OP-ED: From The Other Side of the Lens- A Response To the Anti-Paparazzi Lawsuit from a Former Paparazzo

by Chris Gampat on 09/04/2012

This morning, I read a post on Petapixel on the photographer arrested under California’s Anti-Paparazzi law. And then the comments came in: ripping apart paparazzi and calling them scum. Now I totally understand where these commentors come from saying this, but I don’t feel that the other side of the story is ever heard in full. For those of you who have followed The Phoblographer for the approximately three years I’ve been running it, you all know my dark secret. However, we’ve gained a significantly large following over time and many of you don’t know who I really am.

I am a former paparazzo here in NYC. For a short period of time out of college, I hunted celebrities and I played the game until I decided it was too cut throat of an industry. Given the chance, I’d do it all over again. But with all of this said, no one ever hears or knows the other side of the story and how the industry works.

Dark Beginnings

A couple of years ago, I graduated from college into what I still believe was the worst part of the American recession. I did all the right things in college too:

- I networked and did multiple internships and by the end of my four year period I had six publications that I could account to my name.

- I maintained eight scholarships and ensured that I had no loans.

- I applied for jobs like crazy.

And yet, no one was hiring. It was a tough time. It was a dark time. And when we’re in dark places, we tend to gravitate towards dark things because of the pitch blackness that we’re surrounded by. So I did what every other college student did right out of school: I looked for a job on Craigslist.

The Typical Day

And upon responding to an ad for an agency hungry for young talent, I became a freelancer for Spotlight Press: a small agency in NYC. And the days went something like this:

- 6:03 AM: Receive an email from the agency telling me the locations of shoots, talent around the area, approximated time that they may be out in the public, etc.

- 7:00 AM- Get out of the house. After eating breakfast, showering, figuring out how to travel to the locations, spotting potential vantage points on Google Maps, and studying the facial characteristics of the talent, you then decide which task you’re going to tackle.

- 8:00 AM- Arrive at said place and setup. This means waiting it out at a deli or cafe, walking around the set like an eager fan/tourist, or finding photos of someone.

This wait can take anywhere from thirty seconds to ten hours for talent to show their faces. This all includes the normal human biological rhythms: fatigue, boredom, exhaustion, concentration, bathroom needs, food, etc. Paparazzi work in two different ways:

A. Long lens from super far away, not well concealed at all.

B. Medium to compact telephoto (or a 24-105mm equivalent) concealed in a messenger bag with the paparazzo acting like a normal person and trying to blend in with the crowd. When the talent comes out, their settings are already adjusted accordingly, the photographer takes a couple of shots, hides the camera, takes more shots, hides, and continues until they believe that they are all set and ready to go.

If you get the photos you need, you typically head to a cafe with Wifi (Barnes and Noble quickly became a best friend of mine.) edited your photos, uploaded them to the agency’s FTP servers and then went back out and shot. You either went back to the same location depending on how valuable the client is, or you move on to another one.

Or, you call it a day.

In the end, you only get paid for the exclusive photos that your agency sells. But after a while, you learn to keep some for yourself and shop them around to various editors. How do you find those editors? You knock on doors and start saying the Hail Mary until an answer comes: the same way I built the Phoblographer (but for this, it was camera companies).

The Information Stream

So how was this information sent to us to begin with? Here’s how:

- The agents of these celebrities pay very close attention to the media coverage that their client is getting. Let’s say Kim Kardashian’s agent saw some photos that I shot of her in US Weekly. This can now go one of two ways:

A. The agent contacts my agency (if the credit is to the agency) and they say something along the lines of, “Hey, we saw your images in US Weekly. By the way, my client will be at so and so at so and so and we can ensure that your agency gets the exclusives.”

Key word there being exclusives, which means money.

The agency then disseminates the information out to the photographers in the agency. And the photographers are then not only competing with each other, but photographers from other agencies too. It is a beautifully cut-throat process where only the strongest survive.

B. The agent contacts me if I sold them directly, and says something along the same lines. And that is how a relationship develops.

