|
Post by eausavage on Aug 4, 2011 17:27:01 GMT -5
You're welcome Jessica, i thoughts it was interesting to share were came from the "paparazzo" name.
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Aug 5, 2011 3:48:40 GMT -5
taking pics during a concert it's very very unfair I think it's very difficult to draw a line here. By your definition, Maria, I would qualify as a paparazzi too. Look at the pictures in my signature. I took them without Jake's permission (or someone in his management) while Jake was doing his work. It was not a photocall either. And afterwards I went to "publish" them without any permission either. Sure, I don't make any money from them, but other than that, my pictures are no different than pictures taken at a rock concert. I don't want to justify what paps do, I just wanna point out that not every picture that surfaces from Jake (or any celeb) in everyday life is necessarily harmful or painful for the star. Also I find it difficult for me to say "Paps should be stopped completly", because I have my share in "supporting" their work. E.g. when there is a new thread in the "eye candy" section named something like "Jake at restaurant XY" or "Jake working out" I can assume from the title that those are pap pics and not from a photoshoot. So if I truly wanted to boycott paps I would have to stay away from that thread and not even look at the pictures, not comment there. Only if everyone behalfed like that, it would have an effect. But I find that my interest in seeing Jake is bigger than my aversion against paps. Sadly I have to admit that this behaviour of mine supports the paps in their business too.
|
|
|
Post by book on Aug 5, 2011 7:33:27 GMT -5
i agree sasha if paps were banned we would never see any pics of jake at all and not get our jake i draw the line when they get too intrusive like inside a restruant but as long as they are in a public place not private i have no problem after all thats why we come here ;0
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Aug 5, 2011 7:35:51 GMT -5
iafter all thats why we come here ;0 Very true, Mary. Thanks for sharing my point!
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Aug 5, 2011 8:02:15 GMT -5
I just read a really intersting interview with a paparazzi who got in trouble for taking pictures of a star (Keith Urban in that case): www.examiner.com/music-industry-in-nashville/photographer-keith-urban-incident-keith-was-out-of-controlEven Jake gets a quick mention: I find it even scarrier that so many people will tip of a pap, than the fact that the paps show up to take pictures. I found that interesting too: At this point Keith Urban obviously attacks the paparazi, but he makes it sound like he's the victim: Isn't that incredible? Of course it was not okay of Keith Urban to physically attack that guy, but I am stunned by the nonchalance this guy has, thinking that what he did was his own business only and that Urban was out of line reacting the way he did. And if that is one of the "nice" paparazzis, doing things by the book, I don't wanna think about what "bad" paps will do for a picture. Especially after reading this quote from the same interview:
|
|
evie
Jake Fan
Posts: 449
|
Post by evie on Aug 5, 2011 9:07:50 GMT -5
taking pics during a concert it's very very unfair I think it's very difficult to draw a line here. By your definition, Maria, I would qualify as a paparazzi too. Look at the pictures in my signature. I took them without Jake's permission (or someone in his management) while Jake was doing his work. It was not a photocall either. And afterwards I went to "publish" them without any permission either. Sure, I don't make any money from them, but other than that, my pictures are no different than pictures taken at a rock concert. I don't want to justify what paps do, I just wanna point out that not every picture that surfaces from Jake (or any celeb) in everyday life is necessarily harmful or painful for the star. Also I find it difficult for me to say "Paps should be stopped completly", because I have my share in "supporting" their work. E.g. when there is a new thread in the "eye candy" section named something like "Jake at restaurant XY" or "Jake working out" I can assume from the title that those are pap pics and not from a photoshoot. So if I truly wanted to boycott paps I would have to stay away from that thread and not even look at the pictures, not comment there. Only if everyone behalfed like that, it would have an effect. But I find that my interest in seeing Jake is bigger than my aversion against paps. Sadly I have to admit that this behaviour of mine supports the paps in their business too.Sasha (if I may call you that), I think you are being too hard on yourself in this respect: The pictures in your signature were taken at a public appearance, even if it wasn't held in an outdoor public space. Did anyone there tell the audience not to take pictures? I always assume that a star's management/publicity people expect that fans will take pictures at such events. After all, the fans support the star's popularity; we are the ones who pay to park our butts in the theater seats and collect the pictures, DVDs, and memorabilia. Without us, the star's career would fizzle. And the "publishing" of an image or images such as the ones you are using is much like quoting a few lines of text from a book--all perfectly acceptable under the doctrine of "fair use" as long as the source is identified. The way you can get into legal trouble is when you profit from an image or text belonging to someone else without their permission. Your photos belong to you, because you took them and are not using them for commercial gain. The paparazzi, on the other hand, are profiting from photos taken without the subject's permission, because they sell the photos to sources who then also profit. The lines blur when the subjects are celebrities, specifically film stars or big-name singers or musicians. Their popularity makes them desirable subjects, and the harder it gets for them to avoid being photographed. These people know it is a part of the life they have chosen, and they also know (as Reese once complained) that money is being made from their stolen images. In the main the celebs tolerate the situation. Individuals who are struggling for recognition, or whose star is fading a bit, actually welcome the exposure. But no one enjoys being stalked, which the paps do shamelessly, and I believe the children of celebrities should be left out of the picture, unless the celeb has brought the kid(s) to a promotional event, like a movie premiere. Like book, I am drawn to pictures of Jake and always look when there are new ones available. But as I have said many times before, I object to pictures taken indoors, when he is shopping, eating in a restaurant, dancing at a party, or sitting in a theater. These are private activities, even if the place he is in is open to the public. But it's true, as you say: When we view candid photos of Jake, we are often supporting the paps. Look? Not look? It's a tough call.
