login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Paparazzi Killed Trying To Snap Justin Beiber Car Search   Reply
first1234last
Photographer
Azimuth Arts
Posts: 1,490
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


George Ruge wrote:
Not changing any rules. To me, a photographer creates a photograph by making choices about lighting, composition, subject... Paparazzi, stalk a victim and shoot, hoping that something they got will be something someone will buy, that's taking pictures, not photography. IMHO

By your reasoning many photojournalists are not photographers.  Those that capture war, famine and natural disaster.  I can assure you those people are most certainly photographers.

Whether you like what the shoot, or how they do it, they are photographers.

I personally have no interest in the material most paparazzi shoot, and it's not a job I would ever want.  But regrettably I know of no way to make laws to prohibit what they do without limiting the abilities of the great photojournalists who have captured some of the most powerful images of our time.

Just my $0.02

Jan 03 13 07:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,541
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Azimuth Arts wrote:

By your reasoning many photojournalists are not photographers.  Those that capture war, famine and natural disaster.  I can assure you those people are most certainly photographers.

Whether you like what the shoot, or how they do it, they are photographers.

I personally have no interest in the material most paparazzi shoot, and it's not a job I would ever want.  But regrettably I know of no way to make laws to prohibit what they do without limiting the abilities of the great photojournalists who have captured some of the most powerful images of our time.

Just my $0.02

good point. and we can  add nature photographers capturing shy animals and birds by stalking them for days to list of non-photographers.  I'll be happy to tell them all George isnt changing any rules but they are not photographers.  For that matter, neither am I. she calls herself a lady but I tracked this b(*tch for days until she passed out in the planter.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/207636_10151358327091858_1288276102_n.jpg

Jan 03 13 08:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
HalfMoonColorado
Posts: 765
Greenwood Village, Colorado, US


Personally I think half of the paparazzi deserve to be bitch slapped at any given minute. Taking a shot of someone walking out of a restaurant is one thing but they can get way of of hand intruding into people's personal space.

That said, I was thinking about the position of the police officer. I pull over a car for a traffic stop. Who knows what might happen to me. Are there guns in the car? Are there warrants out for the occupants? Is the car stolen? Are they drunk, on drugs, plain stupid, or simply two guys driving someone else's car.

My personal safety is at risk and here comes some guy stopping his car on the other side of the street and comes rushing towards us.  My attention needs to be 100% to the my own safety and the vehicle I stopped not this other guy.

I tell him to return to his car. He doesn't. Crap. Now I have to keep my eye on him and the two people in the car as well as everything else going on. BAM he steps into the path of an oncoming vehicle and gets killed.

Now people assume I am responsible because I'm a cop and he got killed. Law suits! I am tried, judged, and convicted by the press and public opinion. Someone is dead, the driver of the SUV's life has changed, my career is at risk, and I haven't done anything wrong.

At least it hasn't shown up on llama Mayhem yet.
Ah fuck.
Jan 03 13 09:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


HalfMoonColorado wrote:
Personally I think half of the paparazzi deserve to be bitch slapped at any given minute. Taking a shot of someone walking out of a restaurant is one thing but they can get way of of hand intruding into people's personal space.

That said, I was thinking about the position of the police officer. I pull over a car for a traffic stop. Who knows what might happen to me. Are there guns in the car? Are there warrants out for the occupants? Is the car stolen? Are they drunk, on drugs, plain stupid, or simply two guys driving someone else's car.

My personal safety is at risk and here comes some guy stopping his car on the other side of the street and comes rushing towards us.  My attention needs to be 100% to the my own safety and the vehicle I stopped not this other guy.

I tell him to return to his car. He doesn't. Crap. Now I have to keep my eye on him and the two people in the car as well as everything else going on. BAM he steps into the path of an oncoming vehicle and gets killed.

Now people assume I am responsible because I'm a cop and he got killed. Law suits! I am tried, judged, and convicted by the press and public opinion. Someone is dead, the driver of the SUV's life has changed, my career is at risk, and I haven't done anything wrong.

At least it hasn't shown up on llama Mayhem yet.
Ah fuck.

Your post is right on point - this was in no way the police officer's fault...it was the obnoxious papparazzi photographer being a nuisance, then not paying attention to his own safety.

As people have mentioned, there is not even a shoulder big enough for a car to pull off onto and park out of the way of traffic...so imagine watching the scene unfold: a guy with a camera is chasing another car, the police pull over the car and they're blocking traffic themselves because there's no place to pull off the road - then the guy with a camera stops his car behind the police car and jumps out and rushes towards them.

