Photojournalism & celebrities. How far is too far?

I'm talking specifically about "stalkerazzis". Those relentless photographers who hound famous people, invading private moments and personal space.

It seems that if you're placing yourself in a position which obstructs all exit routes that something has to give, and since the photog is the one denying them the ability to leave that they're the bad guy.

What laws would a photographer run up against for standing in front of a vehicle to prevent a person's departure? When such incidents go in front of a judge does the judge generally say "too bad, you shouldn't have stood there" to the photographer?

I love photography and would get into photojournalism as a profession before I ever considered studio and wedding work, but where are the limits? In my mind I know what photographers should not do, but as far as intrusions go, what are some things they can not do? (Blocking people in, shooting through bathroom windows, etc.)

Oh, and none of this ethics discussion exonorates Ms. Spears from being a really, really crappy driver....

http://us.imdb.com/new​s/wenn/2007-11-16/

Let's place the blame where it really belongs: With the celebrity-obsessed consumers that buy the publications that pay the exhorbitant fees that cause the photographers to behave the way they do to get "the shot"... The consumers create the deamnd for the publications that in turn creates the demand for images. It's a vicious cycle, and the biggest complainers about the paparazzi are the same people who buy the magazines...

If you're interested in photojournalism, then go to college, get a degree in journalism and get a job with a respected news organization.

I can't think of any situation where taking photos through someone else's bathroom window wouldn't be putting you on the wrong side of the line. Being a photographer gives you no rights to obstruct, harass or hinder anyone...regardless of celebrity status.

With the exception of the Sheriff's Deputy, I say good for her! Those leeches deserve it.

Woolburr wrote in post #4337191
I can't think of any situation where taking photos through someone else's bathroom window wouldn't be putting you on the wrong side of the line. Being a photographer gives you no rights to obstruct, harass or hinder anyone...regardless of celebrity status.

You are absolutely correct. I believe in the "photographers rights" article and on many website it is stated that it is ok taking pictures of people, unless they are in a place of reasonable privacy such as inside their own home. Although people may demand such shots they should realize that the celebrities are people too. Would these demanding consumers like people taking pictures of THEM when they want privacy.

cdifoto wrote in post #4337208
With the exception of the Sheriff's Deputy, I say good for her! Those leeches deserve it.

Although the paparazzi were partially at fault I must say that I have to disagree with you. True, they shouldn't have been that close to the car, and it's not like the shots will be incredibly different from a few feet back but she should have at least tried to get them out of the way or made sure they were far enough back before gunning it. So she's "famous", that doesn't mean she has the right to disobey traffic laws and although I'm no lawyer, I think running over a persons foot and then driving off is considered a hit and run.

Now, Canonista, I would also like to see certain limits put in place as well, such as how close paparazzi is allowed to get to a person's vehicle or where they are allowed to stand, and possibly even a time limit so the celebrity isn't hounded non-stop 24 hours a day. Despite the supposed "high demand" for these kind of pictures I would hope that the photographers would be mature enough to know what is too far instead of thinking that because they are being paid then they can go and invade a person's privacy. As far as what I say above, I am not here to fight, I am simply stating my opinion on the subject.

As long as there are trash rags buying trash photos...and customers buying the trash rags...there will be a market for photographers that like to dance around the line.

So the public is to blame and the photogs are the victim? Interesting take, lol.

It is illegal to obstruct another person's movement, as it is illegal to take private bathroom shots. But when one is in a public place, they have no expectation of privacy, so let's not hint that they do.

Actions that jeopardize public safety, often what the paparazzi do, should be prosecuted. Also, trespassing photogs should be prosecuted.

There are plenty of folks to blame here, and the public's desire to see or buy the pics are probably the last any of us should blame, that seems just plain silly to suggest.

So what you are suggesting is that even if there were no longer a market for questionable photos....there would still be 100 photographers chasing BS or PH or LL or any one of the other notables? I think you need to pull your head out of the sand and get in touch with reality.

I think what joe meant was that the trouble-making photographers are at the front of the blame line and should be punished when they do cross the line, but that there are still other factors such as the paying customers you mentioned dan.

Never a doubt that we are responsible for our own actions...unfortunatel​y, there is a whole generation that feels that their actions are solely the responsibility of someone else.

