Bloody paparazzi

Cabaal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7139973.stm

The freelance photographer is reportedly suing for unspecified damages, the cost of medical and psychological treatment and lost earnings.

He claims he was left with "severe physical and emotional pain and injuries, including bruised ribs".

Can't these "photographers" leave people alone and stop suing people for stupid stuff

CraggyIslander

ahhh paparazzi, the scum that call themselves "photographer"

Bet they killed Di too :rolleyes: ran her off the road, but couldnt sell his pictures or sumtink

Eirebear

hmmm..im no fan of the "papparazzi" but are they any more scum than the people who print the pictures...or even the people who buy these so called newspapers and magazines faithfully?

Supply and demand.

RCNPhotos

Personally I have no problem with them, actually wouldn't mind doing it myself for a while after college. Big money in it. But suing for something like that is crazy.

Eirebear

Is it though? Obviously we dont know the whole story...but IF Brosnan hit him, then surely the guy has the right to press charges? Especially under the american "sue for everything" system.

the_syco

Hahaha. Piss of the wrong person with your flash camera, did he?

magicbastarder

Eirebear wrote: »

hmmm..im no fan of the "papparazzi" but are they any more scum than the people who print the pictures...or even the people who buy these so called newspapers and magazines faithfully?

eh.. yes they are.

Eirebear

magicbastarder wrote: »

eh.. yes they are.

Care to expand on that?

for me the real scum are the people who run these rags, the people who create the demand by filling their pages with pictures of celebrities in pubs/clubs/streets back gardens etc
The photographers are just doing a job.
yes some of them may step out of line or go too far, but that could happen in any line of work IMO

CraggyIslander

Those 'publishers' are equally scum.

The paparazzi are scum to me because they have no respect or regard for person, privacy or property. They'll do anything to get the money shot....

The disregard and disrespect to me means they have very low morals (if any) hence I call them scum

beans

Sure these guys are just one spoke in the wheel. When you look inward to the hub you have the popular media. Everyone involved is equal IMO, from the publishers to the photographers, the consumers to the glamour models and C-listers.

It's a pretty rotten chain from start to finish, one I won't mourn the death of

Eirebear

Fred C. Dobbs wrote: »

Those 'publishers' are equally scum.

The paparazzi are scum to me because they have no respect or regard for person, privacy or property. They'll do anything to get the money shot....

The disregard and disrespect to me means they have very low morals (if any) hence I call them scum

So its ok to go around hitting them?
These so called celebrities use the media when they feel like it...get their picture taken with such and such a "date" in such and such a club and their next film, song, book whatever will sell better.

but catch them when they are doing something they dont want in the papers they lash out.

of course some of these photographers go to far...taking pictures of kids, family etc....but not all of them are "scum"

CraggyIslander

wasnt condoning hitting anyone or anything. I'd be very happy to see the end of the celebrity circus starting first and foremost with the 'reality tv' shows starring zzzz-list has beens and wannabe cringe inducing 'talent' shows..... but thats a different rant:D

Was merely stating that their morals and ethics (or lack thereof) make paparazzi scum in my eyes

Eirebear

nah mate, i know you werent condoning hitting people.
And i completely agree with your assesment of certain sections of the "papparazzi", all im trying to say though is that these guys are just the tip of a huge media iceberg which include every single person who buys a copy of the sun, or a lads mag, or a womens mag which takes great delight in showing "celebs" with cellulite.

the z listers cant have it both ways

Ricky91t

I remeber watching something like the panel(not 100% sure) on tv and they were talking about madonna and the baby she addopted and it showed the photographer's taking photos of the car the baby was in and as the Video camera panned round on the corner of the screen there was a paparazzi person taking the camera from his eye and he dropped it:D.Looked like it bounced off the road badly but i found this really funny.He had his a nice pricy 70-200 2.8 lense(by the looks of things) and it just smashed off the ground im not a big fan of these kind of paprazzi so this made my day

RCNPhotos

I actually tried some amatuer paparrazo shots in town once, the young Ms Hilton. She was actually very very nice I have to say.





Their quite old so the post work is pretty shoddy.

TelePaul

Eirebear wrote: »

Is it though? Obviously we dont know the whole story...but IF Brosnan hit him, then surely the guy has the right to press charges? Especially under the american "sue for everything" system.

I didn't stand in the way of Pierce Brosnan's career, why should he stop a pap from earning a living? You could draw quite a few comparisons between the two walks of life.

Fenster

This country is sue-happy. I currently have a locksmith making petty threats about suing us because we posted a negative review of work he did for us.

Eirebear

TelePaul wrote: »

I didn't stand in the way of Pierce Brosnan's career, why should he stop a pap from earning a living? You could draw quite a few comparisons between the two walks of life.

Thats my point paul.
These guys are the front end of the business and will always take the flak for it.
But while unscrupulous publishers and editors drip feed this stuff to a generally moronic public.
And untill Z list celebrities and even more famous people stop using them when they feel like it to better their careers they will always get work.

TelePaul

Eirebear wrote: »

Thats my point paul.
These guys are the front end of the business and will always take the flak for it.
But while unscrupulous publishers and editors drip feed this stuff to a generally moronic public.
And untill Z list celebrities and even more famous people stop using them when they feel like it to better their careers they will always get work.

Sorry, didn't mean to quote you or anyone as it happened.

Kali

RCNPhotos wrote: »

I actually tried some amatuer paparrazo shots in town once, the young Ms Hilton. She was actually very very nice I have to say.

Great shots, but they're more portraits than pap shots... could easily have been in a studio, outside a premiere (i.e. a sanctioned shot) or a Hello-magazine type "sit on a throne" shoot.

For me a paparazzi is actually aiming to get an invasive shot of a celebrity going about their everyday business (britney/paris with no knickers getting out of car, madonna carrying the shopping, sienna miller/prince harry/kate middleton falling out of some nightclub, Jordan lying on a beach) etc. These are the 1/2hr-turnaround, unprocessed/dirty, "my god they're not as glamorous as I thought" shots what people want to see in the tabloids, free dailies and Heat-type mags...

templeathea

Kali wrote: »

Great shots, but they're more portraits than pap shots... could easily have been in a studio, outside a premiere (i.e. a sanctioned shot) or a Hello-magazine type "sit on a throne" shoot.

For me a paparazzi is actually aiming to get an invasive shot of a celebrity going about their everyday business (britney/paris with no knickers getting out of car, madonna carrying the shopping, sienna miller/prince harry/kate middleton falling out of some nightclub, Jordan lying on a beach) etc. These are the 1/2hr-turnaround, unprocessed/dirty, "my god they're not as glamorous as I thought" shots what people want to see in the tabloids, free dailies and Heat-type mags...

Except that most of the time the photographers would not know where these celebrities were if they had not been tipped off by the celeb's publicist. And people who really care about their privacy could at least wear underwear. Unless they really want to be all over the press.

templeathea

RCNPhotos wrote: »

I actually tried some amatuer paparrazo shots in town once, the young Ms Hilton. She was actually very very nice I have to say.





Their quite old so the post work is pretty shoddy.

I have met her once as well and she was utterly charming. Those are lovely shots

CraggyIslander

templeathea wrote: »

I have met her once as well and she was utterly charming. Those are lovely shots

time to move this thread to the celebrity section of boards, or better yet to after hours........ paris hilton / perez hilton sums up everything that is wrong with this celeb bizness.... first one's an attention whore (ooh aint i 'nice')...... latter one is the ultimate attention whores pimp

/sarcasm off!