At least the police car has flashing lights, but traffic coming up on the scene will not be able to see the lights as well because of the car belonging to the camera guy blocking the view.  OF COURSE the cops tell the guy to return to his car and leave - he has NO business stopping on a busy roadway (putting others and himself at risk, just so he can take a photo of a celebrity), and they have their own job to do - including keeping other motorists on the road safe.  There is no way to defend the camera guys actions...he was reckless and paid a dear price for his inattention.

I totally agree that laws need to be enacted to rein in the papparazzi - this is not just an issue about a person's right to take photos, or invasion of privacy issues for the celebrities...this is a big safety issue - for the photographer, the celebrity AND innocent bystanders going about their own business.  IMHO, the paparazzi should be treated as stalkers for the most part (which is what they actually are)!

Jan 03 13 10:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Winkleman Photo
Posts: 100
New York, New York, US


Terrible tragedy but this instance was a random pedestrian accident that had nothing to do with whether he was a paparazzi or shopper leaving a store and going to his car. It also might have happened if he continued to shoot and went back to his car after he finished in his own time.

Some paparazzo like Ron Galella go way too far. Some celebs and their security go way to far. However this time it was someone who crossed the street without looking both ways.
Jan 03 13 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


Jon Winkleman Photo wrote:
Terrible tragedy but this instance was a random pedestrian accident that had nothing to do with whether he was a paparazzi or shopper leaving a store and going to his car. It also might have happened if he continued to shoot and went back to his car after he finished in his own time.

Some paparazzo like Ron Galella go way too far. Some celebs and their security go way to far. However this time it was someone who crossed the street without looking both ways.

...You're kidding, right?

Most people don't chase after celebrity cars with a camera.

Most people wouldn't stop their car on a busy roadway with no shoulders behind a police car that has pulled over that celebrity car.

Most people wouldn't jump out of their car with their camera and run up to the celebrity car to take photos.

Most people have more sense than to act so recklessly that they put themselves into a situation where they wind up getting killed, just to take some celebrity photos.

'Sorry - but I am NOT one of those people who defend the paparazzi for ANY reason...not for the rights of photographers to take photos in public places, nor for the rights of photographers to take photos of celebrities because they make a living that way, nor for any other reason.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who say things like "well, being chased by the paparazzi is part of the price of fame - they should accept it as part of what being famous is like - they just got to take the bad with the good."

Well how about people who worked in factories and other venues where they were exposed to asbestos?  Should they just mark it down to "well, serious illness and death are just part of the deal when you work around asbestos - they got paid a salary so they should just bear it and shut the f up!"

Celebrities are human beings, just like you and me - and they deserve some respect for their privacy, just like we do!

Jan 03 13 04:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DG at studio47
Posts: 2,365
East Ridge, Tennessee, US


I didn't read the entire thread. the whole affair was about $$$. being a big celebrity= money/risk. photographing a celebrity=money/risk. the unfortunate photographer was in a risky situation, he lost.
Jan 03 13 04:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 42,717
Salinas, California, US


Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ds-newsxml


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/02/article-2255902-16B88DFF000005DC-116_634x392.jpg

.

I was looking for this in Off Topic" but since you posted here ... I will express my opinion.  The paparazzi should not have stopped to photograph the car.  It happens to be an infraction to stop on the side of the road fro a nonemergency, and then he shouldn't have crossed a freeway by foot either.  So he commited two traffic infractions before getting hit.  To do what?  Photograph an empty car?  Just because it belongs to a celebrity? 

I have no sympathy for the paparazzi at all!  Stupid is as stupid does!

Jan 03 13 04:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Patrick Walberg
Posts: 42,717
Salinas, California, US


Gary Melton wrote:

...You're kidding, right?

Most people don't chase after celebrity cars with a camera.

Most people wouldn't stop their car on a busy roadway with no shoulders behind a police car that has pulled over that celebrity car.

Most people wouldn't jump out of their car with their camera and run up to the celebrity car to take photos.

Most people have more sense than to act so recklessly that they put themselves into a situation where they wind up getting killed, just to take some celebrity photos.

'Sorry - but I am NOT one of those people who defend the paparazzi for ANY reason...not for the rights of photographers to take photos in public places, nor for the rights of photographers to take photos of celebrities because they make a living that way, nor for any other reason.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who say things like "well, being chased by the paparazzi is part of the price of fame - they should accept it as part of what being famous is like - they just got to take the bad with the good."

Well how about people who worked in factories and other venues where they were exposed to asbestos?  Should they just mark it down to "well, serious illness and death are just part of the deal when you work around asbestos - they got paid a salary so they should just bear it and shut the f up!"

Celebrities are human beings, just like you and me - and they deserve some respect for their privacy, just like we do!

Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

Jan 03 13 04:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sublime LightWorks
Posts: 6,061
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Patrick Walberg wrote:
Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

+1

Then you have this bit of stupidity:

The longtime friend, who spoke with Chris at 5:16 PM - less than an hour before he was killed - was one of his closest friends told TMZ he belived Bieber is partly to blame for Guerra's death because of the singer's reckless driving history and alleged pot smoking which made it a big story to follow.

So the "friend" blames Bieber, who was not there, because of the singer's reckless driving history and alleged pot smoking.

You have to love how totally stupid people are.

Jan 03 13 05:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Glenn Hall - Fine Art
Posts: 450
Townsville, Queensland, Australia


Patrick Walberg wrote:
Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

...I was 'bout to say the exact thing. They chased her like a mob of horny gorillas and then got off photographing her mortally wounded body in the car...nothing but scum.

Jan 03 13 05:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


Someone who chases after and stalks non-celebrities are called "stalkers" and are viewed by most people as criminals.  Why should the papparazzi get a pass just because they are "stalking" celebrities?  Because they make money "stalking celebrities"?  Hired assassins make money killing people - does that make it okay for them to kill people?

Seriously - any attempt to justify the papparazzi is nothing but rationalization and manipulation of common sense.  It's nothing but a form of making money at the expense of others' grief, freedom and privacy.  For many of the papparazzi - a lot of it is also (and in some cases, primarily) a form of thrill seeking (and again, at the expense and to the detrement of others).

I'd love to see the people who defend the papparazzi find themselves the target of the papparazzi's hunting, chasing and stalking efforts, and see how THEY like it!!  The papparazzi are definitely one of THE lowest life forms on this planet!
Jan 03 13 05:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 7,878
Imperial, California, US


Azimuth Arts wrote:

By your reasoning many photojournalists are not photographers.  Those that capture war, famine and natural disaster.  I can assure you those people are most certainly photographers.

Whether you like what the shoot, or how they do it, they are photographers.

I personally have no interest in the material most paparazzi shoot, and it's not a job I would ever want.  But regrettably I know of no way to make laws to prohibit what they do without limiting the abilities of the great photojournalists who have captured some of the most powerful images of our time.

Just my $0.02

A photojournalist is not a paparazzi. Photojournalists have a story to tell, a vision in mind as to how to tell it, they consider how their subject fits into that story and how best to portray them to tell the story. That all involves lighting, composition..., that's photography. Paparazzi are mindless hyenas drooling on the hunt to capture a snapshot that some checkout line rag will
buy.

Jan 03 13 08:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charles Gast
Posts: 191
Mason, Ohio, US


Steven Bodo wrote:
besides, who the f*** wants to photograph Justin Bieber anyway?

If the only way I could come up with to earn a living was to chase around teen chick idols I think I'd sell the camera and get a job cleaning sewers instead. Less demeaning. And yes getting hit by a car as a result of not looking leaves no one else to blame. The story didn't mention the cop commanding him to step into the path of a car. I'd rather be a sewer cleaner than a cop too btw. Don't have to deal with as much shit or as many shit heads. Not even in a sewer.

Jan 03 13 08:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charles Gast
Posts: 191
Mason, Ohio, US


Nice picture! You did better than me. I'm pretty sure thats the insect that flaked on me >_>

good point. and we can  add nature photographers capturing shy animals and birds by stalking them for days to list of non-photographers.  I'll be happy to tell them all George isnt changing any rules but they are not photographers.  For that matter, neither am I. she calls herself a lady but I tracked this b(*tch for days until she passed out in the planter.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/207636_10151358327091858_1288276102_n.jpg

Jan 03 13 08:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PhotoPower
Posts: 1,366
Elmsdale, Nova Scotia, Canada


So many stupid people out there ... it's like Darwin's natural selection of the species!! Jeez ya cannot even use a cross walk in my town!! W
Jan 03 13 08:35 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,840
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Ya'll shithouse lawyers have completely missed the question of "duty of care" - who might have has such a duty and was it breached. Typically, in a negligence tort case:

The cop had a general duty of care in respect of the scene; but when he asked the photographer to clear the area and return to his vehicle that duty of care might be seen to have become particularised, vis whatever the cop asked him to do the cop then assumed a more individualised duty of care to ensure that it could be accomplished safely and without undue risk.

Then there is the driver that hit the guy. Did they have a duty of care? Well, yes, they likely did. Drivers have a mutual duty of care vis a vis other drivers but also a duty of care to pedestrians, to the extent that they operate their vehicle safely in the prevailing circumstances without undue risk to others. When approaching the/a scene with a police car present displaying it's warning lights, for example, it might be questioned as to whether they slowed down and to what extent, or took any other appropriate action as the circumstances changed.

