[NYpHoToGraphEr]

You are now switching the topic to morality?

In the commercial world there is NO right or wrong (in terms of morality) there is only legal or illegal. That IS the real world.

All that matters is the answer to the questions "will it sell?" or "will it make money". If it is not illegal then the answer to those questions is ALL that is needed.

For an answer to those (marketing) questions in regard to the subject that we are discussing just look at the magazine covers and at the supermarket checkouts. This product is amply marketed either by the headline or the photograph on the front of the magazine. The public buys and the magazine stays in business and makes a handsome profit which the magazine uses to pay the photographer.

The paparazzi has done his job and stalked his prey just like you stalk your photographic subject.

I'm not switching any topics. This has always been about morals not legalities.
I know it's legal to follow someone in public and take pictures of them. The question is are these people right? Because not everything that is legal is moral.

On the legal side though thank G-D in France it is illegal to publish a celebrities photo without permission,
if they do the celebrities can sue; and they almost always do.

[stevewig]

I'm sorry nyphotographer, but your question was never about morality.

Here it is:

"I just started a fan page on facebook (link below). But I just wanted to get everyone's opinions here on whether they think the Paparazzi's are Photographer and/or Photojournalists. I just want to know what people's feelings are towards them."

In any case millions and millions of people vote with their purse on this subject and then later complain about the photographer.

What kind of morality is this?

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

I'm sorry nyphotographer, but your question was never about morality.

Here it is:

"I just started a fan page on facebook (link below). But I just wanted to get everyone's opinions here on whether they think the Paparazzi's are Photographer and/or Photojournalists. I just want to know what people's feelings are towards them."

In any case millions and millions of people vote with their purse on this subject and then later complain about the photographer.

What kind of morality is this?

Maybe I should change the " I just want to know what people's feelings are towards them." line to Do you think what they are doing is moral?

I don't think the crowd who buys People and Us magazine complain about the Paparazzi. I think it's the people who couldn't care less what Brad Pitt ate for lunch are complaining.

[stevewig]

If what they are doing is immoral then so are the magazines that use them, so are the stores that sell them, so are the people that buy them, so are the people that even look at them second hand......

That's an awful lot of immorality for one subject!

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

If what they are doing is immoral then so are the magazines that use them, so are the stores that sell them, so are the people that buy them, so are the people that even look at them second hand......

That's an awful lot of immorality for one subject!

You really think it's moral?

[stevewig]

What I really think is that it is regretful that so many people get pleasure or enjoyment from the subject matter that the photographer, for financial gain, provides. I also find the hypocritical attitude of the millions who buy this product and the millions who don't buy but still look, similarly regretful.

But I refuse to blame ONLY the photographer for providing what the publishers and the masses crave. Let us look deeper at the reason why the masses crave this junk. There is enough blame to go around - don't throw rocks only at the photographer.

[alohadave]

I'd like to point our that paparazzi is Italian and plural for paparazzo. It's already plural and needs neither an apostrophe nor an s at the end to make it plural. You don't write 'the spaghetti's are good' do you?

You might use the term 'paparazzi's' when referring to the group in general: The paparazzi's rights (the whole group).

Does that mean that a single piece is called spaghetto?

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

Does that mean that a single piece is called spaghetto?

Haha that's funny

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

What I really think is that it is regretful that so many people get pleasure or enjoyment from the subject matter that the photographer, for financial gain, provides. I also find the hypocritical attitude of the millions who buy this product and the millions who don't buy but still look, similarly regretful.

But I refuse to blame ONLY the photographer for providing what the publishers and the masses crave. Let us look deeper at the reason why the masses crave this junk. There is enough blame to go around - don't throw rocks only at the photographer.

Yeah I guess your right, it's not only the photographer who is at fault but just remember that most of these guys work on a freelance basis, they aren't hired to do this. They get the shot and then approach the magazines to sell it.

[stevewig]

Yes You are correct, but, as my final comment:

This is the Capatalist Way, it is also called freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action (in all things legal).

[MRRiley]

I completely disagree with you. I don't believe in any way that the celebrities would complain if every time they walked outside they weren't mobbed. I think that is a common misconception that alongside people saying that it helps celebrities in some way. Please explain why the celebrity would want it and why it would help them.

I understand that they (the celebrities) don't particularly like the paparrazi, but they like their fame more than they hate the paparazzi. In a way, the paparrazi validate their fame. Afterall, the paparrazi don't take photos of insignificant or average people...

[Das Boot]

Nick Ut won a Pulitzer Prize for taking this famous photo from the Vietnam War. He then went on, later in life, to take this next famous photo of Paris Hilton being taken to jail. I think some of these guys are really doing it to "pay the bills" in support of their love of photography.


.

[Nesster]

OK. I still think they are the purest photographers - catching something usually not seen, in the moment, unposed, without external artistic conventions, unvarnished... but are they people in a Good Vocation, ethically speaking. I don't now, is a cubicle dweller for a large multinational bank in a Good Vocation? Or a US Congressman? etc.

The competition must be intense, requiring the development of great aggression and the forgoing of social scruples. Sort of like with pro athletes?

Their subject matter is also in an intensely competetive and ego-trying business, yes, eager to collect our money to see them on their terms... and I'm sure they appreciate privacy... yet... I'm thinking there are hundreds and hundreds of actors etc who do manage to live their lives mostly out of the photographer's eye. I understand certain celebreties pay their agents to tip off the paparazzi (or the agents do so on their own).

[Blue]

There are some very good photographers among them. Even the Nazi's had some good photographers.

[Ratmagiclady]

I suppose that distinction would all depend on if they're making photographs or just showing up with eight grand worth of rig in unwelcome places and leaning on the shutter.


I suppose, if you have to ask....