View Full Version : Paparazzi as a job?
Would you do paparazzi work?
I.e. would you take celeb photos for a price?
How far would you go for 'that' $10,000 shot of ... oh lets play ... Gordon Ramsay with 'another' woman?
DAdeGroot
09-06-2009, 7:50pm
No, I don't think I could do that. Sure, the money is good, but I'm told so's the money in drug dealing...
Yeah but I'd have to weigh up the situation first, if some scumbag was doing something extroadinarily underhanded that would affect many others then I'd take a shot, but I'd also think about my own welfare or families should revenge be a possibility. :violent10: :animal3:
No, I don't think I could do that. Sure, the money is good, but I'm told so's the money in drug dealing...
I would not suggest anything illegal - but there is a line somewhere!
davesmith
09-06-2009, 8:01pm
I predict mostly "no". For one, with rare exceptions, paps don't care much for photography as an art or craft unlike the folk that frequent this forum. They're more interested in nailing a shot purely for money regardless of quality, where people here tend to be people into learning and sharing. Had this been asked on a pap forum (assuming one exists) I doubt there's much chat about the art of photography.
I doubt there's an inbetween where someone would do it, but consider doing it with taste. At the risk of sterotyping the folk that do it, I reckon paparazzi with taste is a bit of an oxymoron. I'd love to be proven wrong though and see the other side.
old dog
09-06-2009, 8:08pm
never, ever. I might get my camera scratched.....
farmer_rob
09-06-2009, 8:14pm
I'm too lazy to really go for paparazzi work. However, if the opportunity presented and I had the camera, I'd have no problems in trying to get the shot. My view is that they chose to be celebrities - the least I can do is a) help and b) make some cash.
(I would however draw the line at victims of circumstance - those people who don't chose the 15 seconds of fame, but get it thrust on them anyway and don't grab it.)
ricktas
09-06-2009, 8:28pm
I voted Yes.
Although to clarify, I would not like to be a 'celebrity chasing' photographer. However, if circumstances eventuated where I happened across a situation and had my camera, would I take the shot...Hell Yes..Would I sell it to the highest bidder...Yes again.
So, taking your suggestion Kym, if I happened to be strolling along a beach preparing to get sunset shots and came across a naked Gordon Ramsay frolicking in the surf with some 'floosie', I would take the shots. If he wanted the moment to be private, he should have stayed in his hotel room
tonykieuphotography
09-06-2009, 8:56pm
I voted Yes.
.... if I happened to be strolling along a beach preparing to get sunset shots and came across a naked Gordon Ramsay frolicking in the surf with some 'floosie', I would take the shots. If he wanted the moment to be private, he should have stayed in his hotel room
hahaha seems you don't like the man :D
ricktas
09-06-2009, 9:01pm
hahaha seems you don't like the man :D
I only used him cause that is the name the thread creator used in his first post. Wouldn't matter who it was to me. If they do it in public they are fair game.
Yes with taste; have done a little and a very little at that; depends on the $$; would love to get GR with his pants down
:)
tonykieuphotography
09-06-2009, 9:27pm
Apologies, I didn't see see that the op was talking about gordon ramsay :D
Apologies, I didn't see see that the op was talking about gordon ramsay :D
ramsay was only as an example. He is an 'easy' target - no one would have much issue with getting a shot of him for money.
...but would you go far enough to be a real paparazzo, would you sneak up to the man's backyard and take pictures of his 6-year old in the swimmingpool? I hope not...
...but would you go far enough to be a real paparazzo, would you sneak up to the man's backyard and take pictures of his 6-year old in the swimmingpool? I hope not...
I voted Yes, but with taste. And that would be tasteless in my values. There are limits.
