View Full Version : What if they passed a lens law for the paparazzi
BowerR64
11-16-2006, 12:22 AM
Limit the size of their lenses. If they were forced to use a longer lens they would stay at a distance right? Anything short fine them or somthing.
A long lens would help everyone because they would have to keep a distance to get a good shot and then everyone else could get one as well.
How it is now they all strive for a short lens and then you got em all in their face.
A fine for using a short lens?
What if it is inside a public place in close quarters?
Did someone else get the shot in front of you?
If someone is taking a photo of the others taking a photo of the subject, perhaps that person does have a longer lens....
This reminds me of shooting in the local area--show up with a point and shoot and take all the photos that you want, but show up with something professional looking and get asked to quit taking photos.
And there are probably those who would ban photography all together (except when it is to their benefit). Any politicians come to mind?
<Yes, I read your other thread and checked out the camera as well.>
RebelRat
11-16-2006, 12:46 AM
....and how would they enforce this type of law? :D
Round them up and then take their photos with a short lens? ;)
Riley
11-16-2006, 05:00 AM
nah
make em get a paperazzi license
then have a hunting season on actors
(this so they can breed freely in the off season)
Riley
nah
make em get a paperazzi license
then have a hunting season on actors
(this so they can breed freely in the off season)
Riley
Given that the people that set themselves up as paperazzi targets are usually fairly undesirable anyway, perhaps the season could start on the glorious 5th and proceed in much the same way?
thai1on
11-16-2006, 07:12 PM
I see a time of oppression coming for those who use lenses at all. :rolleyes:
BowerR64
11-17-2006, 01:51 AM
If everyone is at a distance you dont have the other photographers in the way. That keeps everything moving and keeps the fighting down and keeps it all fair.
I just watched some shot last night it was about the paparazzi and they were all in each others way.
How would they inforce it? each other, i would think that the other photographers would say hey he was using an illegal lens and take a picture of him.
I guess nothing will change till some one gets hurt then maybe...
Riley
11-17-2006, 01:57 AM
its all such a nonsense really
celebrities that want to cut it both ways
they need the interest and speculation to keep their 'image' alive
the popularity or otherwise that it produces ranks them higher in monetary demands
yet there are times when its no longer such a convenience
who cares really
Riley
Gary24
11-17-2006, 06:03 AM
So true Riley. Most of the time the celeb's handlers tip off the media as to where they are going to be so they can get some free press. It's only when they are trying to sneak out of the local strip club at 3am that they get pissed.:D :D :D Sure there are cases where people want privacy but for the most part they bring it upon themselves.
www.how-wood.com
So true Riley. Most of the time the celeb's handlers tip off the media as to where they are going to be so they can get some free press. It's only when they are trying to sneak out of the local strip club at 3am that they get pissed.:D :D :D Sure there are cases where people want privacy but for the most part they bring it upon themselves.
Oddly enough, I have zero interest in taking photos of "celebrities", zero interest in reading about "celebrities" and zero interest in watching "celebrities" on film or TV. I recall sitting on a train opposite a shifty-looking chap that seemed to squirm every time somebody glanced at him, wondering whether the police wanted him for something. Chatting with another passenger when we got off at Gatwick, it transpired that he had identified the shifty-looking squirmer as a popular TV "comedian". Quite honestly having seen him and heard him speak I kept a very close watch on my bags. Subsequently I looked out of curiosity at his television programme and got bored within about 30 seconds. After about a minute I was heading towards the off button.
If everyone is at a distance you dont have the other photographers in the way. That keeps everything moving and keeps the fighting down and keeps it all fair.
It is fair now isn't it since everyone can choose their own lens and show up on their own time, but it seems that someone wants certain unrealistic "rules" enforced to shift their style of photography to their benefit. To me it's simple, if one doesn't like a certain style of photography, stay out of the kitchen or don't jump into the frying pan and expect not to ever get burnt. After all, this thread doesn't appear to be about the safety of anyone, but only about certain people capturing a photograph.
Esoterra
11-17-2006, 06:45 PM
My pet gerbil has a rash!
My pet gerbil has a rash!
Does your wife know?:D
BowerR64
11-19-2006, 03:34 PM
It is fair now isn't it since everyone can choose their own lens and show up on their own time, but it seems that someone wants certain unrealistic "rules" enforced to shift their style of photography to their benefit. To me it's simple, if one doesn't like a certain style of photography, stay out of the kitchen or don't jump into the frying pan and expect not to ever get burnt. After all, this thread doesn't appear to be about the safety of anyone, but only about certain people capturing a photograph.
No it is about safty for both the people they shoot and the photographers. It was a show on i watched called paparazzi and the lengths they go threw for a shot was insane. Most of them were breaking the law everytime they went out on a shoot. Not to mention breaking traffic laws both the celebrities trying to avoid them and the photographers trying to catch them.
Another one i watched was about a guy trying to shoot cars that were not released and he was trying to get spy shots. The lengths the car manufactures were going threw to hide the cars were not safe, and the photographer was jumping out of his car in traffic just to get a few sneak peak shots.
RichNY
11-19-2006, 06:14 PM
nah
make em get a paperazzi license
This could very well happen in the US now that the Democrats have been elected :)
BowerR64,
If laws are already being broken, then there would be no reason to pass more laws unless one was simply in the business of making up and passing more laws to help justify their salaries and/or prior election promises, i.e. typical politicians. That just means that law enforcement should actually enforce the laws in place. Consider a "dog license"--that is how they used to select people for jury duty here prior to selection from driver's licenses (my point being that it was just another source of revenue and used for a covert purpose instead of actually a form of so-called protection).
By the way, perhaps the answer to your question is simply: Prime Lens. I purchased one tonight. ;)
How it is now they all strive for a short lens and then you got em all in their face.
RichNY,
Considering many politicians take "contributions" from the same sources (in differing amounts), it probably wouldn't matter who is in office. For that matter, look at the amount of documents that have been reclassified and removed from the net under the Bush Administration. Oh wait, you can't since they've been removed. :rolleyes: Then again, your Mr. IT so perhaps you can retrieve everything or at least remove some of the retractions from what documents haven't been reclassified and removed from the net.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.