overview
authority
anxieties
Australia
making
publishing
overseas
journalism
paparazzi
venues
defence
justice
skies
streets
incidents
your image
related
Guides:
Privacy
Censorship
Intellectual
Property
related
Notes:
Stalking
|
paparazzi
This page considers paparazzi, variously known as 'celebrity
photographers', as 'stalkerazzi' and as 'the dungbeetles
of celebrity culture'.
It covers -
introduction
Historians have noted that a 'celebrity culture' predates
the net, television and invention of photography. It is
evident in the rise of Grub Street and in popular responses
in the US, continental Europe and Australia to figures
such as Liszt, Jenny Lind, Lola Montez, Byron and Napoleon.
It came to true prominence, however, with the rise of
yellow journalism, fan magazines and the Box Brownie camera
- a device that because of its size, easy of use and portability
was a precedessor of the Minox and contemporary high-performance
cameras that allow photographers to snatch an image from
a distance or at close hand.
Paparazzi are photographers who feed public demand for
images - intimate or otherwise - of celebrities, in particular
film stars and major sports figures. Their work appears
in newspapers, magazines, on television and in books,
whether directly or through reproduction by 'serious'
publications of what has appeared in print/electronic
tabloids.
They are of interest to students of unauthorised photography
(and of media ecosystems) because they illustrate -
- the
interaction of demand, supply and regulation (including
law and voluntary industry codes)
- tensions
between community expectations
about privacy protection for consumers and protection
or respect for celebrities
- debate
about the balance of free
speech and privacy in open societies (eg which celebrities
are 'out of bounds', which parts of their lives are
off limits)
- the
preparedness of some photographers to actively break
law in order to gain lucrative photographic opportunities,
eg by trespassing and harassing particular figures and
their children
- variations
in the use of anti-stalking
and anti-paparazzi law.
It
is common for media proprietors or executives and for
consumers to distance themselves from paparazzi, particularly
during outbreaks of community emo such as followed the
death of Princess Diana. However, they are complicit in
production, distribution and consumption of celebrity
images.
That complicity cannot be comprehensively excused by arguments
that celebrities coopt the media - something than on occasion
is clearly true - or claims from apologists that government
regulation and strengthened privacy law (such as the von
Hannover decision in the EU) would fundamentally
chill civil society.
practice
Images consumed in a celebrity culture can be generated
on an authorised basis, with much video and photography
being staged rather than impromptu. Images can instead
be captured by professionals or amateurs, some of whom
seek to be characterised as journalists. Others are indifferent
to either labels or supposed media codes of ethics.
It can be argued that contemporary paparazzi date from
the late 1950s, with
-
decline of the studio system in the US,
-
emergence of a new generation of photographic technology
(cameras, film and long-distance lenses),
- expansion
of glossy magazines,
- strengthening
of perceptions that the audience 'owned'
the celebrity,
- confirmation
of assessments by publishers that consumers and advertisers
would pay enough to justify investment in buying photos
from paparazzi.
Some of those paparazzi were mainstream photojournalists
who happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Others were specialists: pursuing celebrities in public
places, trespassing on private land and creating provocations
to get an 'action shot' of the celebrity looking angry,
frightened, unhappy or bewildered. Some concentrated on
adults and in situations where private/public blurred;
others were comfortable targeting a celebrity's family
and associates.
Apart from enjoyment in exercising power and flouting
authority, the primary motivation of most paparazzi appears
to be financial rewards. A single photograph of a current
media or sports star - especially in an intimate context,
such as bathing, exercising in a gym or holding hands
with a partner - might fetch several thousand dollars.
Media organisations are reported to have paid up to US$90,000
for individual photographs. US Weekly reportedly
paid US$500,000 in 2005 for a set of photos of Brad Pitt
and Angelina Jolie; shots of Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake
went for US$300,000. Publishers and broadcasters recoup
that money through licensing to other groups and through
significantly increased sales of a magazine or newspaper.
Consumer demand thus feeds the beast.
As noted in the preceding page, weak or non-existent personality
rights protection in most jurisdictions mean that much
video and photography by paparazzi is quite legal. Regimes
for example may inhibit publication but not making of
images. They generally provide little protection for images
made in public places in circumstances where the celebrity
- or bystander - has not been placed in danger.