I
Actually, I intended to ask Rick ;) (he would, after all, take the picture if the opportunity is there and the money is good). Threw away the whole quote while replying :o
ricktas
10-06-2009, 6:54am
No, cause to me a backyard is a private space, even though the law (in Aus) says differently in regard to photography (ie. if it is viewable from a public space it can be photographed)
No I wouldnt do iut as a job - but say I was taking a pic of something else and an opportunity was there which didn't involve stalking and following around a person to get some good shot people would pay for then I'd probably take it (as long as wasnt bad taste or trashy or something...)
oldfart
10-06-2009, 7:17am
Did K. Rudds missus deserve to have her photo taken at he gym, probably not, but the photo was deemed "news" worthy by woman's day. Hiding behind "No expectation of Privacy" photos like this risk the right to photograph in a public place for all of us.
Above said, find me Tracey Grimshaw or Zoe Meunier topless on her local beach and all moral objections are off. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
ricktas
10-06-2009, 8:09am
Did K. Rudds missus deserve to have her photo taken at he gym, probably not, but the photo was deemed "news" worthy by woman's day. Hiding behind "No expectation of Privacy" photos like this risk the right to photograph in a public place for all of us.
Above said, find me Tracey Grimshaw or Zoe Meunier topless on her local beach and all moral objections are off. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The issue with K Rudd's missus is that the photo were taken from inside the gym, the person who took them was in the gym and obviously had a hidden camera. So as they did not have permission to be photographing inside private premises, the photos were illegally taken. Interesting argument though, cause if the gym has cctv, then any attendees must accept being photographed...so...
I would in a heartbeat too.
Taste ? too subjective
Legal - if it's legal then it's fair game
Interesting argument though, cause if the gym has cctv, then any attendees must accept being photographed...so...
IANAL .... but intent and purpose come into play.
If CCTV is for security and there is no intent to publish then it is still private.
I thing the legal interpretation would be that a 'reasonable person' has the expectation that security image/video will not be published.
I'd do it but not go as far as put the subject in a dangerous position. Ever since the paparazzi were involved in the death of the princess there are certain lines that I would not cross.
Goldie
10-06-2009, 10:50am
No, cause to me a backyard is a private space, even though the law (in Aus) says differently in regard to photography (ie. if it is viewable from a public space it can be photographed)
Backyards are considered private space.
ricktas
10-06-2009, 10:51am
Backyards are considered private space.
Sorry, but under the law, any place visible from public space can be photographed. So if I stood on a footpath and photographed someone in a backyard/paddock or elsewhere, as long as I was standing on public land, it is legal to do so. This is the exact law that the paparazzi use
yes, true, unless the subject is doing something that might be reasonably be expected to be private, or is otherwise indecent.
pgbphotographytas
10-06-2009, 2:32pm
Yes as long as it was all legal, after all I need to pay for the camera bags / cases some how :)
Yeah, I'd give it a crack. After all $10,000 is $10,000 dosen't matter to me how I get it (within reason:rolleyes: ).
no freakin gravy!!!
i am not even gunna read this thread then :P
hehe
seriously, wouldnt go downthe tasteless route.
No, cause to me a backyard is a private space
It is a very fine line between what is "legal" and what is acceptable. I mean: that image of his daughter in the backyard is something you wouldn't take (because it's close to voyeurism maybe?). But what if she was out in the open, let's say sitting on a bench in a street somewhere, eating a greasy fish-and-chips obviously served from a very bad cafeteria. That last situation actually would have news-value: the child of the self-proclaimed super-cook eats very unhealthy food. Would you take that image and sell it?
ricktas
10-06-2009, 5:35pm
It is a very fine line between what is "legal" and what is acceptable. I mean: that image of his daughter in the backyard is something you wouldn't take (because it's close to voyeurism maybe?). But what if she was out in the open, let's say sitting on a bench in a street somewhere, eating a greasy fish-and-chips obviously served from a very bad cafeteria. That last situation actually would have news-value: the child of the self-proclaimed super-cook eats very unhealthy food. Would you take that image and sell it?
Yep!
