Paparazzi

[rebardwg]

I've read a few old posts on this site about the legalities of taking someone's photo in public places for commercial and non-commercial use. The discussion is never settled and I have not seen a link to any govt site that can clear things up.

If you take a picture of a person in a public place, it's ok, but if you take it with the intent to defame that person. It's illegal and the subject has a right to legal action?

So I thought I'd protect myself by making them sign a model release, but what about paparazzi? Those guys are all over the place taking picutures with every intention defaming a person as well as selling them for commercial use as well as poking their lens into a car or over a gate to get the shot.

Do they follow under a different law or rule? Do they have a press badge or something that grants them this permission?

These guys are even shooting children without parental consent.

rebardwg added 11 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

ok, i think i found the answer to my own question.

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/paparazzi5.htm

this is the shortest thread ever!!

[tc95]

That's it I will never be in the public's eye...!!!

I wanted to make the thread a little longer...

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by tc95

That's it I will never be in the public's eye...!!!

POOF!! Your wish is granted......Ben

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by Truckman

POOF!! Your wish is granted......Ben

Now I'm interested. Oh wait that's another thread :
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...t=1595&page=18

[toverman]

That's an interesting link.

Yes, paparazzi are parasites, but there's often a symbiotic relationship at play: public figures WANT to be in the news as often as possible, thinking there's no such thing as bad press (Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton & Co. might disagree).

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by toverman

That's an interesting link.

Yes, paparazzi are parasites, but there's often a symbiotic relationship at play: public figures WANT to be in the news as often as possible, thinking there's no such thing as bad press (Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton & Co. might disagree).

They aren't guilty of bad press, Bad acting maybe but not bad press

[tc95]

Ben...I get two more...right...???

[dminton]

They don't shoot for commercial usage. They shoot for editorial usage.

[Toad]

I like the way... Harry Potter (don't know his real name) beat the Paparazzi when he was doing that play thing in England.
He wore the exact same outfit every day, so that when the paparazzi took photos of him, they always looked the same. They couldn't prove it was a new photo of him... at least in the minds of the consumers, because he looked the same every time.
Genius.

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by dminton

They don't shoot for commercial usage. They shoot for editorial usage.

I was going to add this as well. There seems to be a misconception about the term commercial. Selling a photo is not "commercial" use. For a photograph to rise to the level of "commercial use" it needs to be used to endorse or "advertise" something.

Selling that photo to a news magazine (like the enquirer) would be considered editorial use, and is almost wholely supported under the 1st amendment.

So it is ok to sell a photo of John, but if you use that exact same photo of John in your online portfolio to promote your business you might be in hot water if you do not have a release.