Woolburr wrote in post #4343295
Never a doubt that we are responsible for our own actions...unfortunatel​y, there is a whole generation that feels that their actions are solely the responsibility of someone else.

Amen to that...

Woolburr wrote in post #4343295
Never a doubt that we are responsible for our own actions...unfortunatel​y, there is a whole generation that feels that their actions are solely the responsibility of someone else.

Truer words were never spoken!

I think that celebrities need to cripple more paparazzi.

If you're close enough to your subject to get run over, then you're not photographing, you're intruding; you're harassing. The photographer put him/herself in the way of the vehicle. People have the right to come and go as they please. The rights of the photographers to photograph these people does not entitle them to use crowd force to halt the flow of other people.

I say good for Ms. Spears. While she may never achieve a goal of winnowing down the paparazzi, she can certainly make them think more about how close they get.

BillsBayou wrote in post #4344874
I think that celebrities need to cripple more paparazzi.

If you're close enough to your subject to get run over, then you're not photographing, you're intruding; you're harassing. The photographer put him/herself in the way of the vehicle. People have the right to come and go as they please. The rights of the photographers to photograph these people does not entitle them to use crowd force to halt the flow of other people.

I say good for Ms. Spears. While she may never achieve a goal of winnowing down the paparazzi, she can certainly make them think more about how close they get.

But still, even when they are too close that doesn't give the celebrity the right to cause bodily harm unless they themselves are being threatened, and as I said above, being famous does not give anyone the right to break the law despite that they can get away simply because of the huge amounts of money they have. If I were those photographers that got injured, I would sue for payment of the medical bills and lost wages because they can't work with only one foot and two crutches. The supposed "right to come and go" is fine within the limits of the law. A pedestrian in the middle of the street has the right of way; just because they aren't moving or are jaywalking doesn't give the driver the right to run them down. Next time your out shooting in an urban setting and are trying out some candids while moving across the street IN THE CROSSWALK, would you like someone to come along and mow you down with their honda simply because they thought you were paparazzi? Anyways, back to what you said in the last sentance, she has already run over three people's feet so far and I don't think anyone has gotten the picture (no pun intendid) They will still crowd the vehicles of celebrities until boundries are set; boundries that say they can't be within thus-and-such feet of a "targets" car or home or whatever. With the number of high-end telephoto lenses on the market the photographers should be able to get pretty good shots while not totally being a pain in the ass or a danger to themselves/others.

Apples and oranges.

The photographers are there to take every picture they can while she is in public. They are putting themselves in her way while she is trying to go about her business. They put themselves in her way in such a way that they block her way.

If I'm blocking a crosswalk shooting random shots around town, I'm not doing anything to block any one car in particular. If I begin shooting shots of someone in their car and I won't move, I deserve a good punch in the nose. At the least, the driver will begin inching forward to give me the message that he/she wishes me to get out of the way. At some point, the front bumper is going to hit me (softly or not). I, at that point, would deserve it. Legal or not, I'd deserve it. I think a good DA should be able to try me for unlawful imprisonment or some such thing.

Cripple the paparazzi, Britney!

ssidiv3r wrote in post #4345151
But still, even when they are too close that doesn't give the celebrity the right to cause bodily harm unless they themselves are being threatened, and as I said above, being famous does not give anyone the right to break the law despite that they can get away simply because of the huge amounts of money they have. If I were those photographers that got injured, I would sue for payment of the medical bills and lost wages because they can't work with only one foot and two crutches. The supposed "right to come and go" is fine within the limits of the law. A pedestrian in the middle of the street has the right of way; just because they aren't moving or are jaywalking doesn't give the driver the right to run them down. Next time your out shooting in an urban setting and are trying out some candids while moving across the street IN THE CROSSWALK, would you like someone to come along and mow you down with their honda simply because they thought you were paparazzi? Anyways, back to what you said in the last sentance, she has already run over three people's feet so far and I don't think anyone has gotten the picture (no pun intendid) They will still crowd the vehicles of celebrities until boundries are set; boundries that say they can't be within thus-and-such feet of a "targets" car or home or whatever. With the number of high-end telephoto lenses on the market the photographers should be able to get pretty good shots while not totally being a pain in the ass or a danger to themselves/others.