Sorry, but under the law, any place visible from public space can be photographed. So if I stood on a footpath and photographed someone in a backyard/paddock or elsewhere, as long as I was standing on public land, it is legal to do so. This is the exact law that the paparazzi use
There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backyard - try and build a house extension that lets you see into your neighbour's backyard and see how far the local council lets you go.
ricktas
10-06-2009, 5:38pm
There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backyard - try and build a house extension that lets you see into your neighbour's backyard and see how far the local council lets you go.
agree, but as the law stands, if a person is visible from a public space, then they are legally allowed to be photographed. Your original post stating a backyard was private is not how it is deemed legally, in a photographic sense.
You say your backyard is private, consider this. Your backyard is near a park. I photograph you and your partner having sex in your backyard. You complain about a breach of your privacy. At the same time several families using the park (with children) notice your behaviour and report you to the police. Who is going to get arrested, me for photographing you, or you and your partner for public indecency? Your backyard is not private if it is visible from a public space and you cannot expect it to be 'off limits'.
i'm with Rick, i would take a photo and sell to the highest bidder but it would be an opportunist shot. otherwise, it's not my bag. i friend of mine took the last pictures of Peter Brock, just minutes prior to his crash. the photos were nothing spectacular by his standards, but he received a 5 figure sum for those few pics.
i friend of mine took the last pictures of Peter Brock, just minutes prior to his crash. the photos were nothing spectacular by his standards, but he received a 5 figure sum for those few pics.
And that to me is exactly where the line is drawn. I would sell the photos prior to the crash ---- and delete the ones of the wrecked car etc. etc.
sorry, all the photos he took were prior to the crash, he wasn't near the crash site. these were at the start of the stage.
Tom, that is what I meant, the photos prior to the carnage are the last ones of the man as many will remember him and are of true value, anything taken after the event showing destruction of life and property are pure sensationalism and are only suited to coroners courts. I don't think they serve any public interest and that is what the media are about ------ isn't it ????
farmer_rob
10-06-2009, 7:53pm
... and are only suited to coroners courts. I don't think they serve any public interest and that is what the media are about ------ isn't it ????
Actually, I'd argue that for the coroners court, they do serve public interest. At the same time (and I assume - possibly wrongly:o - that no sarcasm is intended ) that the media have nothing to do with "public interest" in the context of public good, and far more to do with the interest of the public - if it sells newspapers/advertising time/advertising space, it is in the interests of the media. (I don't actually mean this too cynically - they are in business, and wages have to be paid and profits made.)
Overall, I side with Rick - I still have no qualms - if the photo can be taken publicly and it is worth money, taste has very little to do with it. If I had the (admittedly voyeuristic and in poor taste) shots of post-crash Peter Brock, I would not delete them.
I voted Yes, but with limitations:
I'm opposed to taking shots where people except to be having privacy (even when having out and about in the street), however I'd be happy to shoot people at red carpet events, openings etc where they are there to be in the spotlight.
I wonder if the money really is that good (particulary in Perth! - or Oz for that matter) to be a 24/7 paparazzi? AFAIK, the money for hard core paparazzi seems to be in the UK.
kyteflyer
11-06-2009, 7:01am
I voted yes, with taste (though as someone commented, that is highly subjective).
Re the backyard issue: I don't think I would push it that far, because I thing that in some places the law is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My backyard, for example, is planted with trees around its perimeter and has a 6 ft fence. In theory, someone could see in with a long lens and reasonable elevation, but I would challenge a photograph taken of me in the yard (not that anyone would!), because since I have taken the trouble to fence and plant appropriately, I do have an expectation of privacy. The backyard issue is a minefield and I think its tempting fate to go there.
On a beach or in any public place (street etc, but not IN buildings which are not public places) celebs are fair game and if I had the cam, you bet I would take the shot and sell it off.
DzRbenson
11-06-2009, 12:39pm
I would do it as a job.
Not in Australia though, the US would be the market. and I would probably go along way to get the shot I needed.
