Paparazzi as a job?

[kiwi]

I would in a heartbeat too.

Taste ? too subjective
Legal - if it's legal then it's fair game

[Kym]

Interesting argument though, cause if the gym has cctv, then any attendees must accept being photographed...so...

IANAL .... but intent and purpose come into play.
If CCTV is for security and there is no intent to publish then it is still private.

I thing the legal interpretation would be that a 'reasonable person' has the expectation that security image/video will not be published.

[latino]

I'd do it but not go as far as put the subject in a dangerous position. Ever since the paparazzi were involved in the death of the princess there are certain lines that I would not cross.

[Goldie]

No, cause to me a backyard is a private space, even though the law (in Aus) says differently in regard to photography (ie. if it is viewable from a public space it can be photographed)

Backyards are considered private space.

[ricktas]

Backyards are considered private space.

Sorry, but under the law, any place visible from public space can be photographed. So if I stood on a footpath and photographed someone in a backyard/paddock or elsewhere, as long as I was standing on public land, it is legal to do so. This is the exact law that the paparazzi use

[kiwi]

yes, true, unless the subject is doing something that might be reasonably be expected to be private, or is otherwise indecent.

[pgbphotographytas]

Yes as long as it was all legal, after all I need to pay for the camera bags / cases some how

[Smylie]

Yeah, I'd give it a crack. After all $10,000 is $10,000 dosen't matter to me how I get it (within reason ).

[ving]

no freakin gravy!!!
i am not even gunna read this thread then :P

hehe
seriously, wouldnt go downthe tasteless route.

[jev]

No, cause to me a backyard is a private space

It is a very fine line between what is "legal" and what is acceptable. I mean: that image of his daughter in the backyard is something you wouldn't take (because it's close to voyeurism maybe?). But what if she was out in the open, let's say sitting on a bench in a street somewhere, eating a greasy fish-and-chips obviously served from a very bad cafeteria. That last situation actually would have news-value: the child of the self-proclaimed super-cook eats very unhealthy food. Would you take that image and sell it?

[ricktas]

It is a very fine line between what is "legal" and what is acceptable. I mean: that image of his daughter in the backyard is something you wouldn't take (because it's close to voyeurism maybe?). But what if she was out in the open, let's say sitting on a bench in a street somewhere, eating a greasy fish-and-chips obviously served from a very bad cafeteria. That last situation actually would have news-value: the child of the self-proclaimed super-cook eats very unhealthy food. Would you take that image and sell it?

Yep!

[Goldie]

Sorry, but under the law, any place visible from public space can be photographed. So if I stood on a footpath and photographed someone in a backyard/paddock or elsewhere, as long as I was standing on public land, it is legal to do so. This is the exact law that the paparazzi use

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backyard - try and build a house extension that lets you see into your neighbour's backyard and see how far the local council lets you go.

[ricktas]

There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in a backyard - try and build a house extension that lets you see into your neighbour's backyard and see how far the local council lets you go.

agree, but as the law stands, if a person is visible from a public space, then they are legally allowed to be photographed. Your original post stating a backyard was private is not how it is deemed legally, in a photographic sense.

You say your backyard is private, consider this. Your backyard is near a park. I photograph you and your partner having sex in your backyard. You complain about a breach of your privacy. At the same time several families using the park (with children) notice your behaviour and report you to the police. Who is going to get arrested, me for photographing you, or you and your partner for public indecency? Your backyard is not private if it is visible from a public space and you cannot expect it to be 'off limits'.

[TOM]

i'm with Rick, i would take a photo and sell to the highest bidder but it would be an opportunist shot. otherwise, it's not my bag. i friend of mine took the last pictures of Peter Brock, just minutes prior to his crash. the photos were nothing spectacular by his standards, but he received a 5 figure sum for those few pics.

[I @ M]

i friend of mine took the last pictures of Peter Brock, just minutes prior to his crash. the photos were nothing spectacular by his standards, but he received a 5 figure sum for those few pics.

And that to me is exactly where the line is drawn. I would sell the photos prior to the crash ---- and delete the ones of the wrecked car etc. etc.

[TOM]

sorry, all the photos he took were prior to the crash, he wasn't near the crash site. these were at the start of the stage.

[I @ M]

Tom, that is what I meant, the photos prior to the carnage are the last ones of the man as many will remember him and are of true value, anything taken after the event showing destruction of life and property are pure sensationalism and are only suited to coroners courts. I don't think they serve any public interest and that is what the media are about ------ isn't it ????

[farmer_rob]

... and are only suited to coroners courts. I don't think they serve any public interest and that is what the media are about ------ isn't it ????

Actually, I'd argue that for the coroners court, they do serve public interest. At the same time (and I assume - possibly wrongly - that no sarcasm is intended ) that the media have nothing to do with "public interest" in the context of public good, and far more to do with the interest of the public - if it sells newspapers/advertising time/advertising space, it is in the interests of the media. (I don't actually mean this too cynically - they are in business, and wages have to be paid and profits made.)

Overall, I side with Rick - I still have no qualms - if the photo can be taken publicly and it is worth money, taste has very little to do with it. If I had the (admittedly voyeuristic and in poor taste) shots of post-crash Peter Brock, I would not delete them.

[enduro]

I voted Yes, but with limitations:

I'm opposed to taking shots where people except to be having privacy (even when having out and about in the street), however I'd be happy to shoot people at red carpet events, openings etc where they are there to be in the spotlight.

I wonder if the money really is that good (particulary in Perth! - or Oz for that matter) to be a 24/7 paparazzi? AFAIK, the money for hard core paparazzi seems to be in the UK.

[kyteflyer]

I voted yes, with taste (though as someone commented, that is highly subjective).

Re the backyard issue: I don't think I would push it that far, because I thing that in some places the law is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My backyard, for example, is planted with trees around its perimeter and has a 6 ft fence. In theory, someone could see in with a long lens and reasonable elevation, but I would challenge a photograph taken of me in the yard (not that anyone would!), because since I have taken the trouble to fence and plant appropriately, I do have an expectation of privacy. The backyard issue is a minefield and I think its tempting fate to go there.

On a beach or in any public place (street etc, but not IN buildings which are not public places) celebs are fair game and if I had the cam, you bet I would take the shot and sell it off.