Surfers vs. paparazzi

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cynicor, Jun 23, 2008.

  1. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at the
    link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?

    http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763
    Cynicor, Jun 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cynicor

    Jufi Guest

    As much as I hate the paparazzi, the surfers are wrong. It's a public beach,
    and the paparazzi have every right to set up and shoot anyone and everyone
    on the beach. As much as I sympathize with the surfers, or anyone who is
    stalked by these leeches, provoking a confrontation and physical attacks
    aren't the answer.

    Maybe a squirt gun filled with skunk piss might be a good alternative.

    "Cynicor" <> wrote in message
    news:485f8d5e$0$7345$...
    > TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    > (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    > paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at the
    > link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?
    >
    > http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763
    Jufi, Jun 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cynicor

    N Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Cool! The surfers should have taken that guy's monopod and beat the
    > living
    > shit out him and the rest of these scumbags for encroaching on their
    > privacy. Had these "photographers" approached the surfers first and
    > exchanged some small talk and asked the surfers what they think about
    > being
    > photographed I'll bet they would have gotten a nice friendly go ahead.
    > Peeping Toms, voyeurs, and these scumbag paparazzi should be beaten like a
    > baby seal.
    >
    >



    I hope you negotiated photographic rights with those poor little birdies
    you've been photographing.
    N, Jun 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    >> (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    >> paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at
    >> the link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?
    >>
    >> http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763

    >
    > Cool! The surfers should have taken that guy's monopod and beat the living
    > shit out him and the rest of these scumbags for encroaching on their
    > privacy. Had these "photographers" approached the surfers first and
    > exchanged some small talk and asked the surfers what they think about being
    > photographed I'll bet they would have gotten a nice friendly go ahead.
    > Peeping Toms, voyeurs, and these scumbag paparazzi should be beaten like a
    > baby seal.


    Do you have an expectation of privacy in a public place?
    Cynicor, Jun 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Cynicor

    Jufí Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    >> (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    >> paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at
    >> the link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?
    >>
    >> http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763

    >
    > Cool! The surfers should have taken that guy's monopod and beat the
    > living
    > shit out him and the rest of these scumbags for encroaching on their
    > privacy. Had these "photographers" approached the surfers first and
    > exchanged some small talk and asked the surfers what they think about
    > being
    > photographed I'll bet they would have gotten a nice friendly go ahead.
    > Peeping Toms, voyeurs, and these scumbag paparazzi should be beaten like a
    > baby seal.


    Trollometer Reading=1.43 (out of 10) A weak effort even by the fat ass'
    standards.

    Asshole.
    Jufí, Jun 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Cynicor wrote:

    > Do you have an expectation of privacy in a public place?


    Yeah, as a matter of fact you do. All sorts of privacy. Outsiders
    can't use listening devices for the purposes of eavesdropping on
    your cell phone conversation, and the old mirrors-on-the-shoes
    trick to peek up the girls' dresses is actually a criminal act of
    voyeurism.

    Anything else you need cleared up today?

    How about this.... as to the question of whose wrong, they both
    were. The Scumarazzi for their incessant invasion of privacy, and
    the surfers for allowing them to continue drawing breath.
    Dave U. Random, Jun 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Blinky the Shark, Jun 23, 2008
    #7
  8. ? "Cynicor" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:485f8d5e$0$7345$...
    > TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    > (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    > paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at the
    > link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?
    >
    > http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763

    Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even my own
    sister without an express permission.




    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    hordad AT otenet DOT gr
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Jun 23, 2008
    #8
  9. Cynicor

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:23:14 +0200 (CEST), Dave U. Random
    <> wrote:

    >Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> Do you have an expectation of privacy in a public place?

    >
    >Yeah, as a matter of fact you do. All sorts of privacy. Outsiders
    >can't use listening devices for the purposes of eavesdropping on
    >your cell phone conversation, and the old mirrors-on-the-shoes
    >trick to peek up the girls' dresses is actually a criminal act of
    >voyeurism.
    >
    >Anything else you need cleared up today?
    >
    >How about this.... as to the question of whose wrong, they both
    >were. The Scumarazzi for their incessant invasion of privacy, and
    >the surfers for allowing them to continue drawing breath.


    While I don't know the specific circumstances, I would doubt if the
    photographers were there to photograph surfers. They were there to
    photograph one surfer: Matthew McConaughey.