There used to be a show on foxtel about this very thing, was a great show
I voted yes,
Id take the shot and sell it in a heart beat for the right price.
dgstones
15-06-2009, 7:11am
Work within the law, take the snap, and sell it to the highest bidder. Yes, of course I would.
outsidetheboxphotography
24-06-2009, 8:42pm
once upon a not too long time ago I was offered a position with a pap agency.
I ummed and ahhhed about it - Its pretty good money if your picture gets sold (the downside to integrity - $$). At the end of the day I just couldn't do it - to really do it properly you basically have to sell your soul.
This particular agency, though they get a lot of sales - basically were really hard core. The stories that were told as to how the photos were taken would leave any decent human repulsed.
What I noticed as well, they never called themselves photographers - they were "shooters". That just gave me even more nasty images as to what lengths they would go to, to get the shot.
So in a nutshell...no to the job, unless you have no soul!
I am with you rick, I would take the shot and sell it to the highest bidder. Although I have not done it yet, as part of my job I have been pilot in command for a number of photographers taking pictures of mine explosions, bushfires, train and car accidents etc. It's probably not that much different we all have jobs to do and bills to pay.
Dalzine
07-07-2009, 12:57pm
There are good and bad in all industries, Paparazzi are no different. The ironic thing is though as much as people love to hate them the magazines that buy the photos sell by the truckload.
I'm sure most of the Paparazzi just see it as a job, a way to keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs. I'm sure they don't think "I'm going to be an evil so and so" as they head out on a job. Even the ones that chased Princess Di into that tunnel were just trying to earn a quid, I doubt any of them would have chased if they knew what the outcome would be. And while it is true they chased no one was forcing the driver to act in a reckless manner. He chose to drive the way he did in an effort to avoid a photograph being taken, which seems pretty silly in my book.
So while my answer would be Yes, I would do it I doubt I would be good enough to be a Paparazzi, I just don't have the drive that's required to be at the top of that game.
Dale.
I managed to be a little Paparazzi...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=34355
At least with taste (as I voted) ;) plus permission in the end.
id do it. no probs happy to :) anyone got any leads! :D
Crazy Horse
30-07-2009, 1:17pm
n. pl. pa·pa·raz·zi (-sē)
A freelance photographer who doggedly pursues celebrities to take candid pictures for sale to magazines and newspapers.
I voted no, I can't see myself being like a seagulls at a chip. :D
rogklee
30-07-2009, 6:00pm
I wouldn't go out in search for a certain celeb. No matter how bad they are, I don't think ppl deserve to be criticized when they go off for a pee. or off to the shops!!
None the less, if I saw paris hilton throwing up near a dumpster, I'll take that!! I'll even take some macro photos of her vomit and sell it on ebay!!
Rog
yarnella
13-02-2010, 9:43am
I voted NO. Not even the slightest bit interested. Just not my style.
Most celebs are not worth an actuation of my shutter. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Captured Exposure
13-02-2010, 4:59pm
Possibly if the opportunity presented itself to take a photo of someone out and about. I wouldn't follow them around and be in their face though. Although they are in the public eye I do believe they are entitled to some privacy as well.
I don't envy having the paps follow me around if I was famous.
Shane.R
18-02-2010, 11:48am
There are good and bad in all industries, Paparazzi are no different. The ironic thing is though as much as people love to hate them the magazines that buy the photos sell by the truckload.
Spot on! It's the 'people' who buy the junk/gossip mags that keep the 'shooters' employed.
I'd do it, if it caused NO harm to others.
melmo78
18-02-2010, 1:09pm
i would do it(not chase people thought) if i was walking down the street and seen a celeb of interest i would take a snap and sell it(need to fund the camera equipment somehow)
fhphoto
21-02-2010, 4:29pm
Do whatever to get that moneyshot!!
I voted Yes.
Although to clarify, I would not like to be a 'celebrity chasing' photographer. However, if circumstances eventuated where I happened across a situation and had my camera, would I take the shot...Hell Yes..Would I sell it to the highest bidder...Yes again.
