The seemingly never-ending soap opera that surrounds the British Windsor family continues in the US with Harry and Meghan and their story of how paparazzi reportedly chased their vehicle through the streets of New York City, risking accidents, in order to take photographs of them. The photo agency is denying that their photographers acted in a dangerous manner and is refusing their demand to hand over any photographs that were taken during the alleged car chase.
For some reason, there seems to be a large audience that likes to see photographs of famous people taken without their consent. As a result, there is a market for such photos in tabloid media and for paparazzi who go to great lengths to get such photographs, such as surrounding celebrities in public places, even when they are engaged in mundane tasks like grocery shopping or taking a walk or eating in a restaurant.
I can imagine that it must be highly annoying to have people staking out your home and workplace and thrusting cameras in your face whenever you are out in public but as far as I am aware, there is nothing one can do to prevent them from taking your photograph in a public place. That people seek to so so seems to be one of the prices paid for being a celebrity. The problem is partly that famous people are often sensitive about their image and so try to look their best in photographs, which means paying close attention to what they wear, their makeup, being photographed is good lighting with nice, flattering poses, etc. When you are out casually, you may look natural but not necessarily the way you want to portray yourself. Furthermore, tabloid media seems to pay a premium for people looking awkward or in embarrassing situations.
I am of course not famous so do not face this problem but I have been trying to think about what my response might be if I were. I almost always dress very casually, even shabbily, but it is even worse when I go out of the house for a short while to throw out the trash, pick up the mail, etc. I often do those things wearing ratty clothes and with my hair uncombed because I assume that nobody among my neighbors cares how I look. That is a privilege of being an unknown. If I were famous and conscious of my image, those simple tasks would become tedious since I would have to be careful how I look all the time.
Of course, famous people are also often wealthy, so they can afford to hire people to do many routine daily tasks for them, and can live in homes that have a high level of security, privacy, and seclusion so that their public presence is minimized. But cameras now have powerful zoom lenses and there are camera-equipped drones that can circumvent such precautions and invade your privacy even when you have a right to expect it, such as inside your home or in an enclosed garden. Ordinary people do not have to worry about this. I live in a condominium complex and it would be possible for my neighbors to use a powerful zoom lens camera to photograph me in my living room. What they would most likely capture is me stretched out on a sofa in my sweatpants and sweatshirt and reading a book. Since I think that this would likely be of little interest to anyone and I do not care anyway, this is not a problem. But it might be if I were famous and image conscious.
I would have thought that the best option for celebrities is to look on the paparazzi as a fact of their lives and when in public or driving in cars, to let them take photographs while taking care to not do anything that might make for gossip fodder. It would still be a nuisance to be followed by photographers but if you do not give them anything gossip worthy, maybe they will get tired of you and move on to people who are more interesting. After all, even the biggest fans of celebrities might get tired of seeing them doing humdrum things like shopping or going for a walk or a drive. Tabloids sometimes make up stories to get attention but as long as there is nothing defamatory, that also cannot be avoided. I am not saying that all this unwanted attention is not unpleasant. But it does seem that the best remedy may be to be stoic and impassive in the face of such intrusions into your privacy. Perhaps even smile and wave to the cameras.
It may also be the case that because I am not a celebrity and also have no desire to know of their doings, I may be ignorant of some deeper dynamic that seems to make this such a big problem. Could it be that part of the irritation is that people are making money using unauthorized photographs of your image?
Third-world countries?
The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has ruled that a Bill seeking to decriminalise homosexuality is “not inconsistent with the Constitution”, clearing the way for a Parliamentary debate and vote on the subject.
This is based on…
In its ruling, Sri Lanka’s apex court cited the landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case in India, in which all consensual sex among adults, including those in same-sex relationships, was decriminalised as the Court historically struck down Section 377.
-- The Hindu dated May 14, 2023
I have often wondered why famous people don’t sue paparrazi for trademark infringement. After all, their image is their “brand” and someone snapping unauthorized pictures is diluting their brand. I’m not sure what I think about that, but a lot of public figures have plenty of money and could probably suppress a photographer pretty thoroughly.
That said, it turns out that a lot of these “unauthorized” images are problematic because they are not orchestrated and edited. Big name “influencers” have authorized “unauthorized” photos, conditional upon being edited to project the standard desired body-image of the “influencer” -- that’s who so many “unposed” images look so, uh, posed. The Kardashians are the reigning monarchs of the fake paparrazi photos, to the point where I sometimes wonder that their initial claim to fame (a sex tape) was also a set-up. I’ve actually seen a bit of one, and it sure looks set-up to me, but I’m critical about art. Maybe sex has become a performance art in incel-land, I don’t know.
The photo agency is denying that their photographers acted in a dangerous manner and is refusing their demand to hand over any photographs that were taken during the alleged car chase.
So now we have proof of a CONSPIRACY to engage in, and reward, reckless endangerment of innocent people.
It’s one thing to stake out a restaurant or other public place hoping to spot a celebrity. It’s another to follow/stalk them especially at a privet residence.
Jacqueline B. K. Onassis had a better solution:
The “car chase” seems very “alleged”, almost as though the celebs involved were deliberately trying to evoke a certain other actual car chase from 1997 by wildly overstating the details. Just sounded like another stop on their world privacy tour.
