What's the difference?

[GeorgeG]

Over the years we have seen a lot of paparazzi going after celebrities like there's no tomorrow. Besides making me glad I'm not famous, I don't know how these creeps think they can get away with climbing all over anyone just to get a photo and expect not to get hurt.

I have to wonder what the difference is between the paparazzi and stalkers.

 

[JimmyPicker]

The paparazzi get paid to do it. Stalkers like you so much, they do it for free!

 

[kelleigh1]

Papparazzi get paid and carry a camera.

 

[Barbossa]

I have an idea for thwarting the paparazzi: carry a very high intensity flashlight or floodlight and shine it in the paparazzi's camera lenses when they harass you. This wouldn't work if there was a large group of these creeps, but it would work on 1-2 of them. There'd be no physical contact, so they couldn't call the cops or sue you. Once they figured out that they wouldn't get a shot, they'd probably leave.

 

[daisax]

In the old days there were a small number of professionals who did it ... professionally, for lack of a better word. They knew they were in it for the long haul and keeping some kind of decent relationship with the star would lead to more pictures in the future, while aggravating them might not.

Now with the advent of digital cameras you have an army of amateurs who know that they can score tens of thousands of dollars if they get the right picture (because the tabloids and infotainment market will pay for them).

I read an interview with George Clooney where he explained how the lower level guys work. A photo of a male celeb angry is worth the most amount of money, especially if it's somebody usually noted for being agreeable (everybody expects Sean Penn to throw a punch, Will Smith not so much).

So what they will do, is follow them through the airport or down the street saying absolutely vicious and merciless things about the women with them. He was with a female employee and they were commenting about her weight, and her sexual abilities and how she must perform to keep the job with him and that's what he's putting up with (and what people who appear in public must put up with). So it's easy to say "he makes the big bucks, he can ignore them" but when you're a decent guy and this swarm of scum is brutalizing some innocent person who happens to work for you, it's not exactly fair. It puts them in the position of reacting (which is what the jerks want) or not reacting (and having to put their companion through the wringer).

So it's not a mere case of "Hey, ____, look over here!" -- sometimes it's really active antagonism at work.

Of course then there are the celebs that phone the paparazzi to GET them to swarm around them. I'm glad Britney seems to be getting the mental health help she needed, because she played those guys like a violin (she was out getting gas and coffee 5-6 times a day in hopes of a commotion)

 

[Mickeyistheman]

The Paparazzi is definately different than it was several years ago. It used to be a profession, still not fabulous but if you have a digital camera and nothing else to do but literally stalk celebrities and get the good picture you can be paid alot of money.

I just feel bad like when they are with their children, if they are at a premier or at The Ivy even a night club (because they get paid to show up) then its fair game, but if they are with their kids leave them alone.

 

[legalsea]

I think the celebrities should sue these people. Allow me to explain:

If you, dear reader, were in business, you could not use Britney Spears image in order to promote your business ("Britney Loves My Wazoos! You Will Too!"). Not only could she sue you and make you stop using her image, you would probably have to pay her court costs and possibly some type of punative damages.

Now, these 'professional' celebrity photographers: they are in business. Their business is taking photographs of celebrities and selling said photographic images to magazines. In other words, they take the photographs for profit.

It has long been settled that celebrities can prevent other people or businesses from profiting from the celebrities image in the pursuit of business without first obtaining the celebrities permission, license, etc. Why, then, should the paparazzi (as well as the magazines) be exempt?

I submit that, at the very least, there should be a law that if a paparazzi takes an unauthorized photograph of a celebrity, and sells said photograph, then the celebrity automatically receives a percentage of the sale price. Furthermore, the magazine that publishes the photographs should also have to automatically pay a price.

Anyway, hurt them in the pocketbook, and the practice will certainly slow down.

 

[GeorgeG]

I think the celebrities should sue these people. Allow me to explain:

If you, dear reader, were in business, you could not use Britney Spears image in order to promote your business ("Britney Loves My Wazoos! You Will Too!"). Not only could she sue you and make you stop using her image, you would probably have to pay her court costs and possibly some type of punative damages.

Now, these 'professional' celebrity photographers: they are in business. Their business is taking photographs of celebrities and selling said photographic images to magazines. In other words, they take the photographs for profit.

It has long been settled that celebrities can prevent other people or businesses from profiting from the celebrities image in the pursuit of business without first obtaining the celebrities permission, license, etc. Why, then, should the paparazzi (as well as the magazines) be exempt?

I submit that, at the very least, there should be a law that if a paparazzi takes an unauthorized photograph of a celebrity, and sells said photograph, then the celebrity automatically receives a percentage of the sale price. Furthermore, the magazine that publishes the photographs should also have to automatically pay a price.

Anyway, hurt them in the pocketbook, and the practice will certainly slow down.

That's kind of along the line I was thinking. Even very public people have very private lives outside of business. I always thought magazines and TV crews had to get people to sign a release to use their photos. The paparazzi seem to have invented a form of legal harassment in how they get their photos.

Maybe people need to take out copyrights on their own images.

Thanks for your comments, legalsea!

 

[Acklander]

Yeah, but Britney would look silly suing, because she was usually the one to tip off the paps as to where she would be. This goes on a lot more than you would imagine where the star tips them off, and then pretends to look annoyed when the photos are snapped. It's a game.