So, taking your suggestion Kym, if I happened to be strolling along a beach preparing to get sunset shots and came across a naked Gordon Ramsay frolicking in the surf with some 'floosie', I would take the shots. If he wanted the moment to be private, he should have stayed in his hotel room
I only used him cause that is the name the thread creator used in his first post. Wouldn't matter who it was to me. If they do it in public they are fair game.
I agree
well, here's my test
I was on the same plane out of Sydney to Wellington as Michael Clark, and had all my gear on me, and I didnt take a snap
I fail :crzy:
wiggles
18-03-2010, 9:29pm
I would like to keep my soul intact so No for me :)
but if they gave me permission then yes I would ;)
well, here's my test
I was on the same plane out of Sydney to Wellington as Michael Clark, and had all my gear on me, and I didnt take a snap
I fail :crzy:
Coward! You were afraid he would hit you! :p :lol2:
RLeadbetter
20-03-2010, 12:53am
if i was wondering down the road and they walked in front of me, i'd take a shot and then if I could get money for it then..... lucky me.
the child of the self-proclaimed super-cook eats very unhealthy food. Would you take that image and sell it?
I feel for these poor celebs or famous peoples, they can't scratch their bum without some person there capturing it.
Both my parents were actors in the uk pretty well known in their day(60`s-70`s) if we went on holiday were quite often photographed etc but was very low key in those days.
maccaroneski
21-03-2010, 4:37pm
Paparazzi trivia - origin of the word: I finally got around to watching "La Dolce Vita", classic Federico Fellini movie. In it Marcello Mastroianni plays a journalist, and the name of the photographer, who uses every trick in the book to get a shot, was named "Paparazzo". Upon hearing that I researched to see "what came first", and it is definitely the name of the character. Fellini is quoted somewhere as saying that it means "sparrow" in an Italian dialect.
My answer: no. Sure the public has a right to know, it is the price of fame, blah blah blah. Even if I agreed with capital punishment, and it was legal, I wouldn't want to be the one in the firing squad pulling the trigger.
Xenedis
21-03-2010, 4:45pm
Would you do paparazzi work?
I.e. would you take celeb photos for a price?
Nope.
It's a pretty low act, if you ask me.
Some of those Hollywood paps absolutely hound celebs.
While celebrities are public figures, they do have private lives, which should be respected. Sure, if the celeb is working, attending an industry function or something else along those lines, the celeb can expect to be photographed -- and paps can snap away -- but following celebs when they go shopping, or sticking lenses into their yards is just not on.
IMO, paps degrade the photographic industry. Some of them are ruthless and shameless, and I dare say it's just the sort of people they are, who'd be that way no matter what job they had.
James T
08-04-2010, 1:09pm
Paparazzi trivia - origin of the word: I finally got around to watching "La Dolce Vita", classic Federico Fellini movie. In it Marcello Mastroianni plays a journalist, and the name of the photographer, who uses every trick in the book to get a shot, was named "Paparazzo". Upon hearing that I researched to see "what came first", and it is definitely the name of the character. Fellini is quoted somewhere as saying that it means "sparrow" in an Italian dialect...
I've always been told Paparazzo was slang or regional meaning mosquito.
EDIT to add, no, I wouldn't do it as a job, there are far easier ways of making a living. Though I do get paid to shoot celebrities, it's when they're at functions, parties, awards ceremonies, etc.
Paparazzi... would like to say yes as it just seems like an exotic kind of job. Lets face it you are basically getting as close as you can to the rich and famous. BUT what a slippery slope you start taking photos of C grade celebrities at the shopping centre and the next thing you know you are selling photos of a celebrity in a car crash. So it has to be a no for me.
James T
14-04-2010, 6:39pm
Paparazzi... would like to say yes as it just seems like an exotic kind of job. Lets face it you are basically getting as close as you can to the rich and famous. BUT what a slippery slope you start taking photos of C grade celebrities at the shopping centre and the next thing you know you are selling photos of a celebrity in a car crash. So it has to be a no for me.
