| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2008 03:36:57 PM · #1 |
So we just had a guest speaker in my marketing class. The southest editor for People Magazine. I had a chance to talk to him after he was finished speaking and asked him a little about photographers and paparazzi. He said some stuff that I was pretty happy to hear, which was People Magazine does not buy pictures that they feel invade the privacy of the person.
He answered alot of questions about the business which was great, and gave me his business card (I'll keep that in my back pocket). I was just curious what you guys felt about paparazzi and where the line is between paparazzi and photojournalism.
-CW
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:23:53 PM · #2 |
| I would define a photojounalist as someone who photographs and records events. I consider paparazzi to be those who simply chase the personalities that they can sell a photo of. There is certainly a fuzzy line at a certain point in the middle somewhere. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 04:48:50 PM · #3 |
At this time I feel that paparazzi are a harmful nuisance. They are not practicing any good form of photography. They are just putting their camera in the face of a celebrity and pushing a button. They're not trying to set up a nice shot or catch a particular moment. They are just hoping that something will happen so they can make money. It would be nice if we could all make a living by our photography skills, but I wouldn't consider shoving a camera in someones face and snapping off a ton of pictures very good skills. I'd rather make no money and keep my pride and dignity.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:51:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by icu1965:
They are just hoping that something will happen so they can make money. |
not that i disagree, but jsut to play devils-advocate, isnt this what a photojournlist does? say maybe when they shoot a nautral disaster?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 05:57:57 PM · #5 |
| yeah Britney Spears with no panties is definitely a "natural disaster"... ; ) |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:01:01 PM · #6 |
| I think that if a photographer wants to cover an event like the Grammys or something like that then it's a good thing. But when people follow around shooting pictures when famous people are trying to drive away or buy food in a store then I feel like it's an invasion of privacy. I think that it should be against the law to snoop on someone when they are just trying to live a life. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:02:42 PM · #7 |
| Yea, but a natural disaster is newsworthy and personal disasters like shaving off all of your hair is not. Millions of people shave their heads everyday and it doesn't get a photojournalists attention. Large volcanic eruptions occur sporadically and that would catch the attention of a photojournalist. Sometimes I think that a photojournalist can push it a little too far and they start to act like a paparazzi. For example when 4 people passed away in an automobile accident a couple of weeks ago, I thought it was very tacky for the local newspaper to send a photographer to take a picture of the family bringing out the caskets. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:06:16 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by irisheyes:
yeah Britney Spears with no panties is definitely a "natural disaster"... ; ) |
LOL, it looked more like an unnatural disaster!
All silliness aside, it makes a good point. What self respecting photojournalist would stand around and wait to catch someone without any undergarments on? Then again, what self respecting woman would get out of a car like that while wearing no undergarments? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 06:42:03 PM · #9 |
Papp's are a necessary evil.
They may be the lower part of a cow's intestine when it comes to photojournalism, but, if we relied on a celebrity to provide images of their life, we would never of seen Britney on a gurney on her way to hell.
Besides, Papp's provide a warm fuzzy feeling to those people that don't have lives, and live through the stories of their favorite celeb, eating up those images, and bon-bons.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:12:34 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Papp's are a necessary evil.
They may be the lower part of a cow's intestine when it comes to photojournalism, but, if we relied on a celebrity to provide images of their life, we would never of seen Britney on a gurney on her way to hell.
Besides, Papp's provide a warm fuzzy feeling to those people that don't have lives, and live through the stories of their favorite celeb, eating up those images, and bon-bons. |
My question is, why is this even important? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:13:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Papp's are a necessary evil.
They may be the lower part of a cow's intestine when it comes to photojournalism, but, if we relied on a celebrity to provide images of their life, we would never of seen Britney on a gurney on her way to hell.
Besides, Papp's provide a warm fuzzy feeling to those people that don't have lives, and live through the stories of their favorite celeb, eating up those images, and bon-bons. |
My question is, why is this even important? |
maybe not to you but it must be to sell so much
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:15:20 PM · #12 |
| It's like that proverbial car wreck.. we don't want to look, know we shouldn't look, but we do. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 09:21:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Papp's are a necessary evil.
They may be the lower part of a cow's intestine when it comes to photojournalism, but, if we relied on a celebrity to provide images of their life, we would never of seen Britney on a gurney on her way to hell.