    Matthew McConaughey is a celebrity that gets paid quite a bit of money
    for being a celebrity. Being stalked by the paparazzi is the price of
    being a celebrity. While McConaughey and other celebrities may abhor
    having photographers in their face all the time, they feed on the
    publicity resulting from the photographers.

    If the surfers who aren't celebrities want to be left alone, all they
    have to do is move away from McConaughey. No photographer is going to
    follow them.

    McConaughey has a right to earn a good living, and the photographers
    have a right to earn a living helping him earn a good living. There
    are many celebrities who take pains to let the paparazzi know where
    they'll be so they can be "victims" of the paparazzi. Nothing is
    sadder than a fading celebrity who no one bothers to stalk.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Cynicor

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:47:07 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >? "Cynicor" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    >news:485f8d5e$0$7345$...
    >> TMZ has footage of a violent confrontation between a group of surfers
    >> (including Matthew McConaughey) and some photographers, after the
    >> paparazzi refused the surfers' order to leave the beach. Footage at the
    >> link below - who do you think is right/wrong here?
    >>
    >> http://www.tmz.com/tmz_main_video?titleid=1620740763

    >Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even my own
    >sister without an express permission.


    What's dishonest about it? They take pictures, they sell their
    pictures, and the published pictures add to the celebrity status of
    the person photographed. It's a classic symbiotic relationship where
    each party gains from the other. That part of the general public who
    likes to see pictures of celebrities gains.

    I couldn't pick out Matthew McConaughey in a police line-up, but I
    know that he has "fans" who will buy a magazine to see pictures of
    him. The magazine wants the sales, they pay the paparazzi, and
    everyone comes out ahead. Supply-and-demand.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Cynicor

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:15:08 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
    <> wrote:

    >Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    >
    >> Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even
    >> my own sister without an express permission.

    >
    >That's the difference between a professional and a scumbag. The pro asks
    >permission and respects people's space and wishes. Than again, respecting
    >other's rights is a lost art in today's society so that's why you have all
    >these fools that say they have a legal right to do what they want in a
    >public place.
    >


    Nonsense. When have you ever heard of a newspaper photographer asking
    for permission? When have you ever heard of a magazine photographer
    asking for permission unless it's a posed shot?

    When did any "pro" photographer ask Clinton, Obama, or McCain for
    permission to photograph them? Who asks for permission to photograph
    athletes?

    Celebrities are fair game for anyone. They understand that.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 24, 2008
    #11
  12. Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >>>> Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even
    >>>> my own sister without an express permission.
    >>>
    >>> That's the difference between a professional and a scumbag. The pro
    >>> asks permission and respects people's space and wishes. Than again,
    >>> respecting other's rights is a lost art in today's society so that's
    >>> why you have all these fools that say they have a legal right to do
    >>> what they want in a public place.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Nonsense. When have you ever heard of a newspaper photographer asking
    >> for permission? When have you ever heard of a magazine photographer
    >> asking for permission unless it's a posed shot?

    >
    > Depends on where it was taken.
    >
    >> When did any "pro" photographer ask Clinton, Obama, or McCain for
    >> permission to photograph them? Who asks for permission to photograph
    >> athletes?

    >
    > They are at events that expect and encourage photography, they are *NOT* on
    > public property.
    >
    >> Celebrities are fair game for anyone. They understand that.

    >
    > No, they live with it till something is done about it. Celebrities don't
    > "understand" why paparazzi would put their camera inside their car windows
    > and in the face to get that "money shot." A celebs car is not public
    > space.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    You are not exactly in step with the rest of the world are you?

    If celebrities, with their resources and level of irritation with Paparazzi
    could use a legal defense of privacy invasion against Paparazzi then
    Paparazzi would have been litigated out of existence by now. Celebrities
    often sue, seldom win. Haven't you noticed that?

    I do a lot of candid street & city shots and I NEVER ask for permission
    prior to taking the shot - they wouldn't be candid then - but if I like the
    result and feel that I might get it published, I'll ask for permission
    afterwards. If it is unlikely to be published, then it is purely my
    business. I am so keen on the sort of photography I like that I have
    developed a number of elaborate subterfuges to enable me to take good
    quality shots while completely unobserved. Urban versions of a hunter's
    blind. I am a long way from professional, I still have a great deal to
    learn, but I have managed to sell quite a few of them.

    Why are you so obsessed with the tools rather than the art?