If exotic is sitting in your car for 5 nights in a row surviving on coffee and bad takeaway, then yeah maybe. ;)
The guys at the top get a lot of cash, but I have no idea why most of them put themselves through it. :confused013
Paparazzi... would like to say yes as it just seems like an exotic kind of job. Lets face it you are basically getting as close as you can to the rich and famous. BUT what a slippery slope you start taking photos of C grade celebrities at the shopping centre and the next thing you know you are selling photos of a celebrity in a car crash. So it has to be a no for me.
I voted no as well..... I'd be scared of getting mugged for my expensive camera!!
But honestly, the long hours and no guaranteed income puts me off.
ameerat42
28-05-2010, 8:23pm
(Remind me to vote NO after this spiel, but) I don't find anything to celebrate in "celebrities". Am (not interested).
mate of mine on a usa forum im on is a FT pap, he just paid for a new car with one photo of reclusive celeb and new child.:)
I say No. Im too nice of a person. Plus I hate car salesman and I think both jobs are on par with each other. Leeching off someone to make money
Ok, scenario
You are shooting a football match or a landscape and see Lara Bingle smooching with Michael Clarke in the private room of the mcg, you havd a clear shot through the window, yes, huge story, $20000 picture
What would you do ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, scenario
You are shooting a football match or a landscape and see Lara Bingle smooching with Michael Clarke in the private room of the mcg, you havd a clear shot through the window, yes, huge story, $20000 picture
What would you do ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First, ask myself seriously if I am a photographer or a used car real estate salesman cash strapped gear head.
And then take the shot regardless and peddle it to the highest bidder, the photo gets run and ruins the existing realtionship of Clarke and costs him his chance of captaincy
You have 20000 though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've been thinking about it some more... for me it really depends on who the celeb is.
If it were a doufus or pollie ... fair game!
The more 'infamous' the celeb the less scruples I would have :D
Eg. Eddie Maguire, KRudd, Media Mike Rann etc. are all fair game
Shane.R
06-06-2010, 8:04pm
Ok, scenario
You are shooting a football match or a landscape and see Lara Bingle smooching with Michael Clarke in the private room of the mcg, you havd a clear shot through the window, yes, huge story, $20000 picture
What would you do ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
..I'd vomit.
..but if it were Krudd and Bingle smooching, I'd snap away :)
RaoulIsidro
14-07-2010, 11:04am
Being a pap is hard yakka.
I lived many years in Surry Hills were Fox Studios were, and the town gets flooded now and then by them. The most I experienced were during the Star Wars and Matrix production in the early to mid 90's.
A lot of folks would probably say they won't do it, but then when they get that first hit of a five figure sum for their photo, who knows? It may well be the main reason why these guys go all out so much. Plus the adrenalin rush for the chase on the prey.
Just my 2c...
Error99
14-07-2010, 11:26am
I voted yes, and a big yes.
Whether people think I'm unscrupulous or not is not my concern.
As it is, I've been abused when shooting car accidents and other major incidents for newspapers.
Those are probably the same people who can't wait to see the paper the next day or that nights TV news or to get this weeks issue of "No Idea", "Who(cares) Weekly" etc.
I'm putting food on my table and feeding my family. That's all that matters.
Whether I or anyone else thinks that's right or wrong is of no consequence.
Is that harsh? Probably. Am I doing my job? Yes.
As a freelance or self employed photographer, no one's forcing anyone to do it if they don't want to.
I voted no,
I guess I don't like the concept of the borederline harrasment of people because they are 'famous'... Of course if I was walking along with my camera and saw a shot in public of a 'celeb' that would be worth a fortune, well maybe I would? :Doh:
Depends on who it is and what the situation is..
