Paparazzi as a job?

[ricktas]

And then take the shot regardless and peddle it to the highest bidder, the photo gets run and ruins the existing realtionship of Clarke and costs him his chance of captaincy

You have 20000 though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that didn't happen did it.

[kiwi]

Nahh, bingles with another bloke now

[GoldenOrb]

Yeh Id do it to a point, dont think I would consider sitting at airports waiting for people to rock up etc, but as Rick said, if I had my camera in hand and Yogi bear and Boo boo are having a punch up in a street, walking around in a mankini, or texting Warnie ... well for 10k, Id have to consider it. Besides 10k is good for some nice new glass

Mind you if it was sporting photography etc I wouldnt have a drama at all, just dont have the right gear to do it

[mwphoto]

I voted no, I can't see myself being like a seagulls at a chip.

Me neither. But if I was a seagull minding my own business in a very public place like a beach, or a park and someone threw a chip in my direction, I'd probably be happy to get paid to eat it

But I'm not much interested in celebs anyway, so would probably have a conversation with Gordon Ramsey without even knowing who he was

[Mr Lensbaby]

easy

No

I dont need dirty money at someone else s expense

[ameerat42]

Me neither. But if I was a seagull minding my own business in a very public place like a beach, or a park and someone threw a chip in my direction, I'd probably be happy to get paid to eat it

But I'm not much interested in celebs anyway, so would probably have a conversation with Gordon Ramsey without even knowing who he was

Betcha it &*^%#) wouldn't (* take _)*(*&^ long to *&^ find out!

[Namus]

No for me as well; not my thing - if I was really desperate for work, I suppose I could....

[Kerrie]

Did you know......that if you are doing something considered " offensive" to others, in your own private house, and people can see you through a window, it's you that can be charged for indecent exposure or whatever similar laws are in place for appropriate behavior in public.

Weird huh

[Kerrie]

And yes....I'd take the photo of Gordon and offer to sell it to him first

[just rollin]

Ok, scenario

You are shooting a football match or a landscape and see Lara Bingle smooching with Michael Clarke in the private room of the mcg, you havd a clear shot through the window, yes, huge story, $20000 picture

What would you do ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

for $20000 hell yea thats a new 6 and 800mm if it out in public and im the only one lucky enough to have a decent camera to get the shot why not

[Kym]

Well... this goes over the line... http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...-1226474693863

[Kym]

Some understanding of how those shots were taken...

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/c...917-261a1.html

800mm + 2xTC - well D'oh! who would have thunked that

[muggins]

Ok I give up, What is the answer to this total invasion of privacy. Extreem fines against the magazines and newspaper publishers of these pictures,gaoling of the paparazzi for taking the photo or perhaps court action against the makers of the equipment that allows these type of shots.
I do not know. But it has to stop. I was no great fan of Diana. but the press and the paparazzi hounded her to her death. Can we as photographers allow this to go on. looking forward to all comments.
Muggins.

[zollo]

as a future queen of a fair chunk of planet one could safely assume your actions are being watched 24/7. So act accordingly, and keep your top on. I am sure she would have been briefed about such issues. / publicity /
Personally, it's a topless woman... So what.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[muggins]

I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.

- - - Updated - - -

And by the way Papparazi are concerned with only one thing ME -that is Money and Ego as in what can I get for this series of shots and Ha Ha I am the only one that has got these shots.

[ricktas]

I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.

However, the Law in Australia is such that if a photographer is on public land, then they can take photos, unless the subject is somewhere that they would expect privacy (ie taking photos from between curtains that are drawn and there is a small gap in them). If a person is on private land and outside, visible from the public land, then they have to expect to be photographed. I think what the photographer in this instance did was morally wrong (my personal moral standards), but legally it was not wrong. I agree with Zollo, its just a couple of boobs, really who cares.

[muggins]

Hi Rick, I totally agree with you but we are not talking about law it is about morals The general photographic community would not stoop so low as to publish these photographs, but a small section will , in my last post I stated that these people are driven by ( ME ) ie Money and Ego and that is what it is all about.
all the best.
Steve

[ricktas]

So do you go to work to earn money? All of us are driven by money to some extent. How we earn that money is what differs. I do not believe the photographer is any more morally corrupt than the next person, when it comes to money. We all work to get money, to do the things we want to do in life.

Kate and William know they are the subject of intense interest, and she chose to remove her top. I really do not see what the fuss is all about. Cheap titillation (pun intended)!

[zollo]

I was talking about a reasonable expectation of PRIVACY.It seems you do not understand, 99% of people Expect privacy it does not matter if they are in the public eye, when they are in public they are fair game but when they are in private ALL photographers should respect their private moments.
If photogs cannot accept that they should be Castrated.

- - - Updated - - -

And by the way Papparazi are concerned with only one thing ME -that is Money and Ego as in what can I get for this series of shots and Ha Ha I am the only one that has got these shots.

As a full time working photographer I am all across expectation of privacy, I'd say probably more so than yourself.

If you are going to start ridding the globe of unethical, ahem, genitalia, please start with a lot of the worlds leaders and corrupt governments and global polluters then work your way up to the REAL problems mankind faces like non sexualised photos of a topless woman. Who knew she was more than likely to have her photo taken. In France of all places, a country known for such behaviors.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Kym]

H If a person is on private land and outside, visible from the public land, then they have to expect to be photographed.

But if you need 800mm + 2xTC to get the photo has the expectation of privacy been breached?

Also, if a 'tog can get that close so can a sniper with say a M107A1 50cal sniper rifle.