considered is that many, many of these 'celebs' actually chase 'fame' and will do anything to get it ("Look at me in the Jungle", "Falling over on the Ice" etc). Then they complain about being 'harassed'. Fame is a double-edged sword....

I don't think the blame can be entirely laid at paparazzi's doorsteps. If there wasn't a demand for them they wouldn't have photos to take.
bmurray 10 50 Scotland
13 Feb 2008 1:30PM
Again, all good points. If noone was prepared to take these photos then the 'so-called' celebs would not be able to try and use them in this way. they would actually have to do something worthwhile and not just hop out of a car with their breakfast on show.
Tv news isnt much better but at least most of these reports show the reporter telling us what is happening as it happens in the background, they are not normally as forceful as to shove their camera or microphone in someones face.
Britney is a different story, surely people can realise that this girl is seriously deranged and getting worse by the minute, she needs help she doesnt need encouragement to provide photo opportunites.
People don't buy magazines through choice anymore, they are hounded into it because they are led to believe that its 'in' to read a certain magazine and when in with a jury of their peers they would feel inadequate if they didn't have the gumption to say, 'sorry, no i don't read that because it is total garbage.'
It just seems to distract from the bigger picture (excuse the pun) regarding the real issues. Photographers are out there even today risking their lives to bring us shots of horrific atrocities that we should be hearing about or discovering new species of life and nature, but no..."what colour knickers is posh wearing today?" "oo look she has had hair extensions" its total garbage.
Geraint 11 715 34 Wales
13 Feb 2008 2:20PM
You see I think everyone has a choice. If some people can see through all the rubbish and choose not to buy into this consumerism why can't everyone? I'm not going to feel sorry for someone who buys "Heat" or "OK" just because everyone else is doing so. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head! It shows much greater character to do your own thing in my opinion.

I'm afraid the problems lie at a societal and cultural level. People would rather be fed easily-digestable garbage than be asked to consider challenging issues.

It's getting very deep for a Wednesday afternoon.....Smile
joolsb 13 27.1k 38 Switzerland
13 Feb 2008 2:26PM

Quote:If some people can see through all the rubbish and choose not to buy into this consumerism why can't everyone?

Sadly because the vast majority of the population like to be told what to think....

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.