Ricktas's Gordon Ramsay situation if I was walking past with my camera, I probably would take the shot. But say Gordon's child had just drowned and was getting CPR and Gordon was there in agony obviously, the situation is very different, and I would have to say no way would I take a shot..
chrisprendergast
04-01-2011, 3:18pm
there is not too many good celebs in aus but if i lived overseas could be interested in being one, kinda like getting paid to be a stalker lol
after having a good mate of mine have his personal life recently invaded immensely by all major newspapers and trashy mags like womens day, i would never be a pap. He's now had to turn his phone off basically 24 hours a day, delete his FB page, etc, etc.
no amount of money could get me to do that to someone...
ricktas
04-01-2011, 9:57pm
And then take the shot regardless and peddle it to the highest bidder, the photo gets run and ruins the existing realtionship of Clarke and costs him his chance of captaincy
You have 20000 though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that didn't happen did it.
Nahh, bingles with another bloke now
GoldenOrb
05-01-2011, 1:48am
Yeh Id do it to a point, dont think I would consider sitting at airports waiting for people to rock up etc, but as Rick said, if I had my camera in hand and Yogi bear and Boo boo are having a punch up in a street, walking around in a mankini, or texting Warnie ... well for 10k, Id have to consider it. Besides 10k is good for some nice new glass :)
Mind you if it was sporting photography etc I wouldnt have a drama at all, just dont have the right gear to do it
mwphoto
26-01-2011, 4:37pm
I voted no, I can't see myself being like a seagulls at a chip. :D
Me neither. But if I was a seagull minding my own business in a very public place like a beach, or a park and someone threw a chip in my direction, I'd probably be happy to get paid to eat it:D
But I'm not much interested in celebs anyway, so would probably have a conversation with Gordon Ramsey without even knowing who he was;)
Mr Lensbaby
26-01-2011, 6:49pm
easy
No
I dont need dirty money at someone else s expense ;)
ameerat42
26-01-2011, 6:57pm
Me neither. But if I was a seagull minding my own business in a very public place like a beach, or a park and someone threw a chip in my direction, I'd probably be happy to get paid to eat it:D
But I'm not much interested in celebs anyway, so would probably have a conversation with Gordon Ramsey without even knowing who he was;)
Betcha it &*^%#) wouldn't (* take _)*(*&^ long to *&^ find out!:eek:
No for me as well; not my thing - if I was really desperate for work, I suppose I could.... :(
Did you know......that if you are doing something considered " offensive" to others, in your own private house, and people can see you through a window, it's you that can be charged for indecent exposure or whatever similar laws are in place for appropriate behavior in public.
Weird huh
And yes....I'd take the photo of Gordon and offer to sell it to him first :)
just rollin
04-03-2012, 11:07pm
Ok, scenario
You are shooting a football match or a landscape and see Lara Bingle smooching with Michael Clarke in the private room of the mcg, you havd a clear shot through the window, yes, huge story, $20000 picture
What would you do ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
for $20000 hell yea thats a new 6 and 800mm if it out in public and im the only one lucky enough to have a decent camera to get the shot why not
Well... this goes over the line... http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/security-questions-how-did-paparazzo-manage-to-take-clear-shot-of-kate-topless/story-fn907478-1226474693863
Some understanding of how those shots were taken...
http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/snapped-from-afar-topless-shots-spanned-1km-20120917-261a1.html
800mm + 2xTC - well D'oh! who would have thunked that :D
muggins
17-09-2012, 12:27pm
Ok I give up, What is the answer to this total invasion of privacy. Extreem fines against the magazines and newspaper publishers of these pictures,gaoling of the paparazzi for taking the photo or perhaps court action against the makers of the equipment that allows these type of shots.
I do not know. But it has to stop. I was no great fan of Diana. but the press and the paparazzi hounded her to her death. Can we as photographers allow this to go on. looking forward to all comments.
Muggins.
as a future queen of a fair chunk of planet one could safely assume your actions are being watched 24/7. So act accordingly, and keep your top on. I am sure she would have been briefed about such issues. / publicity /
Personally, it's a topless woman... So what.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
muggins
17-09-2012, 1:48pm
I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.