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Aug 5, 2011 9:43:18 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind word, Evie. And you're welcome to call me Sasha, no problem with that.
Probably it's true that the line between fandom and paparazzis is drawn with money. A real fan would never ever sell his pictures, even if they were to be published openly. Lots of fans even post their pictures of Jake encounters on boards like this one.
It's terrible that "professionals" think they have the same rights as any fan, judging by the interview I posted earlier. And the line between private and in public needs to be drawn - how ever thin it may be.
|
|
|
Post by eausavage on Aug 6, 2011 18:11:52 GMT -5
wow so many post goin on, first about your first post in reply to mine Sasha, well everyone have it's own way to handle this issue, i don't pretend to be flawless, but to me it's always an issue, if i had to be honest i never dare to take pics of any celebrity without asking permission, but in your case it was at the Source Code premiere, so a sort of uncoventional public even, so taking pics was in a subtle way allowed. It's different taking pics from a concert, as pics and video are used for making official DVD of the event, or concert, and when i went at several Depeche Mode concert the pics wasen't allowed, ok some taking pics as well, but it works in that way, at some concert taking pics isn't allowed. I know that some likes pics of Gyllenhaal like any other celebrities in their everyday life, but to me every single pic if come from paparazzi is harmuful, i post and comment on then to have some nice chatting sometimes, and i don't pretend that someone share my opinion, but are all the same, are intrusive and yeas harmuful, and useless, some like those pics but are simply not such a big deal, Several times i've readed some comment here and there on others blog, or others web sites about celebrities houses, and this is too much in my pov... I don't see, personally so much interest in the way Gyllenhaal is dressed, how he walks, were he went, who he meet and so it goes, i'm feeling much more confortable watching official pics, of photoshootig, but this is just my opinion. About Keith Urban i think that attacking a paparazzo isn't the fairest thing from him to do, but let's see in Keith Urban way, how many time he was catched for how long from paparazzi? They're snooping into stranger's life just as those people are famous to raise money? Should i be afraid that some celebrities went upset from their way of doing? Also this, sure the paparazzi are quite distant and surely is lagal taking pics in public spaces, but change something? No, not to me, paparazzi still going on in taking pics of any celebrities, to me there's nothing to be proud of , it's also seems like them wish to claim themselves as professionist, LOL but most of them aren't and we well know.... ;D ;D I'm sorry i support Keith Urban, i can understand why he've reacted in that way, and again sorry i don't even waste the time to take the interview with this paparazzo and put it on a mangazine, paparazzi are the worst garbage on planet, and didn't deserve much comprehension, they will never have my support, i don't mind and i don't care about them, or their pics... Of course everyone have a different opinion, and i'm fine with those that find not all that paparazzi do harmuful. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Aug 16, 2011 2:11:59 GMT -5
It's different taking pics from a concert, as pics and video are used for making official DVD of the event, or concert, and when i went at several Depeche Mode concert the pics wasen't allowed, Thanks for pointing that out, Maria. I haven't been to a concert in a long time and that was before photo and video cell phones became popular. Also a long time before Facebook and Twitter. So the singer/band didn't have to fear that all the material was released up front and nothing was left for the DVD. So maybe that has changed since I used to go to concerts. On that I can totally agree with you, Maria. There surly would have been more appropriate ways to react, but we're all only human after all.
|
|
|
Post by eausavage on Aug 20, 2011 21:10:29 GMT -5
I'm glad to be able to explain the thing of video and pics at concert, maybe not all the singer or bands do, but some very veryopular warn their fans to don't kae pics or video, i do agree that with th recent social network diffusion it's a way to protect their music. I'm glad to be able to express better my opinion!
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Sept 29, 2011 15:53:14 GMT -5
We've all kept saying how much better it would be for Jake if the paps just would let him be and not take his picture every other day.
Which is totally happening right now. No pics of Jake anywhere for over two weeks (except for those one or two blurry twitpics). I tell you what:
I MISS JAKE!
Yeah, he got a right to his own life. He got a right to be left alone when he's not working.
So, Jake, start working already. I wanna see that face of your's. Pretty please. Even if the face pet has taken over again. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by jfaulkin on Oct 3, 2011 13:49:15 GMT -5
Poor thing ...It would be great to see him BUT we have to wait. Hopefully soon.
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Oct 4, 2011 3:28:05 GMT -5
Thanks so much, Jessica. Yes, I'm trying to be patient, but it's not one of my strenghts.
|
|
|
Post by eausavage on Oct 5, 2011 19:25:07 GMT -5
I have to say i'm lusting for some new pics of Gyllenhaal LOL even if some was in the gallery, and girls he's still shaved wohooo! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sasha4Jake on Oct 6, 2011 4:41:15 GMT -5
Hi Maria, good to see you! Isn't if funny, how we wish for Jake to be left alone, but for us we like new pics. Since we can't have both, this is a though one.
|
|