Posts Tagged 'paparazzi'

Paparazzi Living It Up In DC

Photo by Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post

You wouldn’t think Washington, DC has enough sexy people to merit paparazzi. There isn’t really a big market for shots of Paul Ryan getting his haircut. But the Washington Post tells us that is, in fact, the case:

Yes, Washington now has its own homegrown pack of street photographers, a half-dozen or so who make their living selling photos and videos of visiting celebrities to gossip blogs, Web sites and magazines such as People and Us Weekly.

Local photographers have found they can make a great living hunting the haunts of celebrities that come to town to shoot movies or testify on the Hill. And the bonus is there is a lot less competition than in New York and LA, so photographers can make good money. Colin Drummond, the photographer they profiled, makes six figures — and made $50,000 (and counting) from a shot of a visiting Oprah. (OK, the photo also seemed to prove that she has six toes.)

The photographers who work this beat are more aggressive than the press corps Washington is used to, but so far they have not crossed the line into Britney Spears-type stalking. You’d probably get sent to Guantanamo for that, so it’s best not to push it.

“Everybody knows the rules, and to the extent anybody strays from them, we get them in line pretty quickly,” [Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance W.] Gainer says. “The whole thing you see on television — what goes on in New York and L.A. — may occur on the street, but it’s not an issue up here.”

Source: Washington Post

IDs For Your Friendly Local Paparazzi

With trendy shops and restaurants, Robertson Boulevard in LA is known as a good star-sighting spot. (OK, if your idea of a star is Kelly Osbourne.) And where there are stars, there are paparazzi. So The Daily Truffle has ID’d all the photogs hanging around the street day in and day out … Splash, Bauer Griffin, Wire Image, Getty. It’s insane when you think about it, really.

Fashion Street Photography Surges

Photo by Eirik Slyngstad/The Streethearts

The rise in street style photographers outside of fashion shows in New York, Paris and London has become a cottage industry of its own. As the Business of Fashion website writes, the hordes of photographers is starting to rival that for the most tabloid-worthy Hollywood stars, and it can be dangerous. It’s no wonder though; like a prized shot of Angelina Jolie, photos of the fashionable elite can result in serious bank.

But the rapid rise of street photography also has a darker side. The ‘bloggers walk’ in the Jardin des Tuileries, site of many major Paris shows, is now completely out of control. Indeed, it’s become increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the aggressive paparazzi who stalk Hollywood celebrities outside bars and clubs and a few of the bad apples amongst the hordes of photographers that accost editors as they come in and out of shows.

Several street style bloggers told me confidentially that the competition is extremely fierce for getting the best photographs, which can then be sold on to global editions of Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar each for as little as $200, but up to $1000 or more.

For some examples of exemplary street style, see StreetPeeperWoodboard and The Streethearts.

Paparazzi for a Day, Memories for a Lifetime

Photo by two cute dogs

There are many wonderful things to do in LA … the Getty Center, Venice canals, Griffith Park, Kogi BBQ truck … but if you’re visiting, why not spend $150 to shadow paparazzo Rick Mendoza, best known for suing Britney Spears for running over his foot.

The “Rolling With the Paparazzi” tour will let you “chase celebrities all day,” or for three hours, and experience the “thrill of the hunt,” or show up when a Kardashian sister texts to let you know she’s leaving her gym.

(Lawsuit is sold separately.)

Source: LA Times

“No Tolerance” for Invasive Royal-Lusting Paps

The world is in a tizzy over the impending nuptials of Prince William and his fiancée Kate Middleton, and so in an effort to retain some sense of normalcy, and maybe to prolong his life, the prince will enact a “no tolerance” policy for the paparazzi during his engagement, wedding and married life. He will, according to the Telegraph, have a lawyer at the ready to file civil or criminal charges against intrusive tabloid photographer that violate the couple’s privacy. This is undoubtedly a decision driven in large part by his mother’s infamous death. Among the offending behavior that could land the paps in trouble — vehicle pursuits and telephoto lenses that capture private activity from public land.

I know the argument on one hand: he is a public figure, a member of the beloved royal family, and with that title — and privilege — comes the nuisance of constant attention and scrutiny. But, I also believe even when you’re a public figure you don’t sign up for a 100 mph car crash or the world getting to see revealing photos of you sunbathing in your backyard.