- - - Updated - - -
And by the way Papparazi are concerned with only one thing ME -that is Money and Ego as in what can I get for this series of shots and Ha Ha I am the only one that has got these shots.
ricktas
17-09-2012, 1:51pm
I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.
However, the Law in Australia is such that if a photographer is on public land, then they can take photos, unless the subject is somewhere that they would expect privacy (ie taking photos from between curtains that are drawn and there is a small gap in them). If a person is on private land and outside, visible from the public land, then they have to expect to be photographed. I think what the photographer in this instance did was morally wrong (my personal moral standards), but legally it was not wrong. I agree with Zollo, its just a couple of boobs, really who cares. :confused013
muggins
17-09-2012, 2:05pm
Hi Rick, I totally agree with you but we are not talking about law it is about morals The general photographic community would not stoop so low as to publish these photographs, but a small section will , in my last post I stated that these people are driven by ( ME ) ie Money and Ego and that is what it is all about.
all the best.
Steve
ricktas
17-09-2012, 2:44pm
So do you go to work to earn money? All of us are driven by money to some extent. How we earn that money is what differs. I do not believe the photographer is any more morally corrupt than the next person, when it comes to money. We all work to get money, to do the things we want to do in life.
Kate and William know they are the subject of intense interest, and she chose to remove her top. I really do not see what the fuss is all about. Cheap titillation (pun intended)!
I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.
- - - Updated - - -
And by the way Papparazi are concerned with only one thing ME -that is Money and Ego as in what can I get for this series of shots and Ha Ha I am the only one that has got these shots.
As a full time working photographer I am all across expectation of privacy, I'd say probably more so than yourself.
If you are going to start ridding the globe of unethical, ahem, genitalia, please start with a lot of the worlds leaders and corrupt governments and global polluters then work your way up to the REAL problems mankind faces like non sexualised photos of a topless woman. Who knew she was more than likely to have her photo taken. In France of all places, a country known for such behaviors.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
H If a person is on private land and outside, visible from the public land, then they have to expect to be photographed.
But if you need 800mm + 2xTC to get the photo has the expectation of privacy been breached?
Also, if a 'tog can get that close so can a sniper with say a M107A1 50cal sniper rifle. :(
But if you need 800mm + 2xTC to get the photo has the expectation of privacy been breached?
Also, if a 'tog can get that close so can a sniper with say a M107A1 50cal sniper rifle. :(
Hey Kym, if a person knows they are likely to be photographed doing something, but goes ahead and does it, can they still cry wolf?
Ps you would have to one the best snipers in the world to get a shot in from 1 kilometer, which is what the distance was claimed to be
Hey Kym, if a person knows they are likely to be photographed doing something, but goes ahead and does it, can they still cry wolf?
But that's the point, they thought they were in private.
Ps you would have to one the best snipers in the world to get a shot in from 1 kilometer, which is what the distance was claimed to be
Just a well trained person, quite possible with the right weapon and scope.
I knew an SAS soldier when I was in the army... I thought I did well on the range until I saw his results at a Queen's medal shoot.
no I don't think so ....I don't have a 70-200 lens yet:)
PeterP
08-10-2012, 11:02pm
I voted Yes.
Although to clarify, I would not like to be a 'celebrity chasing' photographer. However, if circumstances eventuated where I happened across a situation and had my camera, would I take the shot...Hell Yes..Would I sell it to the highest bidder...Yes again.
So, taking your suggestion Kym, if I happened to be strolling along a beach preparing to get sunset shots and came across a naked Gordon Ramsay frolicking in the surf with some 'floosie', I would take the shots. If he wanted the moment to be private, he should have stayed in his hotel room
Couldnt agree more Rick but on the subject of Ramsey though, I dont think i would have enough time this year to photoshop the crevices out on his face.;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.