C. Someone gives the information to a blog like On Location Vacations, and the paparazzo goes to the locations and plans out their own itinerary for the day.

See something here? In the end, even if the clients don’t want to be photographed, the agents do. It is all part of the business.

How We Consume Media

Scum. That is what paparazzi are called by many photographers. Here in NYC, the artistic community is extra snobby and many even look down on wedding photographers in their own circles. But paparazzo are even below that.

They’re not necessary you say? Yes and no. There is a beautiful theory in communications and media studies that states that we are entertaining ourselves to death. And in all honesty, it is true. A famous example often cited is one incident that happened in Texas where an entire town was happy listening to some awesome tunes on the radio so much that a public service announcement couldn’t reach the public to tell them about a serious fire that happened.

Where am I getting with this: well, take a look around you and answer honestly. Do you love looking at those photos of Kate Hudson in a bikini, Kim Kardashian in tight clothing, or Alessandra Ambrosia around Fashion Week. Of course you do. Why? They’re hot.

Similarly, I don’t know many women that wouldn’t want to stare at David Beckham without a shirt on; the guy is ripped.

If you live in NYC or stay in one place for a long period of time, take a look at what some people read: they stare at photos.

Who took those photos? Probably a paparazzo; they feed a need that we pay attention to whether we want to or not.

My Thoughts

Breech of privacy? No way. First off, there are two different situations where a paparazzo shoots. Some film sets are in plain sight and public view, like many in NYC. If you’re in public, no one can tell you not to shoot legally. Heck, there are lawsuits by photographers against the government everyday about this. Photography is not a crime and photographers and paparazzo are not terrorists.

Antagonizing someone though can be just wrong. However, it is common practice. Why? At the end of the day, you have to put food on the table. And if it works for you, then it works for you. The lifestyle is very addicting. Notice how I also said antagonizing and not calling out to the person.

Additionally, public figures (like celebrities) cannot actually press charges against anyone unless they can show significant proof of being antagonized or defamed.

Now what about when someone is home? Did you break into their home? Well that’s wrong. Are you photographing them from way outside? Well, guess what, you’re okay.

Something else now: the majority of paparazzi don’t go to such great lengths to get a celebrity photo. They’re aggressive, sure. But they’re not stupid.

Additionally, paparazzi are once again sometimes invited by agents to shoot and the clients sometimes very well know what’s going on.

Finally, the law in California states that someone cannot be antagonized or followed too closely if the intent is commercial gain. Now here’s the problem: when exactly does commercial gain begin? There are loads of people who snap photos of celebs and then try to sell them without even thinking about it at first. Why aren’t they prosecuted?

The whole law and situation in my mind makes no sense, and to be honest with you I’m also very sick of paparazzi not being heard. There always is another side of the story; but we only ever hear about all the wrongs that they do.

Next time you’re staring at a celebrity tanning at the beach, consider the fact that a paparazzo probably shot it.

Please Support The Phoblographer

We love to bring you guys the latest and greatest news and gear related stuff. However, we can’t keep doing that unless we have your continued support. If you would like to purchase any of the items mentioned, please do so by clicking our links first and then purchasing the items as we then get a small portion of the sale to help run the website.

Also, please follow us on FacebookFlickr and Twitter.

  • Orb Emmel

    Boo freakin’ hoo, life is tough. And of course, the usual bad excuses all over the place. You’re assuming that everybody is like you, they’re not. You look at a minority of people who actually buy crappy publications like the ones you sold your pictures to for said pictures and assume that everybody wants your “work”. No, they don’t. Sorry. I don’t want to see Kardashian’s fat ass on the cover of the magazine I’m reading, or any other page for that matter.
    The following example is a bit extreme but… there is a demand for stolen artwork. Are thieves respectable? No. You have only bad excuses.
    Paparazzi = scumbags and creeps. Period. No excuses. The world would be better if this was made illegal.
    You want pictures? Do that the legit way: organize a shoot. Pictures in real life? Organize a shoot. Grab your phone (or get called), and follow the person with her express consent.
    I was getting tired of the lack of quality on this blog, now I understand where it comes from. Last time I’m reading something here.
    By the way, paparazzo is the single form, paparazzi the plural, not the other way around… So, get your facts straight and be consistent.

    • ChrisGampat

      Cool story bro

      - Chris Gampat
      Editor in Chief
      The Phoblographer

  • fahrertuer

    When a person is being stalked by someone with a camera, harassed on a daily basis and have to flee a scene they can sue. And chances are that the perpetrator will end in jail.
    But doing so to someone who is famous is ok…
    Why exactly? Aren’t they human anymore? Do they lose their human rights?
    And when I read “after chasing Justin Bieber on 101 Freeway” (grabbed from the petapixel post) I think of someone recklessly driving at high speeds and endangering not just the celebrity and himself but others as well.
    And that can’t be what you consider lawful behavior.
    That can’t be the image you want others to have of photographers in general.

    • LAphotographer.org

      Its a question of the subject’s ‘expectation of privacy’ – on a public street or in a place visible from a public street it is presumed that no one can have such a luxury. Beyond that, there is no difference between Bieber and Joe Public – we can and are photographed and recorded on video constantly, if not by paparazzi, then by the gov. Nothing illegal in that per se. The example of Bieber driving recklessly on the freeway – you really have to wonder why he would evade paparazzi to begin with – why endanger yourself and others trying to outrun a photographer? If he was in fear for his life for some reason, that of course changes things, but if all he wanted to do was avoid a photo, then he is also part of the problem and helped create the dangerous situation.

      • fahrertuer

        The difference between Bieber and Joe Public:
        Bieber has to put up with dozens of people shoving cameras in his face whenever his face is in public. No chance to get a day off. No chance to get them to stop.
        Joe Public can easily sue for harassment, for stalking when the same people come again and again after him.

        Just ask youself: do you want to be at the center of attention with the expectation that your face will be plastered onto frontcovers of magazines? Do you want to have your picture taken on a bad hair day?

        Unfortounatly you live one ocean away (guessing from your username) else I’d offer to follow you for a week. Each day. Always a camera in your face. Always blocking your way.
        No chance to get away.
        I wonder how your attitude would be after that week (or if you’d rather call police after a day or two)

        • ChrisGampat

          As a guy that is always in front of the camera either as a portrait subject or as a personality for the company I work for, after a while you learn to just shrug and move on.

          *-Chris Gampat*
          Editor in Chief, ThePhoBlographer.com
          Twitter.com/Phoblographer
          Facebook.com/ThePhoblographer

        • Matt

          The difference between Bieber and Joe Public: Bieber makes about 7 figures more than Joe Public, because he is Bieber. Celebrities gain much more from all of this than anyone else and, whether they like it or not, those gains come with a cost. You can have the fame and money or you can have privacy, but not both. For the record, the day I start getting paid to just show up at something or endorse products you can follow me anywhere you want (literally anywhere, I don’t care).

        • LAphotographer.org

          You are correct – Bieber does get cameras pointed in his face dozens of times per day, and I’d be annoyed by that as well, but on the other hand, he collects a ton of cash for his celebrity status, and in the entertainment industry, the attention comes with the paycheck. In my eyes, the stars are compensated for the unwanted attention they receive and it is strange for them to decry the attention of a demand-driven market that itself is responsible for their fame and fortune.

        • LAphotographer.org

          BTW – I live in LA, but I use the mail.ru email for the time being. Been here on the west coast for a good 30+ years now.

    • Peter West Carey

      Fahrertuer,
      To your point “And when I read “after chasing Justin Bieber on 101 Freeway” (grabbed
      from the petapixel post) I think of someone recklessly driving at high
      speeds and endangering not just the celebrity and himself but others as
      well.”
      In all due respect, you are making complete assumptions from a post by someone who was not there (and is regurgitating other news, as it is). You say you think of someone recklessly driving at high speeds, but you honestly don’t know that was happening. None of us do. Your assumption might be wrong.
      And I am not kidding when I say that driving at high speeds is not reckless in LA. I live here half the time and when it is fast, it’s faster than I’m used to. But that doesn’t mean it is reckless.