Besides, Papp's provide a warm fuzzy feeling to those people that don't have lives, and live through the stories of their favorite celeb, eating up those images, and bon-bons. |
My question is, why is this even important? |
Why are maggots important?
Why is our constitution important?
Why is gasoline important, for now?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:23:48 PM · #14 |
5 Things You Didn't Know About The Paparazzi
Average annual pay $60-$100k, but some as high as $250k. $300k from People's Mag for one picture.
Sounds like a step up from selling dog pictures at $5.00 each. I would guess most all of them are looking for that one large jackpot.
I found the most interesting part of that article was the section about the paparazzi boycotts. |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:25:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Papp's are a necessary evil.
They may be the lower part of a cow's intestine when it comes to photojournalism, but, if we relied on a celebrity to provide images of their life, we would never of seen Britney on a gurney on her way to hell.
Besides, Papp's provide a warm fuzzy feeling to those people that don't have lives, and live through the stories of their favorite celeb, eating up those images, and bon-bons. |
My question is, why is this even important? |
Why are maggots important?
Why is our constitution important?
Why is gasoline important, for now? |
Do you really think what a celebrity had for lunch is on the same level as the US constitution? |
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:34:38 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
5 Things You Didn't Know About The Paparazzi
Average annual pay $60-$100k, but some as high as $250k. $300k from People's Mag for one picture.
Sounds like a step up from selling dog pictures at $5.00 each. I would guess most all of them are looking for that one large jackpot.
I found the most interesting part of that article was the section about the paparazzi boycotts. |
i specifically asked this guy about buying from the paparazzi and his answer a very simple 'no' and then he explained that people magazine tries to expect the celeberties (it shows in their publication). so i wonder how true those numbers are.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2008 10:42:08 PM · #17 |
Another link about photos sold to People's Magazine
Looks like $125k is the most widely reported price for that photo. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 06:58:41 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Do you really think what a celebrity had for lunch is on the same level as the US constitution? |
I gave three examples, but you choose to miss the point, so......just kill them all, happy?
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 07:02:01.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 08:37:58 AM · #19 |
It sure would be nice to make that kind of cash from one photo but there is no way in hell that I could ever be that rude to another human being! Pap's are just rude and totaly disrespectful IMHO.
Photojounalism (on the average) isnt rude or disrespectful to people. yes...there are times when thats seen but not near as much as is seen with the paps. of course the money per photos isnt as high either. But jounalism is more about getting a nice "true to life" photo than catching someone without hair or under clothes.
I do have a question: we (photographers) are required by law to have a models release in order to sell a photo of a person...why dont the paps have to have one?
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 10:00:06 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Do you really think what a celebrity had for lunch is on the same level as the US constitution? |
I gave three examples, but you choose to miss the point, so......just kill them all, happy? |
What a celebrity has for lunch is nowhere near (not in the same universe) as important as any of the three examples you posted. I just chose the most ludicrous of the three. |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 11:47:23 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by smilebig4me1x:
I do have a question: we (photographers) are required by law to have a models release in order to sell a photo of a person...why dont the paps have to have one? |
1.) you can legally shoot anyone or anything as long as you shooting from a public area.
2.) if you get fined several hundrad bucks and make $250,000 then the it mathmatically makes sense to break the law.
Edit: typos.
Message edited by author 2008-02-19 11:47:41.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 12:27:29 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by smilebig4me1x:
I do have a question: we (photographers) are required by law to have a models release in order to sell a photo of a person...why dont the paps have to have one? |
No release needed for editorial use - as in magazine covers, news stories, etc. If you want to sell a T-shirt or other commercial use then you need a release.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 01:05:19 PM · #23 |
Paparazzi are photographers who break all the dpc rules,and rake in all the money for , over exposed, badly composed duds..
I personally don't blame them for what they do as a living.. It's a demand and supply thing. People who buy this sort of junk are the ones who've created the market.. so why the heck not make money from someone elses need for gossip..
Any information about the tabloid favourites for me, comes from popular news channels who should be reporting more meaningful stuff but have 6 person panel discussion on britney spears.. insanity abound
|
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:09:36 PM · #24 |
| Two Senators Propose Anti-Paparazzi Law -- from yesterday's NY Times (hope the link works!) |
|
|
|
02/19/2008 02:13:51 PM · #25 |
Two Senators Propose Anti-Paparazzi Law
By TODD S. PURDUM
Published: February 18, 1998
you mean yesterday 10 years ago...lol
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 12:13:23 PM EDT.