The photographer, responsible for himself, and to a lesser extent having a duty of care to the driver that hit him, has some fault here.

In civil cases like this fault will [typically] be assigned proportionately to ANYONE who might have had, and breached, a duty of care, and, believe me, that might not ONLY be limited to the cop or the driver. Once all that is sorted out then the damages, once assessed and declared in proportion to each responsible party, will [typically] be reduced by the amount the photographer is assessed to have contributed to, and was the author of, his own misfortune. 

It is not as simple as many of you think:

He stepped into traffic;
He got hit;
He died;
Fucking idiot!

Studio36
Jan 04 13 03:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Valenten Photography
Posts: 265
Balikpapan, Kalimantan Timur, Indonesia


Patrick Walberg wrote:
Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

Paparazzi are not about art photography, they're about stalking people and shooting unartistic pictures.

Although this story is pretty sad, the guy took risks. He knows what he does, that's not the cop's fault.

Jan 04 13 04:19 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


studio36uk wrote:
Ya'll shithouse lawyers have completely missed the question of "duty of care" - who might have has such a duty and was it breached. Typically, in a negligence tort case:

The cop had a general duty of care in respect of the scene; but when he asked the photographer to clear the area and return to his vehicle that duty of care might be seen to have become particularised, vis whatever the cop asked him to do the cop then assumed a more individualised duty of care to ensure that it could be accomplished safely and without undue risk.

Then there is the driver that hit the guy. Did they have a duty of care? Well, yes, they likely did. Drivers have a mutual duty of care vis a vis other drivers but also a duty of care to pedestrians, to the extent that they operate their vehicle safely in the prevailing circumstances without undue risk to others. When approaching the/a scene with a police car present displaying it's warning lights, for example, it might be questioned as to whether they slowed down and to what extent, or took any other appropriate action as the circumstances changed.

The photographer, responsible for himself, and to a lesser extent having a duty of care to the driver that hit him, has some fault here.

In civil cases like this fault will [typically] be assigned proportionately to ANYONE who might have had, and breached, a duty of care, and, believe me, that might not ONLY be limited to the cop or the driver. Once all that is sorted out then the damages, once assessed and declared in proportion to each responsible party, will [typically] be reduced by the amount the photographer is assessed to have contributed to, and was the author of, his own misfortune. 

It is not as simple as many of you think:

He stepped into traffic;
He got hit;
He died;
Fucking idiot!

Studio36

...but still...if the guy had not been chasing a celebrity car, had not stopped on a busy road with no shoulder, had not jumped out of his car and run up to the celebrity car to take photos...he would still be alive today (baring something else happening in his life to cause his death).

His death was in NO WAY THE POLICEMAN'S FAULT...not by even as much as 1%.  I'm sure the photographer's family can hire a lawyer to argue otherwise, but the fact is that the photographer put himself in harm's way, and if anything, the policeman tried to help him.

From reports about the incident, it certainly sounds like the policeman's intent at the time was to get the photographer out of harm's way, rather than to keep him from photographing "police business".

Think about it: how stupid is it to stop your car on a busy roadway with no shoulder - no place to park out of the way of traffic - just to take some photographs of a celebrity?!

Trying to blame the policeman in this incident is as stupid as burglars who have tried to sue homeowners when they injured themselves during a burglary...or as stupid as the person who tried to sue McDonald's because their coffee was "too hot".

Come on - GET REAL PEOPLE!!

Jan 04 13 07:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


Patrick Walberg wrote:
Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

Valenten Photography wrote:
Paparazzi are not about art photography, they're about stalking people and shooting unartistic pictures.

Although this story is pretty sad, the guy took risks. He knows what he does, that's not the cop's fault.

Exactly - there is nothing admirable in any way about what papparazzi do, nothing worth defending them for whatsoever.  They are stalkers, pure and simple, who do it for the money and the thrill.  They could care less if they violate anyone's privacy, make anyone's life miserable, or put anyone at all at physical risk (ie: by stopping his car and jumping out to take photos on a busy, public road with no shoulder - no place to park out of harm's way - he not only put himself at risk of injury, but everyone else who was driving on that road...including the policemen).

Maybe the policemen should sue the photographer's estate for putting them at unnecessary risk - it would certainly make more sense than the photographer's family sueing the police.

Oh - and I know there are people who will say that the papparazzi fulfill a need, creating photos for all the people who watch shows like TMZ or buy the grocery store rags...so if there weren't all that need created, the papparazzi wouldn't exist.  How in the hell is that any kind of defense?  There are people in this world who love to watch "snuff" films (actual footage of someone being murdered)...so, because there are people who want to watch them, does that make it okay to murder people (and film it)?!

Jan 04 13 07:15 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,840
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Welcome to America - where you can sue anyone, at any time, for practically anything.

Studio36
Jan 04 13 08:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17,359
Billings, Montana, US


-The Dave- wrote:
I hope when your time comes (you know who you are) people will have nicer things to say about you.

If I was out acting like a dumbass in traffic, I hope they call it like they see it.  It's not like he was rescuing a cat from a tree...

Jan 04 13 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,541
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Gary Melton wrote:

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

Exactly - there is nothing admirable in any way about what papparazzi do, nothing worth defending them for whatsoever.  They are stalkers, pure and simple, who do it for the money and the thrill.  They could care less if they violate anyone's privacy, make anyone's life miserable, or put anyone at all at physical risk (ie: by stopping his car and jumping out to take photos on a busy, public road with no shoulder - no place to park out of harm's way - he not only put himself at risk of injury, but everyone else who was driving on that road...including the policemen).

Maybe the policemen should sue the photographer's estate for putting them at unnecessary risk - it would certainly make more sense than the photographer's family sueing the police.

Oh - and I know there are people who will say that the papparazzi fulfill a need, creating photos for all the people who watch shows like TMZ or buy the grocery store rags...so if there weren't all that need created, the papparazzi wouldn't exist.  How in the hell is that any kind of defense?  There are people in this world who love to watch "snuff" films (actual footage of someone being murdered)...so, because there are people who want to watch them, does that make it okay to murder people (and film it)?!

playing devil's advocate for a moment, theres a diff between a need to buy checkout rags and a need to for snuff films.  one is legal and one isn't.  there is nothing illegal about the checkout rags. so yes the paps fulfil a perfectly legal need.  its totally a defence.  if they were fulfilling an illegal need (like supplying heroin or balancing a budget) it would be different. you can't complain a bout a completely legal need.

Jan 04 13 03:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Winkleman Photo
Posts: 100
New York, New York, US


Gary Melton wrote:
...You're kidding, right?

Most people don't chase after celebrity cars with a camera.

Most people wouldn't stop their car on a busy roadway with no shoulders behind a police car that has pulled over that celebrity car.

Most people wouldn't jump out of their car with their camera and run up to the celebrity car to take photos.

Most people have more sense than to act so recklessly that they put themselves into a situation where they wind up getting killed, just to take some celebrity photos.

'Sorry - but I am NOT one of those people who defend the paparazzi for ANY reason...not for the rights of photographers to take photos in public places, nor for the rights of photographers to take photos of celebrities because they make a living that way, nor for any other reason.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who say things like "well, being chased by the paparazzi is part of the price of fame - they should accept it as part of what being famous is like - they just got to take the bad with the good."

Well how about people who worked in factories and other venues where they were exposed to asbestos?  Should they just mark it down to "well, serious illness and death are just part of the deal when you work around asbestos - they got paid a salary so they should just bear it and shut the f up!"

Celebrities are human beings, just like you and me - and they deserve some respect for their privacy, just like we do!

1) I need to ask if you were responding to what I wrote because you go into things that are clearly not the opinion I expressed.

2) I would kindly ask you to not to make personal characterizations about me based on assumptions.

I am not a paparazzi and personally have no use for them. I specifically mentioned Ron Galella as someone who endangered his subjects and absolutely should have had a restraining order put on him. Who besides the paparazzo will pull over on a road without much of a shoulder for parking????????

Ummmmmmmm.......landscape photographers who see an amazing vista and light that is quickly changing. I have pulled over on roads with not much of a shoulder to catch ephemeral sunset light that will be gone in 5 minutes or less. Even though I pull over, I hop over the middle to exit on the passenger side and try to be aware of traffic. No matter how spectacular the light is, I never run out into the street blindly. If I get hit by a car then I will really lose the shot.

Most people wouldn't pull over to get that spectacular landscape image. That's because most people are not good artists and do not go the extra mile to see what others drive by, to stop and take the picture or even to simply move the camera above or below normal eye level if it would create a better image.

The Bieber incident was not a high speed chase. The photographer did not break into private property nor use helicopters or super-telephoto lenses to peer into windows that should afford normal privacy.

Did I say celebrities should grin and bear it? Absolutely not. As you were guessing "I am the kind of person who....." I must assume you are the kind of person who did poorly on written tests in school because you never bothered to read through the whole question.

The photographer was careless when crossing the street and got hit. A credentialed press photographer leaving a press conference they were invited to who crossed the street without paying attention had an equal chance of being hit.

Jan 04 13 04:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Winkleman Photo
Posts: 100
New York, New York, US


Patrick Walberg wrote:

Paparazzi were still photographing Princess Diana while she was lying in the car dying!  They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

Sorry I need to add that MOST lay people off the street who spot a big celebrity will get in their faces and have less respect for their space and privacy than professional celebrity photographers. Also the pros have very expensive telephoto lenses so they don't need to be three feet away. Fans on the street have iPhones or point and clicks and will go a lot closer to get the picture. I recently worked at a NYC venue which had a large celebrity clientele and the tourists were the far more obnoxious of everyone's privacy than the pros. The stalker-razzi shooters are a very small sliver of celebrity photojournalists.

Even the worst of those don't deserve to be killed. Sued? yes, Restraining order? definitely! Killed? never.

Jan 04 13 04:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Steven Bodo
Posts: 453
Seattle, Washington, US


studio36uk wrote:
Welcome to America - where you can sue anyone, at any time, for practically anything.

Studio36

As long as you are alive :p

Jan 04 13 04:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Scratch the paparazzi and Justin Bieber from the headline and it becomes " a pedestrian was killed while illegally crossing a multilane highway. Police said the driver of the car which killed the pedestrian  will not be charged"
That's what it boils down to.
Jan 04 13 05:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,943
Richmond, Indiana, US


Shot By Adam wrote:

Doesn't matter and it's irrelevant in this issue.

When I was about five years old I remember pulling into the driveway of my home and getting out of the car. I wandered a bit out of my parent's supervision and got into the street where a car almost hit me. They swerved and leaned on the horn and my mother screamed in panic like I've never heard anyone scream before in my entire life. I learned a lesson that day...don't wander out into traffic without looking first or being sure it's safe to do so.

Obviously this idiot photographer wandered out into traffic without looking. Whether he was given orders or not is irrelevant. So what you're saying is the cop wanted him to wander out into traffic when it was unsafe? Of course not. But no, the photographer was probably looking at the shots he just got in his camera and paid no attention to the car that was about to hit and kill him. There are many circumstances that led up to his death, but ultimately nobody is to blame but him.

Refreshing post that places blame ultimately where blame should rest.  Excellent common sense! (unless there's other evidence I haven't heard)

Jan 04 13 05:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,943
Richmond, Indiana, US


Gary Melton wrote:

...You're kidding, right?

Most people don't chase after celebrity cars with a camera.

Most people wouldn't stop their car on a busy roadway with no shoulders behind a police car that has pulled over that celebrity car.

Most people wouldn't jump out of their car with their camera and run up to the celebrity car to take photos.

Most people have more sense than to act so recklessly that they put themselves into a situation where they wind up getting killed, just to take some celebrity photos.

'Sorry - but I am NOT one of those people who defend the paparazzi for ANY reason...not for the rights of photographers to take photos in public places, nor for the rights of photographers to take photos of celebrities because they make a living that way, nor for any other reason.

I'm guessing you're one of those people who say things like "well, being chased by the paparazzi is part of the price of fame - they should accept it as part of what being famous is like - they just got to take the bad with the good."

Well how about people who worked in factories and other venues where they were exposed to asbestos?  Should they just mark it down to "well, serious illness and death are just part of the deal when you work around asbestos - they got paid a salary so they should just bear it and shut the f up!"

Celebrities are human beings, just like you and me - and they deserve some respect for their privacy, just like we do!

Some people understand.  Some people don't.  The ** law ** doesn't see it the way you do.  If I'm famous, the law does not apply to me the same as if I was not famous.  I can say things about a famous preacher in the name of parody, that I can't say about a no-name preacher.

The level of privacy a reasonable intelligent adult *expects* is not the same level that a reasonable adult * expects * (which isn't the same as "deserves") if he/she is famous.

Irrespective of who told you to go back to your car- the burden of personal safety is on you.  If air traffic control tells a pilot to turn against the flow of air traffic, it is the PILOT that carries a certain amount of culpability, and justly so.  If the winds are blowing 35kts gusting to 50kts, and instead of clearing the pilot to land into the wind, a new controller accidently clears the pilot to land *with* the wind and the end result is an aircraft overrunning the runway and killing 300 people.  That is *mostly* PILOT ERROR, not controller error, because ultimately the pilot is in command, not the controller, regardless of the controller's bad instructions (in this example).

Here, an officer orders a person back to their car- so?  The order did not negate one's common sense to look for traffic.  Like another poster accurately stated, the guy might've been hit regardless due to his own absent minded behavior.

You don't blame a zookeeper for you getting mauled by a lion because the zookeeper said "you could get a much better shot with that 14mm lens from inside the lion cage, if you set your tripod 5 feet in front of the lion..."  right?  Of course not.  No reasonably intelligent adult would.

The verdict should be:  "If you're in the street and a car hits you, then it's YOUR fault.  If you're on the sidewalk and get hit, then it's the cars fault.  Photographer was in the street... case closed. Next case!"

Jan 04 13 05:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Bunny 007
Posts: 274
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


Patrick Walberg wrote:
They are the scum of the Earth!  I've expressed my disdain for them many times on the forums.

If it weren't for paps we'd never have seen Britney Spears' fanny.

Jan 04 13 06:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,943
Richmond, Indiana, US


Jon Winkleman Photo wrote:

Sorry I need to add that MOST lay people off the street who spot a big celebrity will get in their faces and have less respect for their space and privacy than professional celebrity photographers. Also the pros have very expensive telephoto lenses so they don't need to be three feet away. Fans on the street have iPhones or point and clicks and will go a lot closer to get the picture. I recently worked at a NYC venue which had a large celebrity clientele and the tourists were the far more obnoxious of everyone's privacy than the pros. The stalker-razzi shooters are a very small sliver of celebrity photojournalists.

Even the worst of those don't deserve to be killed. Sued? yes, Restraining order? definitely! Killed? never.

I think the law should be that if you're blocking a motorcar from moving or impeding it's movement, then you have the right to run the person(s) over that are impeding your progress.  Soooo  if you're Ms. Famous Person, trying to drive your Hulking BMW SUV out of a parking lot but can't because 15 people are in front of your car trying to take your photo- you'd be allowed to stomp on the gas and flatten as many as you could.

THAT is what changes the way people act.  Sign that into law and famous people would love to get mobbed by the Pap!  They can call each other at night and compare who racked up the most "points"!  wink

Jan 04 13 06:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sublime LightWorks
Posts: 6,061
Atlanta, Georgia, US


studio36uk wrote:
Ya'll shithouse lawyers have completely missed the question of "duty of care" - who might have has such a duty and was it breached. Typically, in a negligence tort case:

The cop had a general duty of care in respect of the scene; but when he asked the photographer to clear the area and return to his vehicle that duty of care might be seen to have become particularised, vis whatever the cop asked him to do the cop then assumed a more individualised duty of care to ensure that it could be accomplished safely and without undue risk.

Then there is the driver that hit the guy. Did they have a duty of care? Well, yes, they likely did. Drivers have a mutual duty of care vis a vis other drivers but also a duty of care to pedestrians, to the extent that they operate their vehicle safely in the prevailing circumstances without undue risk to others. When approaching the/a scene with a police car present displaying it's warning lights, for example, it might be questioned as to whether they slowed down and to what extent, or took any other appropriate action as the circumstances changed.

The photographer, responsible for himself, and to a lesser extent having a duty of care to the driver that hit him, has some fault here.

In civil cases like this fault will [typically] be assigned proportionately to ANYONE who might have had, and breached, a duty of care, and, believe me, that might not ONLY be limited to the cop or the driver. Once all that is sorted out then the damages, once assessed and declared in proportion to each responsible party, will [typically] be reduced by the amount the photographer is assessed to have contributed to, and was the author of, his own misfortune. 

It is not as simple as many of you think:

He stepped into traffic;
He got hit;
He died;
Fucking idiot!

Studio36

Are you a lawyer?  If not I see no reason to listen to your shithouse lawyer opinion.

Photographer crosses a busy highway, not in a crosswalk, chimping at his photos and gets hit. You want to blame the driver and the cop.  Nice.

Thanks for playing.

Jan 04 13 07:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,943
Richmond, Indiana, US


sublime LightWorks wrote:
Are you a lawyer?  If not I see no reason to listen to your shithouse lawyer opinion.

Photographer crosses a busy highway, not in a crosswalk, chimping at his photos and gets hit. You want to blame the driver and the cop.  Nice.

Thanks for playing.

You might not like what studio36uk wrote, but the bottom line is that what he wrote is an accurate (albeit basic) snapshot of how the legal machine the U.S. works, and is one of the largest reasons why many attorneys have to bang their heads against the desk because they often have to spend a lot of time make the general public understand that how they think law should work (I think the pap should be 100% at fault unless the driver hit him on the sidewalk), isn't the way the law does work (unfortunately).

The assignment of culpability is proverb.

In this case (from what I've read) the cop won't have to worry about anything.  The cop isn't going to stand scrutiny from any prosecutor, and few attorneys would care about the pap unless he has a rich family who wants to sue-  otherwise, entertaining such a case (in this case anyway from what I gather) doesn't seem worth the scribble on a legal pad. smile

Jan 06 13 11:46 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,541
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Teila K Day Photography wrote:

You might not like what studio36uk wrote, but the bottom line is that what he wrote is an accurate (albeit basic) snapshot of how the legal machine the U.S. works, and is one of the largest reasons why many attorneys have to bang their heads against the desk because they often have to spend a lot of time make the general public understand that how they think law should work (I think the pap should be 100% at fault unless the driver hit him on the sidewalk), isn't the way the law does work (unfortunately).

The assignment of culpability is proverb.

In this case (from what I've read) the cop won't have to worry about anything.  The cop isn't going to stand scrutiny from any prosecutor, and few attorneys would care about the pap unless he has a rich family who wants to sue-  otherwise, entertaining such a case (in this case anyway from what I gather) doesn't seem worth the scribble on a legal pad. smile

ummmmmm.... your post makes no sense. studio36uk's post was marginal because he was trying to take something and make it an overarching legal principle that applies everywhere and trumps everything else.  it's a chapter in first year torts.  The law doesn't work that way.  Not everything is a duty of care.  Duty of care is just a legal theory you use (when applicable) - something you allege if you think you can establish that there was one and that it was relevant and that there was a standard and that the standard was not met etc etc etc.  Everyone has a duty of care to everyone else but rarely does it matter. 

Then your middle paragraph is what? I have no clue what you mean.

and then...you turn around and say it's a non-issue.  Yes of course its a non-issue! so are a few thousand other legal principles that have not been brought up.  studio36uk has some knowledge of the law and functions at least at the level of a law student.  No offence, but you should stick to photography and leave legal opinions to others.

Jan 06 13 12:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ArtisticGlamour
Posts: 3,846
Phoenix, Arizona, US


MKPhoto wrote:
Scratch the paparazzi and Justin Bieber from the headline and it becomes " a pedestrian was killed while illegally crossing a multilane highway. Police said the driver of the car which killed the pedestrian  will not be charged"
That's what it boils down to.

Thank you. Just more lame sensationalism.

WTF makes this death any more tragic than the other (50-100? and many are younger children) hit in traffic each day?

Jan 06 13 04:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
i am a guy named eddy
Posts: 447
Chicago, Illinois, US


Kaouthia wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this right, the photographer was alive and well until he followed the cop's orders?

No, the photographer was alive and well until he didn't look both ways before crossing a street.

Jan 06 13 04:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


photo212grapher wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Or we can expect law abiding citizens to follow a legal order of the police the first time. Not doing so, means the citizen is no longer law abiding.

I'm sorry, but not every word uttered by a cop is stone written law. In most democracies, simply disagreeing with the cops is not a criminal offense.

Jan 06 13 04:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


L Bass wrote:
Moral of the story.... If a cop tells you to do something... it's usually best to do what he says. After all, he's the one with the gun and the badge.

Other than under certain obvious conditions, this is advise that can destroy a society.

Jan 06 13 04:43 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,840
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
studio36uk's post was marginal because he was trying to take something and make it an overarching legal principle that applies everywhere and trumps everything else.  it's a chapter in first year torts.  The law doesn't work that way.  Not everything is a duty of care.  Duty of care is just a legal theory you use (when applicable) - something you allege if you think you can establish that there was one and that it was relevant and that there was a standard and that the standard was not met etc etc etc.  Everyone has a duty of care to everyone else but rarely does it matter.

It is an interesting theory to apply in this case. Any competent lawyer would certainly be asking the question even if in the end they couldn't build a case on it.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
studio36uk has some knowledge of the law and functions at least at the level of a law student.

Just for the record IANAL but I was 1) first trained as an investigator [civil and criminal] in the [American] fire service; and 2) I do now practice law at the level of a lay practitioner, where the British courts are quite friendly to such client representation, though [my] practice is deliberately confined to intellectual property law and the copyright and related rights aspects only [excluding patents, trademarks, and designs, but including relevant aspects of media and entertainment law].

Studio36

Jan 06 13 04:51 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,840
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


My name is Frank wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Or we can expect law abiding citizens to follow a legal order of the police the first time. Not doing so, means the citizen is no longer law abiding.

I'm sorry, but not every word uttered by a cop is stone written law. In most democracies, simply disagreeing with the cops is not a criminal offense.

As this board, if the "quote" and "/quote" confines do not occur properly, can sometimes result in a mis-attributed quote. That statement ^^^ was not mine but those words should have been attributed to "quote=photo212grapher" not me.

Studio36

Jan 06 13 04:56 pm  Link  Quote 
first1234last   Search   Reply