    Secret Squirrel
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 24, 2008
    #12
  13. Cynicor

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:07:45 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
    <> wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >>>> Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even
    >>>> my own sister without an express permission.
    >>>
    >>> That's the difference between a professional and a scumbag. The pro
    >>> asks permission and respects people's space and wishes. Than again,
    >>> respecting other's rights is a lost art in today's society so that's
    >>> why you have all these fools that say they have a legal right to do
    >>> what they want in a public place.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Nonsense. When have you ever heard of a newspaper photographer asking
    >> for permission? When have you ever heard of a magazine photographer
    >> asking for permission unless it's a posed shot?

    >
    >Depends on where it was taken.


    No it doesn't.
    >
    >> When did any "pro" photographer ask Clinton, Obama, or McCain for
    >> permission to photograph them? Who asks for permission to photograph
    >> athletes?

    >
    >They are at events that expect and encourage photography, they are *NOT* on
    >public property.


    Makes no difference.

    >>> Celebrities are fair game for anyone. They understand that.

    >
    >No, they live with it till something is done about it. Celebrities don't
    >"understand"


    This part's right. The average celebrity doesn't understand much of
    anything. They don't understand why they get wet in the rain.

    > why paparazzi would put their camera inside their car windows
    >and in the face to get that "money shot." A celebs car is not public space.


    Public, private...makes no difference. The celebrity forfeits their
    privacy.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 24, 2008
    #13
  14. tony cooper wrote:

    > Public, private...makes no difference. The celebrity forfeits their
    > privacy.


    Ah...... NO! N.F.W.!

    Paparazzi behavior is indistinguishable from stalking, and is a blatant
    abuse of the current "Free Press" laws. These laws and philosophies
    were born long ago, were supported by people like T. Jefferson, and are
    meant to guarantee that the Government can't suppress 'negative'
    coverage of it's acts. Over the years, the body of law supporting
    'Freedom of the Press' has grown - too far IMO. I don't think anyone
    ever envisioned Paparazzi stalking people for days on end, or invading
    their privacy to such an extreme degree.

    What's your job, Tony? How would you feel if 5 assholes armed with
    cameras suddenly started following you EVERYWHERE, harassing you, your
    friends, and family 24/7, all because you hold a certain position in a
    certain company. The notion that actors should willingly give up all
    hope of privacy in exchange for perusing their chosen career is asinine
    in the extreme.
    Greg Campbell, Jun 24, 2008
    #14
  15. Cynicor

    GreatArtist Guest

    I loved the videos. Finally the paparazzi scum get a beat down like
    they deserve. I wish that would happen all the time. I'd like to make
    a law that makes it legal to do anything to a paparazzi short of
    killing them.
    GreatArtist, Jun 24, 2008
    #15
  16. Cynicor

    Jufí Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
    >
    >> Not a very honest way of making a living... I never photograph even
    >> my own sister without an express permission.

    >
    > That's the difference between a professional and a scumbag. The pro asks
    > permission and respects people's space and wishes. Than again, respecting
    > other's rights is a lost art in today's society so that's why you have all
    > these fools that say they have a legal right to do what they want in a
    > public place.


    And we're all certain that you asked permission before you shot those two
    people on the jet ski, right?

    Asswipe...
    Jufí, Jun 24, 2008
    #16
  17. Cynicor

    Jufí Guest

    "GreatArtist" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I loved the videos. Finally the paparazzi scum get a beat down like
    > they deserve. I wish that would happen all the time. I'd like to make
    > a law that makes it legal to do anything to a paparazzi short of
    > killing them.


    Yeah, too bad the morons who issued the beating will likely get arrested and
    prosecuted, as they should, for attacking someone who wasn't breaking any
    laws.

    Sorry, but as much as I dislike the paparazzi, the surfers are wrong here.
    And amazingly stupid for attacking shooters with video and still cameras at
    the ready. Really, really stupid.
    Jufí, Jun 24, 2008
    #17
  18. Cynicor

    Jufí Guest

    "Greg Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:lj08k.1634$...
    > tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> Public, private...makes no difference. The celebrity forfeits their
    >> privacy.

    >
    > Ah...... NO! N.F.W.!
    >
    > Paparazzi behavior is indistinguishable from stalking, and is a blatant
    > abuse of the current "Free Press" laws. These laws and philosophies were
    > born long ago, were supported by people like T. Jefferson, and are meant
    > to guarantee that the Government can't suppress 'negative' coverage of
    > it's acts. Over the years, the body of law supporting 'Freedom of the
    > Press' has grown - too far IMO. I don't think anyone ever envisioned
    > Paparazzi stalking people for days on end, or invading their privacy to
    > such an extreme degree.