Source: The Telegraph

Miley Cyrus Needs to Shut Up and Eat Her Breakfast

Sorry Miley, but if you’re so concerned  about your 10-year-old sister being photographed then maybe you shouldn’t bring her out in public where there is no expectation of privacy and it is not against the law to videotape anyone. And if being photographed in public bothers you so much that it causes you to act like a self-righteous clam and put your hands on someone else’s property, then you should stay home and have your private chef cook you breakfast.

It was you, who was being rude…DUDE. Threatening to call the police because a woman was photographing you while in public? That’s a laugh. What would be the charge? More important, how can you even justify your behavior when your little sis’s picture is dreadfully already all over the place! Get over yourself.

This woman should’ve smacked you as soon as you touched her camera and told you to shut-the-fuck-up and go back to your overpriced fruit cup. But I love how you didn’t have enough bitch in you to do anything about all of the male paparazzi that were standing much closer to the restaurant photographing your annoying sister.

I’m presuming she’s annoying, since she shares your genes.

Shia LaBeouf Attacks Pap with Coffee, Then Runs Away

This video seems like a big joke, but it also makes me want to give up documentary photography and become a paparazzo. I already live in Los Angeles, and how great would it be to actually make great money taking pictures and then get to drop-kick Shia LaDouche’s ass after he throws coffee on you? Why don’t any of these paps ever kick the shit out of these celebrities going wild? Maybe Arnie should sign another law creating harsher penalties for celebrities who attack law-abiding photographers.

What a passive-aggressive pussy you are LaBeouf, running away like that.

Paparazzi: Don’t Take My Picture!

You know what, Carol Williams, I don’t care if you lose your job because you were dumb enough to step in front of a moving vehicle and have your gorilla foot run over by Paris Hilton’s boyfriend because he was blinded by hundreds of your buddies’ strobes. If I was there during your pleas to not be photographed, I would’ve shot away and posted your image all over the place because you are not partially at fault for this accident—this was ALL YOUR FAULT! And thankfully your image IS being plastered all over internet because of your stupidity.

What a hypocrite you are to tell someone not to photograph you while in public! When your own job requires you to chase down celebrities and photograph them against their will. More important, in the process of harassing celebrities, you violate various laws to get your precious photos. Just curious, would you have stopped photographing Ms. Hilton if she had asked you to stop?

And how do we even know that you didn’t intentionally get run over so you could file a frivolous lawsuit against Cy Waits and Paris Hilton and settle out of court for some big payout that you don’t deserve? Personally, I can’t wait to see you get fired and charges pressed against you and your photog gang for being a menace.

For the record, I strongly support photographers (including law-abiding paps) and their right to photograph people in public without consent. But when someone breaks the law to get their images, gets injured in the process, and then tells people not photograph her (as if the rules don’t apply anymore). Well, that just irks the hell out of me.

Here’s another angle of the accident with a nice long shot of Carol Williams—the law-breaking paparazzi who caused this mess.

Celebrity and Paparazzo Team Up for Documentary

It seems a little incongruous that an actor who tries to come off as above the fray of celebrity tabloid culture would make a documentary on a paparazzo. But “Entourage” star Adrian Grenier addresses that in the “Teenage Paparazzo” trailer – he’s trying to “make sense of this insane celebrity world” through a 13-year-old LA-based photographer named Austin Visschedyk.

I’m not sure if the documentary accomplishes that, or answers the better question of “Where is this kid’s mother?!!?”, but the self-serious Grenier goes to the front lines of the tabloid photography culture — and gets interviews with the biggest paparazzi tip-off artists out there, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton. Austin says he’s out there, like, 17 hours a day and wonders if the paparazzi will target him after the film comes out. (Uh…no.)

In an interview on Huffington Post, Grenier actually says, “I think my movie will mark the end of the hyper-tabloid era.” And that doesn’t seem to be tongue in cheek.

If you think you can stomach it, “Teenage Paparazzo” debuts on HBO on September 27 at 9 pm.

Bill Means Harsher Penalties for Paparazzi

Assembly Bill 2479, or the “anti-paparazzi bill,” was approved by the California legislature at the end of August. If it’s signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a paparazzi photographer could face more serious criminal charges than current laws allow, including jail time.

Here at the blog, we are split on this very thorny issue, as you’ll read in this “point-counterpoint”….

A: I say it’s about time.

B: It’s NONSENSE. They’re gonna waste taxpayers’ money debating Assembly Bill 2479 when they already know it’s illegal. The article even says that. And there are laws that exist that address the driving. “False imprisonment,” that’s a joke. Celebrities are not being held against their will, AND THEY CAN LEAVE WHENEVER THEY WANT. This won’t hold up.

