Paparazzi - Ban 'em!

[shp]

I hate the paparazzi. They don't have any honor nor respect. I hope I never end up being one. I'm surprised no one's bothered to try and run a petition to ban paparazzi.

I was watching a show in where the paparazzi would try to actually stalk the celebrities, some even getting attacked by the very celebrities they're trying to film, and the bad thing about it is that the celebrity ends up being the one that gets arrested while the paparazzi gets away scot-free. I know it's a good way to make money, but it's a good way to be very disrespectful and possibly be hated for the rest of your life.

If I wanted to take pictures of celebrities, I would just call their agents and arrange a photo shoot in where the celebrities could've known and given permission about it. I respect privacy - although I do plan to work with nudity in my pictures someday, privacy is still something I would respect and honor. I wouldn't force photographs of someone that doesn't want to have their pictures taken without permission.

My opinion of paparazzi - completely rude. They don't even do the artistic photography that would be better than a silly candid shot of someone having a bad hair day. And they need to be banned.

Yours?

[Saknika]

As a celebrity you give up your right to privacy, because you are now a public figure. Same with if you become a politician and the likes. And when you become a celebrity, you are aware of this consequence. The price for fame is pretty high.

Personally, if a celebrity attacks the paparazzi, they SHOULD get arrested. Photos are not life-threatening, and therefore it is not an act of self defense.

Lastly, the opportunity to actually get to photograph a celebrity--pretty slim. Agents call you, not the other way around.

I'm not fond of the paparazzi, but I think you're only getting half the information with some of this. All the paparazzi is, is a photojournalist that's after celebrities instead of breaking news.

[shp]

Hmm, I never knew of the celebrities losing their rights to privacy. It is a pretty dangerous consequence, and well, why be famous if you don't want it? Maybe I'm just a little off toward the paparazzi actually stalking people because that would just really freak me out big time. And yes, photographs wouldn't hurt. But some could be problematic for both sides if not one, =X.

[Saknika]

It's a combination. Paparazzi sell the photos to shady newspapers, or to magazine agencies. But a lot of the times, it's a good Photoshop artist that makes the photos say something they didn't before. Or the text accompanying them.

Did Brittany Spears go out and get smashed one night, for example? Yeah, probably. The difference is she made the papers and magazines, and the kids you knew in high school don't.

Public perception is skewed. They're normal people, they just don't have as private of lives.

[ScottWood]

There is nothing special about celebrities. If you are in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and as such, you can always have you picture taken. The person who takes the image owns the copyright, and as such, can sell it for anything other than commercial use. Selling to papers, magazines or websites does not count as commercial, only using it in advertisements do.

If a celebrity attacks a photographer, when that is assault.

I am sure that you were looking for people here who would agree with you, but sadly, I am not going to be one of them. Banning anything is never the answer.