    I don't like them, either. So why, with all their money and power, haven't
    the celebs been able to legally stop, or even slow down the paparazzi?
    Because they may not want to?
    Jufí, Jun 24, 2008
    #18
  19. Cynicor

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:17:21 -0700, Greg Campbell <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >> Public, private...makes no difference. The celebrity forfeits their
    >> privacy.

    >
    >Ah...... NO! N.F.W.!
    >
    >Paparazzi behavior is indistinguishable from stalking, and is a blatant
    >abuse of the current "Free Press" laws. These laws and philosophies
    >were born long ago, were supported by people like T. Jefferson, and are
    >meant to guarantee that the Government can't suppress 'negative'
    >coverage of it's acts. Over the years, the body of law supporting
    >'Freedom of the Press' has grown - too far IMO. I don't think anyone
    >ever envisioned Paparazzi stalking people for days on end, or invading
    >their privacy to such an extreme degree.
    >
    >What's your job, Tony? How would you feel if 5 assholes armed with
    >cameras suddenly started following you EVERYWHERE, harassing you, your
    >friends, and family 24/7, all because you hold a certain position in a
    >certain company. The notion that actors should willingly give up all
    >hope of privacy in exchange for perusing their chosen career is asinine
    >in the extreme.


    It didn't work out that way, but I'd like to be a professional
    football player with a $5 million a year contract. For that fame and
    money, I'd have to expect that my body would deteriorate with the
    pounding I'd take on the field, that no dinner out with my super-model
    girlfriend would free of autograph seekers, that any minor traffic
    infraction would be reported on the news, and that photographers would
    swarm around me whenever I'd poke my head out the door. All that goes
    with the territory. You get the five million, and you pay for it with
    the rest.

    Maybe I could be like Tom Cruise and try to auction off pictures of my
    newborn baby to the press for $3 million. If my supermodel girlfriend
    forgot to wear underwear, I'd expect the photographers to jockey
    around for a crotch shot that would be published all over the web. If
    I used drugs, I'd know I'd be photographed with a towel over my head
    on my way to rehab. If my girlfriend went to jail for a series of
    stupid acts, she'd be blasted in the press for getting special
    treatment.

    Celebs know what they're in for, and they thrive on it.

    Business executives like me don't get followed by the paparazzi unless
    they steal millions from their shareholders. We don't get $5 million
    a year, either.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 24, 2008
    #19
  20. Cynicor

    Don Kirkman Guest

    It seems to me I heard somewhere that George Kerby wrote in article
    <C48670EF.9FD2%>:

    >On 6/23/08 9:07 PM, in article
    >, "Rita Berkowitz"
    ><> wrote:


    >> tony cooper wrote:


    >>> Celebrities are fair game for anyone. They understand that.


    >> No, they live with it till something is done about it. Celebrities don't
    >> "understand" why paparazzi would put their camera inside their car windows
    >> and in the face to get that "money shot." A celebs car is not public space.


    >But what about the surfboard?


    Good point. :) AAMOF the apparent target was only the guy on the board; the
    surfers had no vested interest in protecting *his* privacy or in preventing
    access to public property. California defines beach access in the California
    Coastal Act. The TV video clips suggest that at least some of the surfers could
    have been (will be?) charged with assault. Not enough of the paparazzi activity
    was broadcast to allow conclusions about their conduct.

    [Begin quote]
    THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC BEACHES .
    In California, all land below mean high tide is public. This stems from the
    public trust doctrine, which dictates that tide waters and land below the
    high water mark be held in trust for the people of the state. California has
    developed the doctrine to protect public access to the beach for recreation,
    navigation, commerce, and fisheries. The California Coastal Act aims to
    maximize public access to and along the shoreline and the California
    Constitution protects the right of way to California's waters for
    public purposes. Preserving the right to public beaches was a condition of
    California joining the Union. The right to public beaches can be traced back to
    common law England and Roman law and is accepted around the world.
    [End quote]
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/5tnune
    Don Kirkman, Jun 24, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joel Rubin

    Twelve step prayer for web surfers

    Joel Rubin, Jan 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    471
    Governor Swill
    Jan 30, 2005
  2. Joe

    Paparazzi Press Conferences and Flash

    Joe, Jun 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    501
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 25, 2006
  3. Replies:
    43
    Views:
    2,320
    Olin K. McDaniel
    Sep 5, 2006
  4. Paparazzi

    , May 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,361
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Now I see Why Paparazzi Use Canons!

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    336
Loading...

Share This Page