A: You have a right to take photos in public up to a point. I’m not arguing that. When it crosses the line into harassment, aggression, stalking, literally hunting people down, it’s not OK anymore. I don’t think bands of reckless thugs who drive the wrong way down Laurel Canyon to get a shot of Britney Spears should be protected under the law as if that’s somehow a legitimate “right” we all have.

B: Again, there are already laws that exist to combat harassment, aggression, stalking. How is AB 2479 any different from the existing law that was used to charge the guy who drove cross-country to stalk Jennifer Aniston? “Literally hunting people down” is a catchphrase used by AB 2479 advocates to garner support for this illegal bill. It’s all about wording and manipulation to trick the public into believing that there is an actual threat that can’t be dealt with by using existing laws. It’s about creating fear, which is the first tactic used by government officials to get what they want.

Finally, we can’t penalize someone because they’re holding a camera in public while following a celebrity. It’s a slippery slope that will potentially lead to the erosion of more of our First Amendment rights. What’s next? Locking up photojournalists who continually photograph corrupt politicians while they’re in public?

A: That’s a huge leap. I am the biggest supporter of First Amendment rights there is (uh, hello?), and I’m all for photographing corrupt politicians. There isn’t a multi-million dollar industry for corrupt politician photos so the level of stalking doesn’t even come close.

B: Continually taking pictures of someone in public is not a crime. And let’s not forget that it’s a fact that celebrities and their “people” tip off paparazzi to get publicity. Without paparazzi, celebrities would fade away much quicker than they already do. Where would Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston be without paps? I’m all for never seeing them (or their mother) ever again, however, if it means destroying the First Amendment, then I’ll happily deal with that dysfunctional family.

A: How many times do we have to go over this? I am not for outlawing paparazzi! And I fully realize many, many celebrities tip them off. Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston aren’t even relevant to this discussion because they’re desperate for press and continually sell their stories. We’re talking about paparazzi who pursue celebs in cars (ever hear of Princess Diana?), camping outside kids’ schools every day, screaming out inflammatory and obscene things to get a reaction, literally provoking the subject to get a “good” shot?

B: Then stop reading Popsugar if you don’t like it!!! Obviously, you have not done your research into Diana’s death, which goes much deeper than paps following her in a car. Camping outside schools? Big deal, it’s a public sidewalk. These rich celebrities should send their kids to gated private schools that are on private property if they don’t want their picture taken. And please provide video evidence of paps “screaming out inflammatory and obscene things to get a reaction, literally provoking the subject to get a “good” shot”? As far as I know, Sean Penn attacks paps just for taking his picture, and if you watch TMZ, the camera operators actually engage the celebrities in consensual conversations. Maybe Harvey Levin should mediate this debate.

A: Popsugar publishes friendly paparazzi photos. Celebrities know that’s what they’re in for by being public figures. THOSE are not the issue. The issue is situations like dozens of photographers surrounding Sandra Bullock’s car in what amounts to a scary feeding frenzy. And Sandra, I might add, is not the sort of celebrity who ever asks for attention.

B: First, what the hell is a “friendly” paparazzi photo? Is a picture from a public beach of a topless celebrity not “friendly?” If so, why not? Is a picture of Jennifer Love Hewitt’s big fat ass on a public sidewalk not “friendly?” Mischa Barton picking her nose on a public bench while showcasing her cellulite thighs? All of which, let me remind you, were obtained legally. Again, if the photos were obtained illegally, there are already laws that exist to prosecute the individual. More importantly, and fortunately for all of us, laws in the US can’t be created to criminalize a select group of individuals—it’s unconstitutional.

A: Yes, they can. Ever hear of a select group of people called murderers?

B: Really? You just accused me of taking a “huge leap” and then use that senseless analogy. A non-pap and a pap who commits murder will be charged with the same crime. Just like any other crime. AB 2479 is a law that was clearly created to punish paparazzi for working as paparazzi and nobody else. Be thankful that the founding fathers were smart enough to create the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And, by the way, for all you paparazzi haters, if TMZ didn’t exist, then we wouldn’t know the evil truth about Mel Gibson, which Sheriff Lee Baca tried to cover up and the rest of the media ignored until TMZ broke the story.

A: I don’t disagree with that. TMZ has done this country a great service.

Article from Sacramento Bee and Malibu Times

%d bloggers like this: