all i've got is a photograph
July 13, 2016 11:13 AM Subscribe
"But I never read about Tom Hanks, or Steven Spielberg being bothered.
That's the thing. I really hate to get victim-blame-y, but it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid paparazzi if you're willing to avoid the hot-spots. It's the other side of the coin to being a recognizable celebrity and getting special treatment.
That, and the aforementioned Daniel Radcliffe strategy. Just be boring in public.
posted by explosion at 11:31 AM on July 13, 2016
That's the thing. I really hate to get victim-blame-y, but it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid paparazzi if you're willing to avoid the hot-spots. It's the other side of the coin to being a recognizable celebrity and getting special treatment.
That, and the aforementioned Daniel Radcliffe strategy. Just be boring in public.
posted by explosion at 11:31 AM on July 13, 2016
i guess we read that really differently because to me it sounded like a guy being super duper hilariously clueless (or willfully blind) about how differently women and men are treated by society in general and specifically by the media. especially his whole "well it never happened to me so idk, i guess i have no opinion" it sounds so much like the ridiculous arguments men make to explain how street harassment isn't a big deal for women because it doesn't happen to them, the men.
posted by poffin boffin at 11:36 AM on July 13, 2016 [55 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 11:36 AM on July 13, 2016 [55 favorites]
I realize that a lampshade was hung on the victim blaming but this:
it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid paparazzi if you're willing to avoid the hot-spots...
and this:
it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid online harassment if you're willing to stay off of Twitter. It's the other side of the coin to being a female gamer and getting special treatment.
are pretty much the same statements.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:39 AM on July 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid paparazzi if you're willing to avoid the hot-spots...
and this:
it does seem like it's not that hard to avoid online harassment if you're willing to stay off of Twitter. It's the other side of the coin to being a female gamer and getting special treatment.
are pretty much the same statements.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:39 AM on July 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm not sure why it should be okay with us that celebrities should avoid "hot spots." Like, don't go to that bar or you'll get raped. Don't go to that party or someone's gonna roofie your drink. The cost of celebrity should not be that we tell people which places are off limits for them.
posted by cooker girl at 11:40 AM on July 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by cooker girl at 11:40 AM on July 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
There's probably a qualitative difference in how it feels to be photographed at a "hot spot" like at a nightclub or an event, and how it feels to be photographed when you're just trying to go to the grocery store or take your kids to the zoo. Doing the former can be considered part of your job, certainly if it's related to your current projects.
In any case, I don't think appearing at career-related events should waive a person of the right to be annoyed or feel harassed when photographed doing the other mundane life stuff.
Like, I'm no celebrity, but the closest analogous situation in my life is this: I have to go to conferences for work, and I understand that getting photographed there, and possibly seeing those pictures used for marketing materials, is part and parcel of the experience. But that doesn't mean it's okay for a photographer to follow me around at the grocery store and upload those pictures to istockphoto for people to use in their marketing.
posted by misskaz at 11:47 AM on July 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
In any case, I don't think appearing at career-related events should waive a person of the right to be annoyed or feel harassed when photographed doing the other mundane life stuff.
Like, I'm no celebrity, but the closest analogous situation in my life is this: I have to go to conferences for work, and I understand that getting photographed there, and possibly seeing those pictures used for marketing materials, is part and parcel of the experience. But that doesn't mean it's okay for a photographer to follow me around at the grocery store and upload those pictures to istockphoto for people to use in their marketing.
posted by misskaz at 11:47 AM on July 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
also honestly the photog dude's description of his famous photo of jackie onassis sounds like the founder's document for r/creepshots.
- woman being photographed doesn't know she's being photographed, this is great
- when woman being photographed realizes she's being photographed, she is angry about it, which photog also finds great
- woman is "unrehearsed and spontaneous" which makes the photo higher value than if she'd been pleased to pose for the photo, as woman's consent is low value
posted by poffin boffin at 11:48 AM on July 13, 2016 [64 favorites]
- woman being photographed doesn't know she's being photographed, this is great
- when woman being photographed realizes she's being photographed, she is angry about it, which photog also finds great
- woman is "unrehearsed and spontaneous" which makes the photo higher value than if she'd been pleased to pose for the photo, as woman's consent is low value
posted by poffin boffin at 11:48 AM on July 13, 2016 [64 favorites]
Is...Jennifer Aniston not supposed to go home, then? To make all this go away?
posted by middleclasstool at 11:50 AM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by middleclasstool at 11:50 AM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm reminded of what a paparazzi told Carol Burnett when she chased him out of her kitchen: "You seemed much nicer on television."
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:51 AM on July 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:51 AM on July 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
IDK, I'm perfectly capable of consuming media without ever once in my life having read a paparazzi/celebrity magazine. And I'm pretty sure humankind would not just suddenly start sitting on their couches twiddling their thumbs if celebrity mags didn't exist -- we'd still seek out and consume movies and TV shows.
Perhaps the roles go to some people and not others partly based on who performs celebrity best; but I find the idea that the entire entertainment industry would collapse if we couldn't see non-consensual photos of women on the beach plastered with headlines about letting herself go to be ridiculous.
posted by misskaz at 12:00 PM on July 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Perhaps the roles go to some people and not others partly based on who performs celebrity best; but I find the idea that the entire entertainment industry would collapse if we couldn't see non-consensual photos of women on the beach plastered with headlines about letting herself go to be ridiculous.
posted by misskaz at 12:00 PM on July 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Mod note: jeff-o-matic, "drop it" earlier meant drop it, not wander to another thread to grind the same axe and complain about being deleted. You've poisoned the well for yourself on this today, go do something else.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2016 [26 favorites]
I guess we just need to formalise how much harassment any given celebrity is allotted based on their annual income? That would mean we are not unfairly harassing any particular celebrity.
$0 - $50,000: These people can only be photographed entering or leaving their place of work.
$50,000 - $100,000: These people can be photographed in public spaces, Sundays excluded, but their family are off limits. We can include the dog without blurring.
$100,000 - $500,000: These people can be photographed on any day. Their spouse is also fair game, but their children are off limits.
$500,000 - $1,000,000: These people can be photographed in any state of dress. We are also allowed two pictures per quarter of their children. They cannot be photographed on public holidays.
$1,000,000+: All of the above, but now we get to start making comments about their bodies.
$2,000,000+: All of the above, now with open access to children and extended family. We can start putting photographers outside their home.
$5,000,000+: We can start making comments about the children.
$10,000,000+: Now we can really go all-out. I'm talking about obstruction of the footpath outside their building. Wheedling and taunting to get a response. 24-hour stakeout.
So long as everyone conforms to this guideline, we'll know that only those who deserve it because of their income are being treated badly.
posted by distorte at 12:09 PM on July 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
$0 - $50,000: These people can only be photographed entering or leaving their place of work.
$50,000 - $100,000: These people can be photographed in public spaces, Sundays excluded, but their family are off limits. We can include the dog without blurring.
$100,000 - $500,000: These people can be photographed on any day. Their spouse is also fair game, but their children are off limits.
$500,000 - $1,000,000: These people can be photographed in any state of dress. We are also allowed two pictures per quarter of their children. They cannot be photographed on public holidays.
$1,000,000+: All of the above, but now we get to start making comments about their bodies.
$2,000,000+: All of the above, now with open access to children and extended family. We can start putting photographers outside their home.
$5,000,000+: We can start making comments about the children.
$10,000,000+: Now we can really go all-out. I'm talking about obstruction of the footpath outside their building. Wheedling and taunting to get a response. 24-hour stakeout.
So long as everyone conforms to this guideline, we'll know that only those who deserve it because of their income are being treated badly.
posted by distorte at 12:09 PM on July 13, 2016 [25 favorites]
on her 18th birthday, paparazzi laid in the street and shot up emma watson's dress - the reaction was largely about how she 'finally' 'showed us her panties' and pontificating that because the underwear was lace, she obviously wanted them to be seen.
miley cyrus shot this video while walking her dog.
jennifer aniston eating a big lunch and going to the beach is what spurned this latest round of (ugh) 'baby bump watch'.
so, i guess women should never wear dresses sportswear or bikinis, step out of cars, walk their dogs, or go to the beach. this seems a reasonable suggestion.
posted by nadawi at 12:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [62 favorites]
miley cyrus shot this video while walking her dog.
jennifer aniston eating a big lunch and going to the beach is what spurned this latest round of (ugh) 'baby bump watch'.
so, i guess women should never wear dresses sportswear or bikinis, step out of cars, walk their dogs, or go to the beach. this seems a reasonable suggestion.
posted by nadawi at 12:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [62 favorites]
While there shouldn't be victim blaming, that entire industry from the beginning used public perceptions as a marketing tool which developed an entire (ahem) meta-industry that thrives, no, relies on the mix of authentic notices of a new production, semi-constructed hints (are star and starlet in Blockbuster really involved) and utter invasiveness.
posted by sammyo at 12:26 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 12:26 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
IDK, I'm perfectly capable of consuming media without ever once in my life having read a paparazzi/celebrity magazine. And I'm pretty sure humankind would not just suddenly start sitting on their couches twiddling their thumbs if celebrity mags didn't exist -- we'd still seek out and consume movies and TV shows.
I don't think that anyone (in this thread at least) has implied that paparazzi are a necessary element of society or that the entertainment industry would collapse or whatnot.
We'd obviously be living in a better world if the paparazzi didn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that photographing people in public should be illegal.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:28 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think that anyone (in this thread at least) has implied that paparazzi are a necessary element of society or that the entertainment industry would collapse or whatnot.
We'd obviously be living in a better world if the paparazzi didn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that photographing people in public should be illegal.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:28 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
We're not gonna get laws protecting celebrities from being photographed before we get laws "protecting" police from getting photographed. To my mind, the pendulum on who can take pictures of whom in public has already swung too far away from freedom to photograph people in public.
posted by straight at 12:31 PM on July 13, 2016
posted by straight at 12:31 PM on July 13, 2016
I guess I just don't understand why we can't make a distinction based on consent. Did a celebrity consent to this photograph? Then we can use it for marketing, magazines, whatever. Did they deny consent and you're tracking them like a bloodhound anyway? That's stalking, fuck off.
Certainly individual celebrities neither created the culture or industry that feeds on non-consensual photographs, nor are they by themselves able to end it.
(On preview: sparklemotion, my response was to a comment that was deleted. I'd be ok if mine were deleted too if it's causing confusion.)
posted by misskaz at 12:32 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Certainly individual celebrities neither created the culture or industry that feeds on non-consensual photographs, nor are they by themselves able to end it.
(On preview: sparklemotion, my response was to a comment that was deleted. I'd be ok if mine were deleted too if it's causing confusion.)
posted by misskaz at 12:32 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'll be the one to ask the question...why shouldn't photographing private citizens in public who don't want to be photographed be illegal? why should there be a right to take photos and not a right not to be photographed?
posted by kokaku at 12:32 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 12:32 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
i tried finding the piece from a famous female celebrity talking about the paparazzi who stalk her children at school or the one where paparazzi were climbing trees to shoot into backyards, but there are so many instances of those it's hard to remember which one i was thinking of. there has to be some way to write laws that criminalize things like creepshots and that type of basically trespassing - whether the subjects are famous or not - and banning all public photography.
posted by nadawi at 12:35 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 12:35 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
On top of paparazzi, I find myself unsettled by how your average citizen/fan takes part in paparazzi culture, not in consuming the photos so much, but in taking their own photos and putting them online. I'm seeing it more often on tumblr now. Selfies with a celebrity you happen to run into are one thing, but taking a picture of them getting a coffee or going on a jog or whatever seems...invasive, even if it is in public. I get the impulse: like, you see a celebrity and it's an "omg I saw this famous person, I need proof!" so you snap a quick photo with your phone. And with the way social media works now, when you put that on instagram or twitter or tumblr, it's not just your small group of mutual friends who you want to brag to/get excited with who see it. It's everyone they know when they reblog/retweet/tag, and everyone they know, and so on.
I know this can't be laid entirely at the feet of paparazzi, that it's more about the ubiquity of smartphones and new modes of communication. Being in public now has the possibility of being a lot more public than we have in the past been used to, and that's just the world we live in now. Not sure what's to be done about that, other than to create and enforce new social and community norms around photography. And by enforce, I don't mean with laws per se, but just, y'know, good old fashioned shaming and peer pressure and our unwritten but largely shared understanding of what falls within the bounds of common courtesy.
posted by yasaman at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know this can't be laid entirely at the feet of paparazzi, that it's more about the ubiquity of smartphones and new modes of communication. Being in public now has the possibility of being a lot more public than we have in the past been used to, and that's just the world we live in now. Not sure what's to be done about that, other than to create and enforce new social and community norms around photography. And by enforce, I don't mean with laws per se, but just, y'know, good old fashioned shaming and peer pressure and our unwritten but largely shared understanding of what falls within the bounds of common courtesy.
posted by yasaman at 12:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
IIRC in France it’s flat out illegal to publish photos of people without their consent. How this is working out with modern social media I’ve no idea though - do Facebook delete photos taken in public places that show pictures of people that aren’t on your friends list?
posted by pharm at 12:46 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pharm at 12:46 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
What is Alec Baldwin talking about? I mean there are nuggets of sense in there, but the idea that people are using celeb voyeurism / gossip as way of sublimating political needs is cocopuffs.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
why should there be a right to take photos and not a right not to be photographed?
I think there's a public interest in encouraging documentation of things that happen, especially in public. It's a squishy idea that gets rolled up into things like freedom of the press, but if it something can be legally observed I think it makes sense to be careful* about saying that no record can be made of it.
Obviously, copyright and similar laws exist so it's not impossible, but finding a middle way here is tricky.
On top of paparazzi, I find myself unsettled by how your average citizen/fan takes part in paparazzi culture, not in consuming the photos so much, but in taking their own photos and putting them online.
The first time that I ever realized how fundamentally weird that is was during the Yarn Harlot's Kinnearing saga. Basically, a blogger (whom I rather like and respect), saw Greg Kinnear in an airport and tried (and failed) to get a surreptitious picture of him. Which of course became blog fodder.
Which would all have been fine, except that she's a very good writer and the verb "kinnearing" became a thing, and eventually it got back to Greg Kinnear. Who honestly seemed uncomfortable when discussing it (and realizing that other women had done the same to him without him finding out).
The whole thing just kind of creeped me out, and taught me that the best way to deal with seeing a celebrity "in the wild" is to pretend that you don't.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:58 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think there's a public interest in encouraging documentation of things that happen, especially in public. It's a squishy idea that gets rolled up into things like freedom of the press, but if it something can be legally observed I think it makes sense to be careful* about saying that no record can be made of it.
Obviously, copyright and similar laws exist so it's not impossible, but finding a middle way here is tricky.
On top of paparazzi, I find myself unsettled by how your average citizen/fan takes part in paparazzi culture, not in consuming the photos so much, but in taking their own photos and putting them online.
The first time that I ever realized how fundamentally weird that is was during the Yarn Harlot's Kinnearing saga. Basically, a blogger (whom I rather like and respect), saw Greg Kinnear in an airport and tried (and failed) to get a surreptitious picture of him. Which of course became blog fodder.
Which would all have been fine, except that she's a very good writer and the verb "kinnearing" became a thing, and eventually it got back to Greg Kinnear. Who honestly seemed uncomfortable when discussing it (and realizing that other women had done the same to him without him finding out).
The whole thing just kind of creeped me out, and taught me that the best way to deal with seeing a celebrity "in the wild" is to pretend that you don't.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:58 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I honestly can't imagine not reacting somewhat violently if I was constantly subjected to this shit. Doubly so if it started affecting people in my life who weren't even part of whatever fame I might've attracted.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:59 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:59 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd have sympathy for celebrity privacy demands if it was a two way street.
If they had to get positive permission from me before seeking my attention I'd be okay with them requiring permission before being subject to attention.
posted by srboisvert at 12:59 PM on July 13, 2016
If they had to get positive permission from me before seeking my attention I'd be okay with them requiring permission before being subject to attention.
posted by srboisvert at 12:59 PM on July 13, 2016
i'm not sure what that means? how do they seek your attention, personally, in a way that you find invasive and unavoidable?
posted by poffin boffin at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
If they had to get positive permission from me before seeking my attention I'd be okay with them requiring permission before being subject to attention.
Fucking seriously? "She was asking for it!"
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fucking seriously? "She was asking for it!"
posted by Krom Tatman at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
We're not gonna get laws protecting celebrities from being photographed before we get laws "protecting" police from getting photographed. To my mind, the pendulum on who can take pictures of whom in public has already swung too far away from freedom to photograph people in public.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Americans have the right to take still photos and videos of things that are plainly visible in public spaces (including federal buildings), as well as government officials and police officers who are carrying out their duties. There have been at least a couple of court cases that determined this. The right is protected by first amendment. See the ACLU's Know Your Rights Page for photographers, for more info.
Celebrities are private citizens, and their likenesses are afforded greater protection by copyright law. If they are not at a public event, then a model release may be required for a photographer to legally sell their image for profit.
posted by zarq at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Americans have the right to take still photos and videos of things that are plainly visible in public spaces (including federal buildings), as well as government officials and police officers who are carrying out their duties. There have been at least a couple of court cases that determined this. The right is protected by first amendment. See the ACLU's Know Your Rights Page for photographers, for more info.
Celebrities are private citizens, and their likenesses are afforded greater protection by copyright law. If they are not at a public event, then a model release may be required for a photographer to legally sell their image for profit.
posted by zarq at 1:02 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Urgh, I still remember reading some horrible piece taking the piss out of Suri Cruise being carried all the time. And then seeing a horrible fucking picture of the paparazzi that that poor little kid was having to face every time she stepped out of her house.
Also relevant - JK Rowlings testimony to the Leveson Inquiry-among other horrible shit, journalists snuck a note into her daughter's bookbag and took photos of her at the beach.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also relevant - JK Rowlings testimony to the Leveson Inquiry-among other horrible shit, journalists snuck a note into her daughter's bookbag and took photos of her at the beach.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
ah yes, seeing magazine articles or a tweet about a celebrity you don't care about is exactly the same as paparazzi waiting outside the hospital to congratulate someone on their miscarriage or photographing a 13 year old changing clothes at a private residence that happens to belong to someone famous. glad we cleared that up.
posted by nadawi at 1:10 PM on July 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 1:10 PM on July 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Kristen Bell's "No Kids Policy" has gotten the paparazzi to ease off somewhat on taking photos of celebrities with their kids by convincing celebrities to withhold interviews from magazines that run such photos.
posted by ejs at 1:11 PM on July 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by ejs at 1:11 PM on July 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Celebrities are private citizens, and their likenesses are afforded greater protection by copyright law. If they are not at a public event, then a model release may be required for a photographer to legally sell their image for profit.
Just to be clear ALL citizens (not just celebrities) in private have protection for their images. Public is public.
(anti-rude-jerk legislation is a slippery slope and tough to get past constitutional protections)
posted by sammyo at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just to be clear ALL citizens (not just celebrities) in private have protection for their images. Public is public.
(anti-rude-jerk legislation is a slippery slope and tough to get past constitutional protections)
posted by sammyo at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
(I mean I think Baldwin is right that people use celebrities as figures in morality plays, as vehicles for/targets of various fantasies and emotions, but I don't think it's about political disaffection, fundamentally. Sounds like he's still processing feelings about his own ambitions, and also talking about some of his own dirty laundry. [Which I wish I'd never heard about, and don't care about.] Am aware that I'm proving his point with my armchair speculations.)
But yes, too many photos of everyone, all around, totally appreciate why celebs are fed up, agree they should be protected.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2016
But yes, too many photos of everyone, all around, totally appreciate why celebs are fed up, agree they should be protected.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2016
Kristen Bell's "No Kids Policy"
is brilliant and a demonstration that the "industry" could self regulate.
posted by sammyo at 1:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
is brilliant and a demonstration that the "industry" could self regulate.
posted by sammyo at 1:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just wonder if the tables were turned and crowds of strangers started hounding the photographers all the time and publishing pictures of them in their private lives, would they be happy about it.
posted by Burn_IT at 1:27 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Burn_IT at 1:27 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The older I get, the less attractive fame is to me.
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
sammyo: Just to be clear ALL citizens (not just celebrities) in private have protection for their images. Public is public.
Yep. True. I only focused on celebrities because that was the comparison being made.
posted by zarq at 1:37 PM on July 13, 2016
Yep. True. I only focused on celebrities because that was the comparison being made.
posted by zarq at 1:37 PM on July 13, 2016
I live around the corner from Alec Baldwin and have seen him doing extremely mundane morning things like walking his dogs and pushing a baby stroller. Most folks leave him alone, but one morning as I was walking my daughter to school, we saw him down the block and a very nervous looking paparazzo was hiding behind a parked car with a telephoto lens. I didn't have my phone, so I couldn't snap photos of him, but I told my daughter in a very loud voice, "There's a paparazzo! Look at him! Everyone look at him! He's an awful person!!!"
posted by AJaffe at 1:42 PM on July 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
posted by AJaffe at 1:42 PM on July 13, 2016 [45 favorites]
If you're outraged about being photographed in public, perhaps you should direct your anger at the DHS for installing terrornoia cameras and devices everywhere.
oh no i can only care about one thing ever at one time, it's too bad that today i've decided to care about the yard cats! i guess racism and murder are a-ok for everyone today, signed, me!
posted by poffin boffin at 1:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [29 favorites]
oh no i can only care about one thing ever at one time, it's too bad that today i've decided to care about the yard cats! i guess racism and murder are a-ok for everyone today, signed, me!
posted by poffin boffin at 1:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [29 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed; going aggressively sarcastic about shit rarely helps anything, and complaining in-thread about moderation of stuff has been not the way to go since forever. You know where the contact form is if you want to talk about something.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:54 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:54 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly can't imagine not reacting somewhat violently if I was constantly subjected to this shit.
The older I get, the less attractive fame is to me.
I think it has to be utter hell at times. Not only do you have to put up with it, but further you really can't react unless you want to basically hand the paps the very thing they want most. It's a race to see who can piss off the celebrity first to get the golden 'gone crazy!' photos/video which command more bucks.
posted by bologna on wry at 1:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
The older I get, the less attractive fame is to me.
I think it has to be utter hell at times. Not only do you have to put up with it, but further you really can't react unless you want to basically hand the paps the very thing they want most. It's a race to see who can piss off the celebrity first to get the golden 'gone crazy!' photos/video which command more bucks.
posted by bologna on wry at 1:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
i think it was nicole ritchie who actually got a restraining order against a specific guy for doing exactly that - being super dangerous, and mean, and just generally shitty to get the reaction shot.
posted by nadawi at 2:01 PM on July 13, 2016
posted by nadawi at 2:01 PM on July 13, 2016
I'll be the one to ask the question...why shouldn't photographing private citizens in public who don't want to be photographed be illegal? why should there be a right to take photos and not a right not to be photographed
You're not the one to ask these questions. They've long ago been asked and answered.
why shouldn't photographing private citizens in public who don't want to be photographed be illegal?
In the US, the First Amendment gives people a right to express themselves via recordings. Your First Amendment right of free expression can only be constrained in extremely limited circumstances.
why should there be a right to take photos and not a right not to be photographed
Because, as noted above, you don't have an expectation of privacy in public places, and outlawing recording in public would infringe on the recorder's First Amendment rights.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:18 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
You're not the one to ask these questions. They've long ago been asked and answered.
why shouldn't photographing private citizens in public who don't want to be photographed be illegal?
In the US, the First Amendment gives people a right to express themselves via recordings. Your First Amendment right of free expression can only be constrained in extremely limited circumstances.
why should there be a right to take photos and not a right not to be photographed
Because, as noted above, you don't have an expectation of privacy in public places, and outlawing recording in public would infringe on the recorder's First Amendment rights.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:18 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am remembering back to the thread in which a woman live-tweeted a hilariously bad date she overheard in a restaurant in which the dating dude was amazingly overblown with self-importance; I remember the HUGE UMBRAGE a lot of people on MetaFilter took at her GROSS violation of his SACRED PRIVACY in a PUBLIC SPACE.
My weekend project will be printing out that thread and this one and making a spreadsheet.
posted by beerperson at 2:21 PM on July 13, 2016 [35 favorites]
My weekend project will be printing out that thread and this one and making a spreadsheet.
posted by beerperson at 2:21 PM on July 13, 2016 [35 favorites]
I just wonder if the tables were turned and crowds of strangers started hounding the photographers all the time and publishing pictures of them in their private lives, would they be happy about it.
As tempting an idea as this is, I think it would be futile.
Any project/revenge fantasy experiment like this can't last indefinitely, so Joe Paparazzi would surely just bide his time, double-down on the *cheerful wave* "doesn't bother me one bit!" routine while he skips along on his daily routine. It's much easier to endure something like this when it's short lived rather than a day in, day out onslaught for years on end.
posted by bologna on wry at 2:22 PM on July 13, 2016
As tempting an idea as this is, I think it would be futile.
Any project/revenge fantasy experiment like this can't last indefinitely, so Joe Paparazzi would surely just bide his time, double-down on the *cheerful wave* "doesn't bother me one bit!" routine while he skips along on his daily routine. It's much easier to endure something like this when it's short lived rather than a day in, day out onslaught for years on end.
posted by bologna on wry at 2:22 PM on July 13, 2016
I do feel bad for celebrities in most of these cases, because there's never an off switch. Everybody gets sick, has bad days, is running late to something at times, so even when the photographers aren't being dangerous or invading private property, they are still forcing an issue that the celebrities end up having little or no control over. Taking pictures outside of professional settings or events, etc. and without permission is rude and pretty obnoxious, when it's probably abundantly clear the person (celebrity or otherwise) doesn't want to be photographed.
Also, on a related note, it never ceases to amaze me the number of people who act like a celebrity is a terrible, terrible human being because they won't drop whatever they're doing to take a photo, sign an autograph, call someone's cousin, etc. As if, clearly that celebrity's fame entitles Mr "But I've seen two of your movies" to a selfie and 10 minutes of chit chat.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 2:23 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, on a related note, it never ceases to amaze me the number of people who act like a celebrity is a terrible, terrible human being because they won't drop whatever they're doing to take a photo, sign an autograph, call someone's cousin, etc. As if, clearly that celebrity's fame entitles Mr "But I've seen two of your movies" to a selfie and 10 minutes of chit chat.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 2:23 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
paparazzi have thinner skin than you think.
posted by nadawi at 2:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 2:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
beerperson, one difference between that situation and what's being discussed here is that the people involved then were all private individuals. Part of being a celebrity is accepting some level of scrutiny when in public, which makes it harder to answer questions about where the line is in terms of public attention. With private people, most of us don't expect have our public behavior recorded and publicly commented on, though of course anyone could do so if they wanted to. I think most of us would be unhappily surprised to find a conversation we had with a date, a lover, a friend, or a coworker posted online for the world to comment on precisely because we're not famous and don't expect it.
I don't think there's any contradiction or hypocrisy in finding it a little unseemly to record and publish regular people's conversations or actions in a way you wouldn't if the people involved were famous, though that's not to say there's therefore no limit to what should be done to celebrities.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:03 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think there's any contradiction or hypocrisy in finding it a little unseemly to record and publish regular people's conversations or actions in a way you wouldn't if the people involved were famous, though that's not to say there's therefore no limit to what should be done to celebrities.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:03 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
sparklemotion: Laws restricting what people can take pictures of in public always seem hinky to me.
I agree (emphasis mine)
pharm: IIRC in France it’s flat out illegal to publish photos of people without their consent
I strongly agree with this (emphasis mine again).
In other words: make it illegal to publish photos taken in public without consent of all parties photographed, and if such photos are published, fine the photographer and publication.
Extend this to the internet, but make sure public forums and hosts aren't included in the definition of "publication," but make sure there's a quick "delete this photo" option/ contact for all public forums. Maybe this would push creepers "underground" to operate on specific sites and forums in more lenient countries.
This doesn't stop creep-shots, but it should destroy the major paparazzi industry. Those photographers aren't stalking stars for creeper credits among other celebrity stalkers, they're doing it for the money. Yes, there would still be creepy stalkers, but they'd be off the grocery store shelves and whatnot.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:11 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree (emphasis mine)
pharm: IIRC in France it’s flat out illegal to publish photos of people without their consent
I strongly agree with this (emphasis mine again).
In other words: make it illegal to publish photos taken in public without consent of all parties photographed, and if such photos are published, fine the photographer and publication.
Extend this to the internet, but make sure public forums and hosts aren't included in the definition of "publication," but make sure there's a quick "delete this photo" option/ contact for all public forums. Maybe this would push creepers "underground" to operate on specific sites and forums in more lenient countries.
This doesn't stop creep-shots, but it should destroy the major paparazzi industry. Those photographers aren't stalking stars for creeper credits among other celebrity stalkers, they're doing it for the money. Yes, there would still be creepy stalkers, but they'd be off the grocery store shelves and whatnot.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:11 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
In other words: make it illegal to publish photos taken in public without consent of all parties photographed, and if such photos are published, fine the photographer and publication.
Wouldn't this make it in practice impossible to publish any crowd photos? You could also make an exception for "journalism" and "art photography" and [insert other 'legitimate' photography uses], but it seems to me it would be simpler to just directly ban paparazzi than to try to invent some convoluted rules that indirectly do it in order to appear to be "fair".
posted by Pyry at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't this make it in practice impossible to publish any crowd photos? You could also make an exception for "journalism" and "art photography" and [insert other 'legitimate' photography uses], but it seems to me it would be simpler to just directly ban paparazzi than to try to invent some convoluted rules that indirectly do it in order to appear to be "fair".
posted by Pyry at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
why shouldn't photographing private citizens in public who don't want to be photographed be illegal?
Because random people can appear in the background of photos and that shouldn't make the taking of photos a crime. With a little imagination you can see how this could make the use of cameras in public illegal.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:20 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because random people can appear in the background of photos and that shouldn't make the taking of photos a crime. With a little imagination you can see how this could make the use of cameras in public illegal.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:20 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't care but I do think there's a difference between people taking pictures in public places just for the sake of taking pictures, and people taking pictures in public places with an intent to sell them. So the best way around this is: hey, take all the pictures you want, but if you're going to sell them to a magazine or something you need to have my written consent before they are published and, whoops, I don't have time to do that right now, laterz!
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:24 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
all i've got is a photograph
Seems like a missed opportunity to quote Van Halen.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:27 PM on July 13, 2016
Seems like a missed opportunity to quote Van Halen.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:27 PM on July 13, 2016
Wouldn't this make it in practice impossible to publish any crowd photos?
I thought of that after posting the comment, and it's a valid point, and I realize my idea goes too far. I'm not sure what the happy medium would be.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:30 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought of that after posting the comment, and it's a valid point, and I realize my idea goes too far. I'm not sure what the happy medium would be.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:30 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have exactly as much empathy for celebrities complaining about paparazzi as I do for rich people complaining about taxes. Both are humblebrags, and it is extremely insulting to victims of sexual harassment to compare them with "paparazzi harassed" celebrities.
This comes off bitter, but there is a difference between the former and latter. Wealthy people pay taxes for the benefit of others, while paparazzi photos benefit people how? So we can feel like they're normal? It's harassment, not some fine to pay for their wealth.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:37 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
This comes off bitter, but there is a difference between the former and latter. Wealthy people pay taxes for the benefit of others, while paparazzi photos benefit people how? So we can feel like they're normal? It's harassment, not some fine to pay for their wealth.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:37 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
and it is extremely insulting to victims of sexual harassment to compare them with "paparazzi harassed" celebrities.
i do not feel insulted in the least to compare the pictures gotten by stalking, harassing, long lens, or crouched in gutters, etc to get more skin or access than someone wants to show- famous or not - to the sexual harassment and assault i've been a victim of.
posted by nadawi at 3:41 PM on July 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
i do not feel insulted in the least to compare the pictures gotten by stalking, harassing, long lens, or crouched in gutters, etc to get more skin or access than someone wants to show- famous or not - to the sexual harassment and assault i've been a victim of.
posted by nadawi at 3:41 PM on July 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
beerperson, one difference between that situation and what's being discussed here is that the people involved then were all private individuals.
We've nationalized celebrities? Thanks, Obama.
posted by invitapriore at 3:42 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
We've nationalized celebrities? Thanks, Obama.
posted by invitapriore at 3:42 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am remembering back to the thread in which a woman live-tweeted a hilariously bad date she overheard in a restaurant in which the dating dude was amazingly overblown with self-importance; I remember the HUGE UMBRAGE a lot of people on MetaFilter took at her GROSS violation of his SACRED PRIVACY in a PUBLIC SPACE.
My weekend project will be printing out that thread and this one and making a spreadsheet.
honestly I think there's less contradiction here than you're implying. No one's siding with the paparazzi here, just saying that it's difficult to write legislation for reasonable constitutional reasons. Unless people in the earlier thread were arguing that that livetweeting should be illegal, that seems pretty analogous.
You can get into the rabbit hole of the differences between "no expectation of privacy" in the context of being on the street versus "no privacy" of having actions broadcast on the internet but I'd rather not because it sounds like that was probably a good use of livetweeting and likely to have been delightful.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:46 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
My weekend project will be printing out that thread and this one and making a spreadsheet.
honestly I think there's less contradiction here than you're implying. No one's siding with the paparazzi here, just saying that it's difficult to write legislation for reasonable constitutional reasons. Unless people in the earlier thread were arguing that that livetweeting should be illegal, that seems pretty analogous.
You can get into the rabbit hole of the differences between "no expectation of privacy" in the context of being on the street versus "no privacy" of having actions broadcast on the internet but I'd rather not because it sounds like that was probably a good use of livetweeting and likely to have been delightful.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 3:46 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Part of being a celebrity is accepting some level of scrutiny when in public, which makes it harder to answer questions about where the line is in terms of public attention.
So when does someone become a celebrity, and what's the approval process? Is Mark Zuckerberg a celebrity? Why? Is the owner of the hardware store down the street a celebrity? Why not? Is every background extra with a SAG card fair game for paparazzi? What about college athletes? Should I tell my kid not to play sports or start a business if she doesn't want people taking her picture everywhere she goes?
posted by beerperson at 3:48 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
So when does someone become a celebrity, and what's the approval process? Is Mark Zuckerberg a celebrity? Why? Is the owner of the hardware store down the street a celebrity? Why not? Is every background extra with a SAG card fair game for paparazzi? What about college athletes? Should I tell my kid not to play sports or start a business if she doesn't want people taking her picture everywhere she goes?
posted by beerperson at 3:48 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Speaking of crowd photographs, here's an essay from a guy doomed to forever be in a stock photograph
posted by acrasis at 3:49 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by acrasis at 3:49 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Perhaps celebrities should be allowed to copyright their faces/images thus making it illegal to reproduce their likenesses without royalties being paid. That way it becomes a huge financial burden to magazines/websites that publish those awful photos. That might help. For the record I think the horrible actions of many paparazzi is straight up harassment. And, no, just because you're a "celebrity" or 'famous" doesn't mean you "deserve" to be harassed.
posted by pjsky at 3:50 PM on July 13, 2016
posted by pjsky at 3:50 PM on July 13, 2016
So all y'all realize that this concept of only certain people being allowed to be photographed IN PUBLIC would destroy our current environment of filming the motherfucking police committing all sorts of crimes. Just askin'.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:55 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Guys, if we can't photograph celebrities in public then we can't photograph anything. How will we photograph all the slippery slopes
posted by naju at 3:57 PM on July 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by naju at 3:57 PM on July 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
no laws can even be conceived that would restrict upskirt pictures of famous women (or lets be real, women in general) and also keep the freedom open to film police, is that what i'm hearing? i would have expected more of the devil's advocate, thought exercise crew.
posted by nadawi at 4:00 PM on July 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:00 PM on July 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
My understanding is that metafilter exists solely for crafting legislation so I hope no one is talking about anything else
posted by beerperson at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by beerperson at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Do you really think that's what I'm advocating, nadawi? Seriously?
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 4:04 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 4:04 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Right of publicity / personality rights
posted by naju at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right of publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not have one's personality represented publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.This is the area of law where clear anti-paparazzi legislation should be enshrined. It's entirely possible to do this without the entire world going haywire by the way.
A commonly cited justification for this doctrine, from a policy standpoint, is the notion of natural rights and the idea that every individual should have a right to control how, if at all, his or her "persona" is commercialized by third parties. Usually, the motivation to engage in such commercialization is to help propel sales or visibility for a product or service, which usually amounts to some form of commercial speech (which in turn receives the lowest level of judicial scrutiny).
posted by naju at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
>> "So all y'all realize that this concept of only certain people being allowed to be photographed IN PUBLIC would destroy our current environment of filming the motherfucking police committing all sorts of crimes. Just askin'."
It would also make Pokemon Go impossible... hmmm
posted by spudsilo at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It would also make Pokemon Go impossible... hmmm
posted by spudsilo at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
So when does someone become a celebrity, and what's the approval process? Is Mark Zuckerberg a celebrity? Why? Is the owner of the hardware store down the street a celebrity? Why not? Is every background extra with a SAG card fair game for paparazzi? What about college athletes? Should I tell my kid not to play sports or start a business if she doesn't want people taking her picture everywhere she goes?
All excellent questions, which is why I said it's a difficult deciding where the line should be drawn.
The answer to your last question, though, is unfortunately yes. If your kid gains fame through sports or business they must necessarily expect public attention of some level. The question is how to handle, legally and socially, that attention, and again it's a difficult one to answer.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:07 PM on July 13, 2016
All excellent questions, which is why I said it's a difficult deciding where the line should be drawn.
The answer to your last question, though, is unfortunately yes. If your kid gains fame through sports or business they must necessarily expect public attention of some level. The question is how to handle, legally and socially, that attention, and again it's a difficult one to answer.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:07 PM on July 13, 2016
So all y'all realize that this concept of only certain people being allowed to be photographed IN PUBLIC would destroy our current environment of filming the motherfucking police committing all sorts of crimes. Just askin'.
Police are, while on duty at least, acting in an official capacity and would thus be exempted from the protection under such circumstances. Blur out the face of the person they're beating up or what have you, and there's no problem.
posted by Dysk at 4:08 PM on July 13, 2016
Police are, while on duty at least, acting in an official capacity and would thus be exempted from the protection under such circumstances. Blur out the face of the person they're beating up or what have you, and there's no problem.
posted by Dysk at 4:08 PM on July 13, 2016
I'd be more worried about rich people copyrighting themselves and suing anybody who publishes video of them saying and doing shitty things in public. Only people rich enough to assert their self-copyright would be protected; everyone else would be meme fodder like they already are.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:09 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 4:09 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
i think the general tone of the freeze peach crowd is that celebrities should just suck it up (with an extra dollop of 'they're asking for it') and that protecting the right to film anything in public at any time - even if the person you're filming was stalked for days/weeks/months/years, isn't actually displaying the thing being photographed, or isn't themselves in public when the photographs are taken - is more important. but what do i know - i just keep hoping i'll never be notable enough for the creepshots i've seen taken of me to come out.
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 4:12 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I thought of that after posting the comment, and it's a valid point, and I realize my idea goes too far. I'm not sure what the happy medium would be.
I think if you approach it from the photography end, you're going to end up with a mixed bag of laws.
For instance, you could approach it from a recognizability point of a view, that is, is the main subject of your photo clear and recognizable? If so, you need a model release.
This would allow crowd shots or background people.
But then you eliminate some of the most famous photos of our time, think national geographic or war correspondence, where a model release is impractical or unobtainable.
To correct that, you might say implement a "fame quotient", in that if a reasonable person who consider the main subject a "public figure", you need a release, otherwise no release is needed.
You could also have a commercial clause, where "art" or "street" photography is permitted, but if it has commercial intent, you need to compensate the subject. But then I think you'd suddenly find the National Enquirer has become an "art" magazine and all paparazzi are co-op members who share in circulation rather than being paid per photo.
Also, it would allow "private collections", read, stalker photos, to remain in trade, since they would be non-commercial.
The point is, solving this sort of thing from the magazine end is going to end up like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
I think instead, and I'm a little surprised a place like California has not implemented something already, that we need to give people who desire it more control over who is profiting from their image.
It seems strange to me that I can't
A "face trademark" or "photographic image rights" where an actress could register her likeness and have some degree of control over how it is used.
Maybe with an ASCAP like system, where the registrant gets a cut of the action, with an exception for private use (under a certain threshold), so no one gets sued for taking a photo in an airport.
There would likely be a few battles in court before it shakes out, like how do you determine who is the focus of a photo, etc, but it seems like it could be worked out to everyone's mutual dissatisfaction.
posted by madajb at 4:13 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think if you approach it from the photography end, you're going to end up with a mixed bag of laws.
For instance, you could approach it from a recognizability point of a view, that is, is the main subject of your photo clear and recognizable? If so, you need a model release.
This would allow crowd shots or background people.
But then you eliminate some of the most famous photos of our time, think national geographic or war correspondence, where a model release is impractical or unobtainable.
To correct that, you might say implement a "fame quotient", in that if a reasonable person who consider the main subject a "public figure", you need a release, otherwise no release is needed.
You could also have a commercial clause, where "art" or "street" photography is permitted, but if it has commercial intent, you need to compensate the subject. But then I think you'd suddenly find the National Enquirer has become an "art" magazine and all paparazzi are co-op members who share in circulation rather than being paid per photo.
Also, it would allow "private collections", read, stalker photos, to remain in trade, since they would be non-commercial.
The point is, solving this sort of thing from the magazine end is going to end up like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
I think instead, and I'm a little surprised a place like California has not implemented something already, that we need to give people who desire it more control over who is profiting from their image.
It seems strange to me that I can't
A "face trademark" or "photographic image rights" where an actress could register her likeness and have some degree of control over how it is used.
Maybe with an ASCAP like system, where the registrant gets a cut of the action, with an exception for private use (under a certain threshold), so no one gets sued for taking a photo in an airport.
There would likely be a few battles in court before it shakes out, like how do you determine who is the focus of a photo, etc, but it seems like it could be worked out to everyone's mutual dissatisfaction.
posted by madajb at 4:13 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Rupert Murdoch kicks a puppy on the street and there's video of it, should the publisher of the video really be on the hook for copyright infringement? Sure, the publisher would assert fair use but it could be an expensive lawsuit.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:13 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BungaDunga at 4:13 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
But then, maybe we'll have a giant backlash to this whole watch-famous-people-do-boring-things 24 hour news cycle we're on and the whole thing will be moot.
Dare we dream that one day, we will reach Peak Kardashian?
posted by madajb at 4:15 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dare we dream that one day, we will reach Peak Kardashian?
posted by madajb at 4:15 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
how much stalking of children are you willing to accept because their parents are famous?
posted by nadawi at 4:16 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 4:16 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have exactly as much empathy for celebrities complaining about paparazzi as I do for rich people complaining about taxes. Both are humblebrags,
Quick! Make this person virally famous, internet, then let's check back in and see if it's possible this quote is down to a failure of imagination/empathy or whether it still seems valid. /HAMBURGER
Seriously, if you've ever even had a tiny bit of local, small time fame, you know it's a pretty even mix of good to bad. For one thing, it's hard to tell who you can trust. For another, people really don't seem to believe you're fully human all the time. Really! The tendency is for others to think they know you way better than they do, and they can absolutely lose their shit over the tiniest things if you don't match up to their expectations. There's definitely a high cost, too, for all the presumed real/imaginary benefits.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:22 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Quick! Make this person virally famous, internet, then let's check back in and see if it's possible this quote is down to a failure of imagination/empathy or whether it still seems valid. /HAMBURGER
Seriously, if you've ever even had a tiny bit of local, small time fame, you know it's a pretty even mix of good to bad. For one thing, it's hard to tell who you can trust. For another, people really don't seem to believe you're fully human all the time. Really! The tendency is for others to think they know you way better than they do, and they can absolutely lose their shit over the tiniest things if you don't match up to their expectations. There's definitely a high cost, too, for all the presumed real/imaginary benefits.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:22 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Sweden, it's illegal to secretly photograph people who are in private spaces. The first person found guilty under the 2013 law was a creeper who stuck his camera under the canvas wall of a camping shower to take pics of a nude woman and her daughter. When I visited most recently I started to take photos of a preschool (over the fence) and my daughter reminded me that schools prohibit photos of their students. This has nothing to do with celebrities but I agree with the law and the school rule.
posted by Bella Donna at 4:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 4:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, please up the sincerity and dial down the snark. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:43 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think you can have somewhat nuanced arguments about celebrities and paparazzi when we're talking about male celebrities. Like how Alec Baldwin attracts attention that say Tom Hanks or Daniel Day Lewis don't, and why that is. Reasonable expectations of privacy, 1st amendment rights, etc. But this all goes out the window when we're talking about female celebrities because if they are at all famous and/or attractive they will just have their pictures taken all the time whether they want the attention or not. Even if the pictures don't make it to Hello or TMZ they'll probably end up on one of those crappy "You won't believe what X looks like now" links that are at the bottom of every single article on the internet.
I think this is a demand-side problem. People buy the magazines to look at the pictures, or go to the websites or click those links. If they stopped then the paparazzi wouldn't have anyone to sell photos to. So the only solution I can see is to somehow get people to stop. I have no idea how you would get this to happen. What would it take to convince people not to buy the magazines or visit the websites and is that even a desired outcome? I would be happy to see the death of them (and media over-reporting of media in general) but I appreciate that I may be in the minority on this.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:23 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think this is a demand-side problem. People buy the magazines to look at the pictures, or go to the websites or click those links. If they stopped then the paparazzi wouldn't have anyone to sell photos to. So the only solution I can see is to somehow get people to stop. I have no idea how you would get this to happen. What would it take to convince people not to buy the magazines or visit the websites and is that even a desired outcome? I would be happy to see the death of them (and media over-reporting of media in general) but I appreciate that I may be in the minority on this.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:23 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
beerperson: "My weekend project will be printing out that thread and this one and making a spreadsheet."
...It feels like your goal is to go "Ha! Hypocrites all!" but I think you're just going to find out that the people who thought that was icky are the people in this thread finding this icky, and the people who thought that was okay are the people in this thread finding this okay.
I'm not willing to bet on it, mind you, I just suspect that's what you're going to find, because in the few times when I've read a MeFi thread and thought "Hypocrites!" and actually compared a thread to a former thread that went a different way, I find that there's actually very little hypocrisy, it's just that either there were more people on one side or the other, or the people on one side or the other commented more.
Still, I'll be interested to see your results, and not in a "gotcha" way, but authentically interested.
posted by Bugbread at 5:40 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
...It feels like your goal is to go "Ha! Hypocrites all!" but I think you're just going to find out that the people who thought that was icky are the people in this thread finding this icky, and the people who thought that was okay are the people in this thread finding this okay.
I'm not willing to bet on it, mind you, I just suspect that's what you're going to find, because in the few times when I've read a MeFi thread and thought "Hypocrites!" and actually compared a thread to a former thread that went a different way, I find that there's actually very little hypocrisy, it's just that either there were more people on one side or the other, or the people on one side or the other commented more.
Still, I'll be interested to see your results, and not in a "gotcha" way, but authentically interested.
posted by Bugbread at 5:40 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
It doesn't really seem that many if any people think this is okay, though? I guess there were one or two "poor rich famous people, boo hoo" types but they were more or less roundly shouted down.
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on July 13, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on July 13, 2016
Pyry: "Wouldn't this make it in practice impossible to publish any crowd photos?"
Not really. Japan has fairly strict publicity rights laws, so what you see all the time are crowd photos with faces blurred out or smiley face symbols pasted over peoples faces or the like. Google Street View also blurs out everyone's faces (it might be like that worldwide, I dunno).
posted by Bugbread at 5:48 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not really. Japan has fairly strict publicity rights laws, so what you see all the time are crowd photos with faces blurred out or smiley face symbols pasted over peoples faces or the like. Google Street View also blurs out everyone's faces (it might be like that worldwide, I dunno).
posted by Bugbread at 5:48 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why can't celebrities use anti-stalking laws? Or do they already? That Miley Cyrus video was incredibly creepy.
paparazzi have thinner skin than you think.
This video made me wonder whether there's an "in" club for paparazzi where they make friends with certain celebrities and gain turf like gangs offering protection.
posted by zennie at 5:49 PM on July 13, 2016
paparazzi have thinner skin than you think.
This video made me wonder whether there's an "in" club for paparazzi where they make friends with certain celebrities and gain turf like gangs offering protection.
posted by zennie at 5:49 PM on July 13, 2016
Donald Trump endorsing or believing something doesn't automatically make that thing wrong. And a photo of Murdoch kicking a puppy in the street is evidence of a crime and thus in the "classical" public interest. But I dunno, I guess having to get a release signed before you can publish pics of a celeb makes things pretty impossible and is a bad precedent. There are laws for harassment and obstruction, probably, so maybe that would be one approach. Who knows. We will never really know.
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:00 PM on July 13, 2016
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:00 PM on July 13, 2016
Me, earlier: "crowd photos with faces blurred out or smiley face symbols pasted over peoples faces"
Lots of photos like this or this in other words.
posted by Bugbread at 6:02 PM on July 13, 2016
Lots of photos like this or this in other words.
posted by Bugbread at 6:02 PM on July 13, 2016
Holy shit is that a mask? I must have one.
(Side note: do people really happy-face or blur everyone ecept their friends in any shot they put on facebook, in places like Japan? It's really hard to imagine)
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:53 PM on July 13, 2016
(Side note: do people really happy-face or blur everyone ecept their friends in any shot they put on facebook, in places like Japan? It's really hard to imagine)
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:53 PM on July 13, 2016
Ask. Just ask. I have a couple dozen selfies of me with "celebrities", but because I'm a harmless non paparazzi douchebag, I seem to be much cooler than I actually am.
Hint: take five or less seconds. Get in, get out, fistbump and you're gone.
posted by Sphinx at 6:59 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hint: take five or less seconds. Get in, get out, fistbump and you're gone.
posted by Sphinx at 6:59 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
RustyBrooks: "Side note: do people really happy-face or blur everyone ecept their friends in any shot they put on facebook, in places like Japan? It's really hard to imagine"
It's certainly not universal, but it's not uncommon, either. People even blur out their own friends some of the time, depending on whether the photo is visible to just "Friends" or is open to "Friends of Friends" or the rare "Public", how close the friends are, and how much their friends care about stuff like that. (In my own social group nobody cares, so everyone's faces are visible, but I see blurred or amusingly obscured faces in my wife's feed sometimes, and my wife uses lens flare or starburst effects to obscure her friends' kids faces when posting photos to Facebook)
posted by Bugbread at 7:10 PM on July 13, 2016
It's certainly not universal, but it's not uncommon, either. People even blur out their own friends some of the time, depending on whether the photo is visible to just "Friends" or is open to "Friends of Friends" or the rare "Public", how close the friends are, and how much their friends care about stuff like that. (In my own social group nobody cares, so everyone's faces are visible, but I see blurred or amusingly obscured faces in my wife's feed sometimes, and my wife uses lens flare or starburst effects to obscure her friends' kids faces when posting photos to Facebook)
posted by Bugbread at 7:10 PM on July 13, 2016
Major credit for the GITS: Stand Alone Complex callback.
I wonder how much of this is due to the asymmetrical nature of non-mutual relationships. David Bowie was and always will be a huge part of my life due to Labyrinth, but he never knew who I was. One downside to engagement with various forms of media and how present they become to us is an over-emphasis on forming strong emotional relationships without any reciprocity. There was always a subset of humanity which did this - stalkers and people with erotomania - but I think some aspects of current US culture/media corporations encourages people to really engage with others on an emotional level in order to make money and demands their human "products" limit their own humanity. We've reached the point where some people are doing this to themselves in the pursuit of fiscal stability, goals exacerbated by the continuing poor economy for middle and lower class people.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:10 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wonder how much of this is due to the asymmetrical nature of non-mutual relationships. David Bowie was and always will be a huge part of my life due to Labyrinth, but he never knew who I was. One downside to engagement with various forms of media and how present they become to us is an over-emphasis on forming strong emotional relationships without any reciprocity. There was always a subset of humanity which did this - stalkers and people with erotomania - but I think some aspects of current US culture/media corporations encourages people to really engage with others on an emotional level in order to make money and demands their human "products" limit their own humanity. We've reached the point where some people are doing this to themselves in the pursuit of fiscal stability, goals exacerbated by the continuing poor economy for middle and lower class people.
posted by Deoridhe at 7:10 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Like how Alec Baldwin attracts attention that say Tom Hanks or Daniel Day Lewis don't, and why that is. "
Probably because we all know Baldwin has a thin skin and a huge temper and well...if paparazzi want a guy who's more likely to explode, he's a good bet.
"One downside to engagement with various forms of media and how present they become to us is an over-emphasis on forming strong emotional relationships without any reciprocity. "
I read somewhere or other that we're genetically programmed to feel like the people we see all the time are familiar to us. We probably see celebrities on TV/tabloids/whatever far more frequently than oh, our neighbors. We watch the same characters on TV every week. They're our friends, we just don't uh...know them and they don't know us. But we tend to forget that we don't know them technically because hey, we see them every week! Then no wonder we have some kind of mental breakdown if we can see them in public or meet them and gosh, they don't know us like we know them, and maybe we don't know them like we think we do. It hurts our brains.
Maybe it's less psychotic if you're say, an author whose photo isn't everywhere every day and you're not on TV every week or in the movies, or some other slightly famous career where we don't hear about what you're up to all the time (authors of Mefi, if you want to verify this or not, feel free). But to us, celebrities are real life soap operas, like this whole Hiddleswift/Calvin Harris/songwriting stupidity. Hell, I'm following it and I think Taylor Swift is a Mean Girl and I don't even know who Calvin Harris is, because it's so ridiculous and LOL-y. If you see someone enough and hear about what they're up to enough, it's like hearing what your coworker or family member or friend got up to. It's a saga you hear about every week like your favorite soaps. Except technically it's a reality show, minus the cameras being on 24-7.
It's a problem. I don't think we can solve it.
"We've reached the point where some people are doing this to themselves in the pursuit of fiscal stability, goals exacerbated by the continuing poor economy for middle and lower class people."
Yup. If you're a creative person and you want to make a living at it, your very best way of doing that is getting famous. I'm not ever gonna make a lot of money at my clerical job, I sure as hell ain't gonna win the lottery, I sure as hell aren't gonna marry anyone who's rich--I have neither the looks, young age, anorexia or connections for that. But if I want to up my income.... well, if you can get famous and get someone to give you money for what you do or for you being you, that's the one game changer. Too bad it comes with all this other shitty crazy attached. I think fame is a tool--it gets you access, money, and jobs. But....it comes at a scary stalker cost. What the hell do you do? jscalzi's done a pretty good job of managing it, so I can think of one person, but it seems like a fraught path to nagivate. Especially if you're not a white male and you're considering coming out of the arts closet in ways that would get you known--hell, that can get life threatening.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:36 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Probably because we all know Baldwin has a thin skin and a huge temper and well...if paparazzi want a guy who's more likely to explode, he's a good bet.
"One downside to engagement with various forms of media and how present they become to us is an over-emphasis on forming strong emotional relationships without any reciprocity. "
I read somewhere or other that we're genetically programmed to feel like the people we see all the time are familiar to us. We probably see celebrities on TV/tabloids/whatever far more frequently than oh, our neighbors. We watch the same characters on TV every week. They're our friends, we just don't uh...know them and they don't know us. But we tend to forget that we don't know them technically because hey, we see them every week! Then no wonder we have some kind of mental breakdown if we can see them in public or meet them and gosh, they don't know us like we know them, and maybe we don't know them like we think we do. It hurts our brains.
Maybe it's less psychotic if you're say, an author whose photo isn't everywhere every day and you're not on TV every week or in the movies, or some other slightly famous career where we don't hear about what you're up to all the time (authors of Mefi, if you want to verify this or not, feel free). But to us, celebrities are real life soap operas, like this whole Hiddleswift/Calvin Harris/songwriting stupidity. Hell, I'm following it and I think Taylor Swift is a Mean Girl and I don't even know who Calvin Harris is, because it's so ridiculous and LOL-y. If you see someone enough and hear about what they're up to enough, it's like hearing what your coworker or family member or friend got up to. It's a saga you hear about every week like your favorite soaps. Except technically it's a reality show, minus the cameras being on 24-7.
It's a problem. I don't think we can solve it.
"We've reached the point where some people are doing this to themselves in the pursuit of fiscal stability, goals exacerbated by the continuing poor economy for middle and lower class people."