My favourite response to this kind of stuff was from Daniel Radcliffe, who put together an outfit for going out in, then went out in that… over and over and over again, exclusively, for YEARS, thus rendering all paparazzi shots of him near-identical and therefore worthless. Daniel Radcliffe is nobody’s idea of a great actor, but he has survived childhood stardom and made some properly interesting choices of things to do after the thing that made him famous, and this tale of how he got the papps to leave him alone only increases the respect I had for him. Harry
Hewitt, sorry,Saxe-Coburgh-Gotha, sorry Windsor can bugger off as far as I’m concerned. This is just another cry for attention and relevance, something he’ll likely be doing for the rest of his life, certainly for the rest of this marriage.I think the problem celebrities do or don’t have with paparazzi has to do with how they perceive it. If they think of it as part of something they chose to happen with their lives then it probably doesn’t bother them overly much. If they view it as something imposed from outside and not part of their choices at all, then they’ll have a huge problem with it. You can compare it to things non-famous people do or have put up with such as voyeurs and the panoptican on the two extremes. The panopticon had serious mental health consequences because it was imposed surveillance that didn’t go away. On the other extreme a voyeur might expose themselves in public, something which would be deeply embarrassing and disturbing for most people. But it makes them happy.
The royals are in kind of a weird spot as far as choice goes. They could make a reasonable case that they didn’t choose to be born into that family but some (if not all) members of that family have clearly chosen to be more in the public eye for their own gain. I can’t comment on the extent of this or who specifically has done it because I don’t care about them and don’t follow news about them. But there have been enough interviews, legal maneuverings, and financial deals trading on the family’s fame to make it very clear they aren’t innocent victims. And that’s just what has made it into the news enough for me to notice.
Frankly I suspect they’re all just trying to have it both ways. Which seems kind of silly to me. If you’re going to go out and win a prize you may as well enjoy it. Why bother having a whole country pay for your lifestyle only to angst about the attention you get because of it?
Or: “… their story of how they reportedly fled the paparazzi in their vehicle through the streets of New York City, risking accidents, in order to avoid having photographs of them taken.”
@ 6 sonofrojblake
Yes I’m sure he was absolutely trying to evoke the death of his mother for attention while… trying to escape attention.
You really are a dickhead aren’t you?
I don’t think “Harry and Meghan and their story” is exactly “trying to escape attention”.
(The Queen Mum could keep mum)
And thereby escaping attention! 😉
for reference: https://www.whatsthediff.org/blog/2019/09/17/whats-the-difference-between-a-duke-earl-count-viscount-baron-and-marquess/
(Which is why the USA has ‘counties’; the nomenclature endures)
Silentbob
Are you having a nice day?
@9: so we agree. Cool.
@12: they always have a nice day… After all, ignorance is bliss.
@ 12
I’ve told you before weeaboo boi to address me as damasarenai hito (騙されない 人) and since your obviously fake Japanese name has fewer parenthetical characters than my obviously fake Japanese name you need to show proper sonkei (尊敬).
(For those to whom this comment is incomprehensible, I’m just slapping down some idiot troll who is stalking me from another blog. Disregard.)
Harry Hewitt has an excellent example of trying to escape attention in the person of his uncle Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, 13th in line to the throne. Until about three weeks ago I’d honestly forgotten he and his
beardwife Sophie even existed. It’s not difficult.Silentbob
あなたのお母さんはハムスターで、あなたのお父さんはエルダーベリーの匂いがしました。
(For those to whom this comment is incomprehensible, I’m just slapping down some idiot troll who is stalking me from another blog. Disregard.)
Sounds a little like the online equivalent of dodging paparazzi.
…I may be ignorant of some deeper dynamic that seems to make this such a big problem. Could it be that part of the irritation is that people are making money using unauthorized photographs of your image?
When I was in grade-school and junior-high, I noticed that some kids in that age-range (boys at least) went through a phase in which, whenever they heard a hint that someone else had a “secret” they didn’t want to tell, they immediately went into a sort of frenzy trying to expose the secret by any means available (limited, of course, because they were kids), and/or loudly badgering the person with the “secret” to the point where it became a form of bullying. The most infantile form of this badgering was when boys went out of their way to catch a glimpse under a girl’s dress and then bragged about it to other boys like it was some sort of proof that girls were gross or something. Perhaps those kids took the keeping of secrets as an assertion of power, which they then wanted to counter in order to re-assert their own power.
While most kids learn the hard way that such behavior is considered contemptible, and give it up quickly, it seems that some of them “grow up” into careers that explicitly reward it, and thus they can continue to enjoy doing it. And some of them, at least, do indeed enjoy it for its own sake, in addition to the monetary reward. Shortly after Diana’s death, a news item showed a paparazzo taking photos of some famous person in his/her own backyard, or through a window in his/her house, and then sneering as if he’d won some important battle against his target. This was a guy who enjoyed being infantile and had no sense of shame about it.
And on the demand side, there’s a lot of people who both follow and admire certain celebrities, and also enjoy seeing them “taken down a notch.” I’m guessing that’s the result of a conflicted attitude toward celebrities — we’re conditioned to admire and follow their every move, but we also don’t WANT to look up to them, and feel better about ourselves when we can look DOWN on them once in awhile.
But there have been enough interviews, legal maneuverings, and financial deals trading on the family’s fame to make it very clear they aren’t innocent victims.
This is the self-serving bullshit logic of the tabloid press: “By exposing one aspect of yourself to the public, you thereby forfeit all right to privacy forever.” Or to put it more simply, “You gave us something, therefore you owe us more!” You may find it easy to apply that rationale to people you don’t care for, like the Windsors; but would you apply it to, say, a high-profile atheist blogger criticizing a dangerous cult? Or a teacher taking a public stand against harassment by the Proud Boys?
Hey weeaboo boi, the title of this post is “The Paparazzi Problem”.
Do you intend to a) say something even remotely relevant, b) keep using someone else’s blog as your personal trolling platform, c) FUCK OFF?
spoing
What you are doing is making a fool of yourself.
Chigau has been a commenter here (albeit very infrequently) for years.
Silentbob: You’re the one changing the subject to announce that you were carrying on some irrelevant personal pissing contest from another blog. So you’re really not in a position to lecture anyone else about going off-topic.