Who wouldn’t
like to be a star? Endless
parties, luxurious events, award galas, huge mansion with a swimming pool… and
countless people with cameras, capturing every moment of your life?
Paparazzo
is a term derived from Federico Fellini’s film La Dolce Vita, where one of the main characters
is an intrusive photographer named Paparazzo. Despite the lyrics of Lady Gaga’s
popular hit, paparazzi is actually the plural form of the word.
Paparazzi are usually freelance photographers,
collaborating with various tabloids, TV stations and gossip websites, which pay
them huge sums for photos of celebrities; the more intimate and embarrasing the
situation, the more money they earn.
Techniques used by paparazzi are similar to those of
secret agents: spending hours in hotel lobbys, near club entrances, or
celebrities’ houses, using telephoto lenses with polarizing filters to capture
scenes from behind the windows, bribing, wiretaping…
Is it legal? In most cases, not quite so. In most
European countries, it’s illegal to take photos of celebrities in private
situations without their consent. The European Court of Human Rights states
that privacy is one of basic human rights. This doesn’t stop paparazzi from
doing their work - it’s far more profitable to commit the crime and pay the fine (usually covered by the magazine or the website
that publishes the photo), then earn a multiple of the sum spent on damages.
What sums
are we talking about? The most expensive paparazzi photo ever was that of a
bald Britney Spears, which sold for $500,000.
However,
paparazzi are not the only source of profitable celebrity photos - celebrities
themselves are often willing to sell photos of their babies or their wedding
photos. When Brangelina gave birth to twins, People magazine (in the US) and Hello!
magazine (in the UK) paid a combined sum of $15m for exclusive photo rights!
However, some celebrities have found a way to bite off annoying
paparazzi. Here’s a photo of Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield, who took a chance of being watched to
turn the attention toward charities. The message goes:
We just found out that there were paparazzi
outside the restaurant we were eating in. So… why not take this opportunity to
bring attention to organizations that need and deserve it?
www.WWO.org
www.GildasClubNYC.org
Have a great day!
Q: Would you like to be a paparazzo if you were offered a few thousand
dollard per photo? Do you think the law concerning paparazzi and privacy should
be more strict? Do you like looking at celebrities’ private photos?
Sources:
Comments
As you've mentioned, some celebrities sell their photos, or allow the photos to be taken of them in certain situations. Either way, they still may be staged to some extent, so the thousands paid for the 'truth' are basically thrown down the drain.
On the other hand, many films and books have shown us what it means to be always watched and judged. Real privacy is scarce these days, so maybe selling semi-staged photos on more or less your own terms is the closest to a win-win we can get... Somehow, I very much doubt that. Even if laws become stricter, people will find a way. We will always want more and as long as there are celebrities, there will be paparazzi. I'm inclined to believe the price for being constantly watched is too big to and but I always admire famous people who managed to keep their private life private.
But let me get back to what Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield did; it is absolutely awesome and shows that maybe something good can come out of the situation after all. Just look how many celebrities use their status to promote good cases, like JK Rowling among many others. Maybe, just maybe the good can outweigh the bad in the end.
Personally I would not like to be a celebrity, however gaining 15 millions for photos of children doesn't seems so bad, because in fact what is wrong in that. Law definitely should be more strict, because it is unethical to show people in bad light and get money for it.
I don't enjoy watching private photos that were taken without their permission. But I like a lot what Emma Stone did, if you have any problem use is to make something good.
Some celebrities like basking in the spotlights, looking for every opportunity to show up in some magazine, some would like their privacy to be respected. On one hand I don't think that paparazzo's work is... moral? but on the other that's quite some money they can make.
When I’m reading about “star” who sells photos of their baby I can say only one: People are stupid.
Great that some celebrity want to take this opportunity to bring attention to organizations that need an attention. They are exemplary.
Oh no, I don’t think so I would like to be a paparazzo regardless of the money. Oh yes, I think the law concerning paparazzi and privacy should be more strict.
I have never interested in celebrity life, so I totally don’t like looking at celebrities’ private photos
Thank you for the comment :)
However, I agree entirely with the rest of your comment - I wouldn't like to be a paparazzo either and I have no respect towards their profession.
Anyway I can kind of "get" the whole following your favorite actor or whoever. What I find to be flabbergasting is the idea of people like Kim Kardashian who live of selling their privacy and as it can be looked at as a smart business plan - she is very rich thanks to it, isn't she? And I don't condone it, it's good for her if that is what she wants to do. But I just can't grasp the whole concern and public interest? Do people really want to know every little detail of someone's private life? Furthermore most people who broadcast all their lives everywhere don't really have any worthwhile accomplishments. It's seems that this kind of lifestyle is really popular so there has to be a demand for it, right? Whyyy?
I think that the most peculiar aspect of following your faveourite actor's / singer's personal life is that people who do this don't realise that they actually violate their idol's privacy. If I was a big fan of some celebrity, I'd certainly avoid viewing their leaked photos out of respect for them.
I do not follow celebrity news at all, I find it boring and irrelevant. Being a celebrity is a job, and it comes with good and bad perks, bad one is being constantly in the spotlight. So if people want to become celebs they have to realize it comes with a price.
As for the second question - sadly I do look up photos of famous people, so I feel partially responsible. Still, I just scroll stuff without really caring or thinking about it and wouldn't miss any of it if those photos would suddenly stop coming.
Even while a lot of those pictures are taken illegally, it's still profitable for the news agencies - the price they have to pay if someone sues them is still usually smaller than what they make with those pictures.
I do think it's government's job to allow everyone to protect their privacy, but we all know how modern day governments (including ours) treat privacy of their citizens.
I don't care about celebrities, so I don't really enjoy looking at their photos.
I understand that some people who work as actors and singers and well known and attending some events, making photo shoots or having instagram is important for them to have relationship with their ‘clients’ who are willing to buy their’s CD, movies and so on. That’s part of their job, but that are not famous just because of nothing but because of great work they do and this is just part of their’s job.
Well I have no idea if I wanted to stick around in one place for 8hrs hoping if some famous person shows up and slips on the floor - it actually is kind of sad to me - making money on that kind of stuff. I get it - some people choose to do their living from it, but it is defenitely not my cup of tea