It thus possible in Australia and many other parts of
the world to legally take photographs of a celebrity when
that person appears in the street. Media scrums outside
courts, hotels, offices, film studios, churches and homes
are common.
Some paparazzi go beyond those boundaries. Others subvert
them.
US photographer Ronald Galella for example notoriously
hounded Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis from 1969 to 1972,
including hiding in restaurants (with staff assistance),
following her children to school and sports events, appearing
uninvited at school events and private receptions, disrupting
funerals and chasing her by car and on foot. The abuse
of Onassis and her family was egregious, with incidents
for example where garbage cans were tipped in front of
the children to get a 'candid' shot.
Unsurprisingly, having been persistently stalked, Onassis
gained an injunction against Galella for harassment, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery,
invasion of privacy and commercial exploitation of her
personality. The court held that he had "insinuated
himself into the very fabric" of her life but the
restriction essentially ordered him not to come within
50 yards of Onassis and within 75 yards of her children.
Some of Galella's peers took the hint and relied on telephoto
lenses. Galella wore a football helmet in bothering Marlon
Brando after a 1973 encounter with the actor saw the photographer
lose five teeth. Frank Sinatra confined himself in 1974
to describing journalists at Melbourne airport as "bums",
"parasites", "hookers" and "a
bunch of fags".
During the next 20 years some paparazzi were discovered
to have trespassed in private gardens (one memorably fell
out of tree in front of a bemused gardener), made illicit
use of surveillance devices, bribed third parties or even
broken into buildings. They were criticised for action
such as forcing vehicles to stop or hitting vehicles in
an effort to get a reaction from the occupants. They were
also criticised from more subtle and legal strategems
such as taking photographs from aircraft of celebrities
in the pool or sunbathing.
That was reflected in a succession of anti-paparazzi laws
in parts of the US and attempts by celebrities elsewhere
in the world to use stalking or privacy law.
UK royal Princess Diana, although adept at coopting the
media, was pursued by paparazzi on the continent and like
other celebrities faced difficulties when trailed by teams
of photographs in sports cars and motorcycles.
Despite the bizarre expressions of collective grief after
the death of Diana it is clear that demand for images
has not abated. Uptake of digital cameras has led some
journalists to complain of a race to the bottom, with
'snapperazzi' (aka "kids with cameras") using
phones in competition for the rewards and the emergence
of 'celebrity watch'
sites.
responses
One response has been articulation by publishers (or by
individual media organisations and newspapers) of voluntary
codes of conduct.
In the UK, for example the Press Complaints Commission
(PCC) has called for respect for privacy as a human right
and has forbidden harassment, including persistently following
a subject and remaining on premises after being asked
to leave. In 2007 some UK tabloids indicated that they
would not commission or publish 'inappropriate' snaps
of the latest royal romance.
That concession was questioned by critics who noted that
paparazzi typically operate independently, rather than
being commissioned, and that the publishers appear to
have reserved the right to publish images once their competitors
had done so. The PCC prohibition regarding remaining on
premises was dismissed as disingenuous, given that refusal
to leave is illegal under English (and Australian) law
as the offence of trespass.
The Australian Press Council's David Flint, opposing calls
for tighter regulation, referred to free speech and the
media's role in inhibiting corruption. He commented that
those of us who are in public life have to give up a
degree of our privacy to the extent that our private
activities encroach upon our public functions.
The
determination of what is private and what is public has,
however, been contentious and there is disagreement about
restraints that are "no greater than necessary to
protect the overriding public interest".
A second response has been development of anti-paparazzi
legislation, particularly in jurisdictions such as California
where celebrities and paparazzi are prominent. It reflects
the anti-stalking enactments discussed elsewhere on this
site, such as the UK Protection from Harassment Act
1997.
One model is the 1999 anti-paparazzi law in California,
which established civil liability regarding "physical"
and "constructive" invasion of privacy through
photography, video or other recording "in a manner
that is offensive to a reasonable person" of a person
engaging in a "personal or familial activity".
The legislation essentially restated existing protection
under state law, which for example featured offences regarding
unauthorised entry to private property, stalking, assault,
battery and covert recording of "confidential communications".
The 1999 Act was strengthened in 2005 through legislation
providing that anyone responsible for causing an accident
in connection with such photography (for example by tripping
a celebrity or trapping a car) is liable for up to three
times the amount of damage. Consistent with proceeds
of crime provisions the person will also not be permitted
to gain any profits from related video, audio or photographs.
A third response, perhaps more persuasive, is to rely
on privacy as a human right rather than to address abuses
through a specific antipaparazzi enactment. The salient
example in Europe is the 2004 von Hannover case,
in which the European Court of Human Rights held in favour
of Princess Caroline of Monaco. She had claimed that efforts
by paparazzi to photograph her going about her ordinary
life, including in public places, breached a right to
privacy. The court indicated that although she was a public
figure she was entitled to privacy for her ordinary life.
studies
Questions about the culture of celebrity are explored
in Clay Calvert's Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy &
Peering in Modern Culture (Boulder: Westview 2000),
Image Ethics: The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs,
Film & Television (New York: Oxford Uni Press
1988) edited by Larry Gross & John Stuart, Scoop,
Scandal And Strife: A Study Of Photography In Newspapers
(London: Lund Humphries 1971) edited by Ken Baynes,
Media Scandals: Morality & Desire in the Popular Culture
Marketplace (New York: Columbia Uni Press 1998) edited
by James Lull & Stephen Hinerman, Scooped!
(New York: Columbia Uni Press 1999) by David Krajicek,
Michael Levine's The Princess & the Package: Exploring
the Love-Hate Relationship Between Diana and the Media
(Los Angeles: Renaissance 1998) and Suing the Press
(New York: Oxford Uni Press 1986) by Rodney Smolla. Other
works are highlighted here
and here.
Claude-Jean Bertrand's Media Ethics & Accountability
Systems (Piscataway: Transaction 2000) notes concerns
about self-regulation by media groups and by governments.
For Australia and New Zealand see Craig Collins' 2006
'Goodbye Hello! Drawing a Line for the Paparazzi' (PDF)
in the UNE Law Journal, Mark Pearson's The
Journalist's Guide to Media Law:
Dealing with legal and ethical issues (Crows Nest:
Allen & Unwin), Des Butler & Sharon Rodrick's
Australian Media Law (Pyrmont: Lawbook Co 2004)
and Media Law in New Zealand (Auckland: Oxford
Uni Press 1999) by John Brown & Ursula Cheer.
Literature about overseas regimes includes Barbara McDonald's
2006 'Privacy, Princesses and Paparazzi' in 50 New
York Law School Law Review 1, papers in New Dimensions
in Privacy Law: International & Comparative Perspectives
(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press 2006) edited by Andrew
Kenyon & Megan Richardson, Timothy Dyk's 1999 'Privacy,
Technology and the California "Anti-Paparazzi"
Statute' in 112 Harvard Law Review, Rebecca Roiphe's
1999 'Anti-Paparazzi Legislation' in 36 Harvard Journal
on Legislation 1 and Jamie Nordhaus' 1999 'Celebrities'
Rights to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi Be Allowed
to Go?' in 18 The Review of Litigation 2.
Works on personality rights (aka publicity rights), such
as J Thomas McCarthy's The Rights of Publicity &
Privacy (Eagan: West Group 2000), Joshua Rozenberg's
Privacy and the Press (Oxford: Oxford Uni Press
2004), Huw Beverley-Smith's The Commercial Appropriation
of Personality (Oxford: Oxford Uni Press 2002) and
International Privacy, Publicity & Personality
Laws (London: Butterworths 2001) edited by Michael
Henry, are highlighted here.
For accounts of and interviews with paparazzi see Paparazzi:
And Our Obsession with Celebrity (New York: Artisan
2005) by Peter Howe. The 'Vespa vampires' are highlighted
in The Montesi Scandal: The Death of Wilma Montesi
and the Birth of the Paparazzi in Fellini's Rome
(Chicago: Uni of Chicago Press 2003) by Karen Pinkus,
Tazio Secchiaroli: Greatest of the Paparazzi
(New York: Abrams 1993) by Diego Mormorio. The unlovely
Mr Galella produced Offguard - A Paparazzo Look at
the Beautiful People (New York: McGraw-Hill 1976),
Disco Years (New York: Powerhouse 2006) and Ron
Galella: An Exclusive Diary (New York: Photology
2005).
next page (venues)
|
|
Ketupa