When it comes to tabloid photographers and celebrity photographers (think Paparazzi), in regards to someone's personal privacy, just how much intrusion is too much intrusion?

Any unwanted intrusion into a person’s private life it too much.

People are assholes for a paycheck. There is a demand, and it’s competitive, because of that the stakes will increase with each click of the camera’s shutter. Everyone knows it, celebrities included. They know what they signed up for.

It’s regrettable, I don’t agree with it, and I don’t particularly care if Jessica Simpson is wearing a football jersey at the grocery store but it’s not gonna change until many, many lives are destroyed and people are traumatized and a significant number of them begin the process of getting some legislation done.

All the celebrities complain about it, but none of them are banding together to try to pass laws because as much as they bitch they know it’s great for their careers to be constantly sought after. In fact, the more secretive and reclusive they become the more hounded they are in public because their pictures are that much more rare.

it’s a dysfunctional parasitic relationship that unfortunately benefits both parties in some way. And the public is doing nothing to change that, quite frankyl I don’t think we could. We’re chimps, glorified chimps but chimps just the same. We all want to compare ourselves and relate to to the apes with what is perceived as the most power. We look up to and identify with them. Oh look, she wears CoverGirl, I’ll be a pretty monkey with lip gloss too!

The public, the celebrities, and the photographers all have a hand in it, whether we like it or not. Then again, prosecuting some of them as stalkers might help.

I know they are public figures but damn. What assholes. Many of them had never been photographers before all of the shit became so popular. There should be a limited amount of permits or something. I would deliver an ass whooping if someone came at me as aggressively as they do some people.

I like what asmonet said about doing anything for a paycheck. If I knew I would get a couple thousand dollars for one pic of a celeb, then to tell you I wouldn’t cross a few lines to get that pic (and a few more) would be a lie.

Do I think it’s crossing boundaries, yes. But I can also see why they’re doing it…money is powerful persuasion to do crazy things…

I personally don’t care to know what so and so ate for dinner, or where they spent the night. I don’t even care if they wear a pair of pants that are too tight, it really isn’t any of my business, and it shouldn’t be anyone elses either.

Not couple of thousands. If you have something good and selling them as exclusive < you can get tens of thousands! For exclusive interview and photo shoot. Celebs can get millions dollars deal. It’s all up for the bidding wars between mags.
Some celebs hire their own paparazzi so they can sell the photos to the mags and get the cash for themselves. Some even bring multiple outfits to the park. So the photos will appear to be taken on different days. More exclusive deals and easier to sell because mags try to stay away from photos that are already printed by other mags if possible.
For the more private celebs. The paparazzi usually leave them alone unless they involved with some breaking news.

If there was no interest from the public in these shots, magazines wouldn’t be buying them for such big amounts, and thus paparazzi would no longer engage in reckless and risky actions to get these shots, whether it’s climbing fences around a person’s property, or recklessly chasing them in a car, or mobbing them as they walk down the street. So while it’s technically the paparazzi getting their hands dirty, they’re not really the ones profiting from the pictures, it’s the magazines. I believe the blame for paparazzi behaviour should be distributed accordingly.

Also consider that many celebrities actively encourage the paparazzi, even giving them schedules about where they will be, so that they remain in the public eye. Because if they’re not in the eye, they’ll lose popularity and be forgotten about. When one becomes a celebrity, one generally exchanges privacy for notoriety. Both good and bad things arise from this (preferential service from police, for one).

I agree with you here dynamicduo. I can’t seem to get into following them. I have enough to deal with in my own life to bother with someone who accidentally broke their nail at 2p.m. and threw a fit over it. lol

I think the photographers have gotten worse over the decades with this behavior, particularly in the last 5 or so years. I think there should be some regulation of this industry, because it appears there are currently no boundaries and it can get dangerous for all involved. There is a demand for these types of photos but I think the way they are obtained is 100% more aggressive than how it has been in the past.

Do we have to wait until a photographer or another celebrity gets killed by recklessness?

I have to agree with you there siren. There should be some regulations with them being able to stalk people the way that they do.

though celebrities obviously know what they’re getting along with their fame, i don’t think that’s an excuse to do what the paparazzi do. however, it’s all our fault anyway. (and by our i don’t mean fluther’s, i mean the general public of any media-consuming country). we may not kill for those pictures, but we spend money on them. that interest is keeping the paparazzi’s checks flowing, so as long as there’s interest, there’s money, and as long as there’s money, there will be the paparazzi doing nearly anything to get that million dollar picture of Britney Spears’ cellulite.

@tiggersmon: Thank you kindly. Maybe some judge should set a precedent and let someone (ie photographer or magazine publisher) get sued in court so that everyone else falls in line. I think the magazines need to be more responsible by how they are obtaining those photos.

Entertainers and politicians knew what they were getting into when they chose their careers. My objection is to the news media harassing ordinary people when they are unintentionally involved in some “newsworthy” event. When they want a photo or interview, a single “no” should be sufficient: no more approaches by anyone. Case in point is the Dutch passenger on the flight with the failed bomb attack. He was harassed until finally granting an interview just to make the bastards leave him alone.For ordinary people, just stating that you want to be left alone should be an absolute bar to reporters and photographers. Such should be made into law if it is not already.