Yup. If you're a creative person and you want to make a living at it, your very best way of doing that is getting famous. I'm not ever gonna make a lot of money at my clerical job, I sure as hell ain't gonna win the lottery, I sure as hell aren't gonna marry anyone who's rich--I have neither the looks, young age, anorexia or connections for that. But if I want to up my income.... well, if you can get famous and get someone to give you money for what you do or for you being you, that's the one game changer. Too bad it comes with all this other shitty crazy attached. I think fame is a tool--it gets you access, money, and jobs. But....it comes at a scary stalker cost. What the hell do you do? jscalzi's done a pretty good job of managing it, so I can think of one person, but it seems like a fraught path to nagivate. Especially if you're not a white male and you're considering coming out of the arts closet in ways that would get you known--hell, that can get life threatening.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:36 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
How will we photograph all the slippery slopes
By taking a picture after we've fallen to the bottom of them, most likely.
posted by Greg_Ace at 7:38 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
By taking a picture after we've fallen to the bottom of them, most likely.
posted by Greg_Ace at 7:38 PM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought this was an interesting take on the Aniston article from the other side of the coin (a gossip blog). I don't fully agree with it, and I'm not suggesting that in the abstract, female celebrities deserve the treatment they get from the "celebrity industrial complex" - but it becomes a complex issue when certain "stars" build their images through the intentional use of paparazzi (not simply by going to the hot spots, but also by literally hiring paparazzi, licensing exclusive shots and deals to paparazzi, entering into endorsement deals based on staged pap photos, and/or tipping them off with location and time information). To some extent this aspect of their work is coerced to a degree (to be a "big star" as a woman, maybe you don't need to cover a magazine in a way that results in misogyny, but does it make achieving fame easier? Yes). To some extent it can involve children, who have no informed, mature choice in the matter. To people who may not follow this issue or celebrity gossip, it may seem ridiculous or unlikely, but it does indeed happen, and not just with D list stars like Heidi and Spencer.
But the discussion seems less realistic without acknowledging that celebrities do feed some material to the paps, often on the same topic as the attention they complain about. (So Aniston makes a great point about the magazine focus on the "perfect" body...but she has also chosen over and over again to discuss her diet and fitness routine on tv shows and in magazines, to endorse products related to her body and fitness (Smartwater, moisturizer), and "show off" the effects in fitness magazines like Shape.)
For more on this, especially how celebrities intentionally use their children to build their images, often involving photographs by paparazzi and/or intended to appear in magazines like US Weekly and People, I recommend Anne Helen Peterson's work (especially her previous article about Jennifer Garner - on the blue) and Lainey Gossip generally (see the Media Manipulation tag).
I don't say this because I think paparazzi are above the level of cockroaches, but rather because the issue is a lot more interesting than "those vile gossip rags vs. those poor famous people!"
posted by sallybrown at 7:50 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
But the discussion seems less realistic without acknowledging that celebrities do feed some material to the paps, often on the same topic as the attention they complain about. (So Aniston makes a great point about the magazine focus on the "perfect" body...but she has also chosen over and over again to discuss her diet and fitness routine on tv shows and in magazines, to endorse products related to her body and fitness (Smartwater, moisturizer), and "show off" the effects in fitness magazines like Shape.)
For more on this, especially how celebrities intentionally use their children to build their images, often involving photographs by paparazzi and/or intended to appear in magazines like US Weekly and People, I recommend Anne Helen Peterson's work (especially her previous article about Jennifer Garner - on the blue) and Lainey Gossip generally (see the Media Manipulation tag).
I don't say this because I think paparazzi are above the level of cockroaches, but rather because the issue is a lot more interesting than "those vile gossip rags vs. those poor famous people!"
posted by sallybrown at 7:50 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've a friend who was a minor celebrity in Spain as a correspondant for a Spanish comedy news program. Walking around with him was an experience. He wasn't followed by paparazzi, at least not while I was hanging out him, but everywhere we went people shouted at him TONINOOOOOOOOOO!!! WOOOOOO EEEEEEEY AAAAAH etc. An interesting aspect of his job is that he worked both sides of the relationship.
He did a bit of politician and celebrity stalking with cameras and microphones, and he was also friends with actors and tabloid celebrities of the sort that get stalked with photo/video cameras and microphones. Something he told me, and it struck with me, is that he would respect the wishes of people who consent to interviews one day, and withdraw their consent the next day.
There is a paparazzi culture in Spain that asserts that once you give a tabloid exclusive in exchange for money, you're fair game, and to state otherwise is hypocrisy. But my friend quoted actor Joaquin Kremel saying in a tv program that he saw himself as a prostitute. He sells his privacy one day, and not the next day. And to take his privacy against his consent would be like raping a woman because she was working as a prostitute the previous day.
Since this conversation I'm not at all sympathetic to the "part and parcel of fame" argument. If you're a comedian on a prime-time tv show, maybe drunken idiots shouting your name in bars is part and parcel of your fame, or maybe not. But people stalking you every waking hour with telephoto lenses in case you look bad that day/have a nipple slip/have a new girlfriend/whatever shouldn't be part and parcel of anything, even if in the past you've invited "journalists" to a view of your breasts or to meet your new partner.
posted by kandinski at 11:17 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
He did a bit of politician and celebrity stalking with cameras and microphones, and he was also friends with actors and tabloid celebrities of the sort that get stalked with photo/video cameras and microphones. Something he told me, and it struck with me, is that he would respect the wishes of people who consent to interviews one day, and withdraw their consent the next day.
There is a paparazzi culture in Spain that asserts that once you give a tabloid exclusive in exchange for money, you're fair game, and to state otherwise is hypocrisy. But my friend quoted actor Joaquin Kremel saying in a tv program that he saw himself as a prostitute. He sells his privacy one day, and not the next day. And to take his privacy against his consent would be like raping a woman because she was working as a prostitute the previous day.
Since this conversation I'm not at all sympathetic to the "part and parcel of fame" argument. If you're a comedian on a prime-time tv show, maybe drunken idiots shouting your name in bars is part and parcel of your fame, or maybe not. But people stalking you every waking hour with telephoto lenses in case you look bad that day/have a nipple slip/have a new girlfriend/whatever shouldn't be part and parcel of anything, even if in the past you've invited "journalists" to a view of your breasts or to meet your new partner.
posted by kandinski at 11:17 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have neither the looks, young age, anorexia or connections for that.
One of those things is a mental illness with the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses.
posted by ambrosen at 12:57 AM on July 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
One of those things is a mental illness with the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses.
posted by ambrosen at 12:57 AM on July 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Personally I find the argument that “they courted fame, so they’re fair game” to be completely fatuous.
What about the people who never chose to court fame, but became famous anyway? Or the ones who wanted fame, but never made any money out of it so now they’re a tabloid target without any of the privileges that help to mitigate that endless stream of shitty attention?
Sure, some celebs use the tabloid press & papparazzi as a route to personal wealth & take the endless invasion of personal privacy and space that imposes on them as part of the price paid. That doesn’t make the actions of the paparazzi right or proper.
posted by pharm at 1:57 AM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
What about the people who never chose to court fame, but became famous anyway? Or the ones who wanted fame, but never made any money out of it so now they’re a tabloid target without any of the privileges that help to mitigate that endless stream of shitty attention?
Sure, some celebs use the tabloid press & papparazzi as a route to personal wealth & take the endless invasion of personal privacy and space that imposes on them as part of the price paid. That doesn’t make the actions of the paparazzi right or proper.
posted by pharm at 1:57 AM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
sparklemotion: And now that I threw the word "stalk" into the mix -- it makes me wonder what kind of protection would be appropriate for a non-famous stalking victim whose stalker took to following her a telephoto lens distance yt away all the time.
I keep thinking about this whenever I hear about proposed constraints on paparazzi: what does this do for people who don't have access to special treatment from the authorities or the services of expensive lawyers?
posted by lodurr at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep thinking about this whenever I hear about proposed constraints on paparazzi: what does this do for people who don't have access to special treatment from the authorities or the services of expensive lawyers?
posted by lodurr at 8:38 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Where's my jetpack? | SCOTUS decisions database, 1791-2015 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I have the same conflicted thoughts as Mulder on this issue I think. Laws restricting what people can take pictures of in public always seem hinky to me. But I can emphasize with folks who are basically being stalked 24/7.
And now that I threw the word "stalk" into the mix -- it makes me wonder what kind of protection would be appropriate for a non-famous stalking victim whose stalker took to following her a telephoto lens distance away all the time.
posted by sparklemotion at 11:25 AM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]