      So your point about “And that can’t be what you consider lawful behavior.
      That can’t be the image you want others to have of photographers in general. ” is misplaced as not everyone has the same assumptions as you. This is why we need facts. How fast was he going? Was he swerving at all? Was anyone in danger? He was arrested for something, that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of it.
      pwc

  • http://www.facebook.com/udijw Udi Tirosh

    This is an awesome write up, Chris. I knew Paparazzi worked hard, but had no idea about the exclusivity / rat race eco system they live in. thanks for the other side, man.

    • ChrisGampat

      Thanks for stopping by to drop me a comment old friend! I appreciate it.
      *-Chris Gampat*
      Editor in Chief, ThePhoBlographer.com
      Twitter.com/Phoblographer
      Facebook.com/ThePhoblographer

      • http://www.facebook.com/udijw Udi Tirosh

        Old??!! Wadaya mean old?????? I’m not even 36 yet.

        • ChrisGampat

          Hahaha! I meant friend for a while, but yes good sir.

          When my throat recovers, we should skype.

          *-Chris Gampat*
          Editor in Chief, ThePhoBlographer.com
          Twitter.com/Phoblographer
          Facebook.com/ThePhoblographer

          • http://www.facebook.com/udijw Udi Tirosh

            Most definitely. Got some secret toys to show you.

  • Steve OConnell

    Interesting article. As with damn near everything in life, not all is black and white. Thanks for sharing your story and thoughts. You just grayed it up for me nicely ; )

    • ChrisGampat

      A Co-worker of mine just talked to me about the article.

      “What about the people who wait outside an apartment for someone to come out in the morning?”

      My response is that sometimes the agents tip them off, and other times the photographers are just hungry. It happens. Additionally, if they’re coming out with their kids, photos of kids go for tons of money.

      If you have to feed your kids, why not? Especially when you’re in public and you have exclusives? When push comes to shove, some of us take the money and some of us don’t. When I first started, it took me a while to throw away all the theories I learned about photojournalism in college. And for the most part, those theories are still gone.

      Combine it with street photography like the work of Bruce Gilden or Eric Kim or someone else. None of them are paparazzo, but they do indeed just snap away once they seem a moment.

      *-Chris Gampat*
      Editor in Chief, ThePhoBlographer.com
      Twitter.com/Phoblographer
      Facebook.com/ThePhoblographer

      • Theresa Z

        I agree. I learned early on, I am not a Paparazzi, but I have spoken to many at events and they get calls/tips from agents all the. The celeb needs the attention, it’s the biz. I have met the scummy ones too, not a fan of those at all.

  • LAphotographer.org

    There are many double-standards when it comes to photographers here in LA. My favorite is some municipalities (ahem…two words, second word ‘Hills’, with a famous zip code) chasing anyone with a serious-enough-looking camera (a DSLR with any lens longer than 50mm, apparently) from parks and even public streets to force them to buy a filming permit for a couple of grand. Their explanation is that any photography in the city is illegal without such a permit, conceivably even in the case of a guy photographing his family with a serious DSLR in a city park. The same guy taking the same shot with a point and shoot is just fine in the eyes of the local authorities. Ask me how I know. ))

    ( — http://www.facebook.com/laphotographer.org)

  • Nate Burr

    Paparazzi are scum. Paparazzi are creepy sleazy pathetic dregs, End of story.

  • Christobella

    Interesting article, thanks for posting it. Shame that some who comment here seem to have selectively ignored half of what you wrote, and took it to be an opinionated defence of all paparazzi. Seems to me you were just stating some facts.

  • http://www.inerdtia.com/ inerdtia

    Etymology
    The word “paparazzi” is an eponym originating in the 1960 film La Dolce Vita directed by Federico Fellini. One of the characters in the film is a news photographer named Paparazzo (played by Walter Santesso). In his book Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect word that describes a particularly annoying noise, that of a buzzing mosquito. As Fellini said in his interview to Time magazine, “Paparazzo… suggests to me a buzzing insect, hovering, darting, stinging.” [3]
    ————————————————————————–
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi

Previous post:

Next post: