Paparazzi tend to be independent contractors, unaffiliated with mainstream media organizations, who track high-profile people and take pictures of them opportunistically.[1] Some experts have described the behavior of paparazzi as synonymous with stalking, and anti-stalking laws in many countries address the issue by seeking to reduce harassment of public figures and celebrities, especially when they are with their children.[2] Some public figures and celebrities have expressed concern at the extent to which paparazzi go to invade their personal space.[3] The filing and receiving of judicial support for restraining orders against paparazzi has increased, as have lawsuits with judgments against them.[4]
Paparazzi are often a problem for celebrities, as the latter have become increasingly objectified and worshipped by fans (see: Celebrity worship syndrome), especially through social and mass media.[7] This happens because constant exposure to and coverage of these figures [8] leads people to treat celebrities like they are their social intimates, whom they admire, gossip about, or copy habits from.[9] A 2009 study which anonymously interviewed a number of celebrities showed that it was a common sentiment that being pursued by paparazzi causes a loss of personal life, lack of anonymity, and a feeling of constantly being watched.[10] This causes them to compensate by forming separate identities, one an image offered to the public, and one reserved for moments of privacy and intimacy.
Uzi Paparazzi Download
Download File 🔥 https://tiurll.com/2yGAp9 🔥
A news photographer named Paparazzo (played by Walter Santesso in the 1960 film La Dolce Vita directed by Federico Fellini) is the eponym of the word paparazzi.[11] In his book The Facts on File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini named the "hyperactive photographer ... after Italian slang for 'mosquito.'"[12] As Fellini said in his interview to Time magazine, "Paparazzo ... suggests to me a buzzing insect, hovering, darting, stinging."[13] Those versions of the word's origin are sometimes contested. For example, in the Abruzzo dialect spoken by Ennio Flaiano, co-scriptwriter of La Dolce Vita, the term paparazzo refers to the local clam, Venerupis decussata, and is also used as a metaphor for the shutter of a camera lens.
Further, in an interview with Fellini's screenwriter Flaiano, he said the name came from the book Sulla riva dello Jonio (1957),[14] a translation by Italian poet Margherita Guidacci of By the Ionian Sea,[15] a 1901 travel narrative in southern Italy by Victorian writer George Gissing. He further states that either Fellini or Flaiano opened the book at random, saw the name of a restaurant owner, Coriolano Paparazzo, and decided to use it for the photographer. This story is further documented by a variety of Gissing scholars[16] and in the book A Sweet and Glorious Land. Revisiting the Ionian Sea.[17]By the late 1960s, the word, usually in the Italian plural form paparazzi, had entered English as a generic term for intrusive photographers.[18] A person who has been photographed by the paparazzi is said to have been "papped".[19]
Due to the reputation of paparazzi as a nuisance, several countries and states restrict their activities by passing laws and curfews,[citation needed] and by staging events in which paparazzi are specifically not allowed to take photographs.[20][21][22][23] In the United States, celebrity news organizations are protected by the First Amendment.[24] However, to protect the children of celebrities, California passed Senate Bill No. 606[25] in September 2013. The purpose of the bill is to stop paparazzi from taking pictures of children or wards in a harassing manner because of their parent's occupation. This law increased the penalty for harassment of children.[26] California Civil Code sections 1708.7 and 1708.8 explicitly address stalking and invasion of physical privacy.[27][28]
In 1972, paparazzo photographer Ron Galella sued Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis after the former First Lady ordered her Secret Service agents to destroy Galella's camera and film following an encounter in New York City's Central Park. Kennedy counter-sued claiming harassment. The trial lasted three weeks and became a groundbreaking case regarding photojournalism and the role of paparazzi. In Galella v. Onassis, Kennedy obtained a restraining order to keep Galella 150 feet (46 m) away from her and her children. The restriction was later reduced to 25 feet (7.6 m). The trial is a focal point in Smash His Camera, a 2010 documentary film by director Leon Gast.
In 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales and partner Dodi Fayed were killed in a limousine crash as their driver was speeding, trying to escape paparazzi. Another person, Trevor Jones, survived.[29][30] An inquest jury investigated the role of paparazzi in the incident, but no one was convicted. The official inquests into the accident attributed the causes to the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, as well as the following vehicles, and the impairment of the judgment of the Mercedes driver, Henri Paul, through alcohol.[31]
In 1999, the Oriental Daily News of Hong Kong was found guilty of "scandalizing the court", an extremely rare charge where the judiciary find that the newspaper's conduct undermines confidence in the administration of justice.[32] The charge was brought after the newspaper had published abusive articles challenging the judiciary's integrity and accusing it of bias in a lawsuit the paper had instigated over a photo of a pregnant Faye Wong. The paper had also arranged for a "dog team" (slang for paparazzi in the Chinese language) to track a judge for 72 hours, to provide the judge with first-hand experience of what paparazzi do.[33]
Time magazine's Style & Design special issue in 2005 ran a story entitled "Shooting Star", in which Mel Bouzad, one of the top paparazzi in Los Angeles at the time, claimed to have made US$150,000 for a picture of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez in Georgia after their breakup. "If I get a picture of Britney and her baby," Bouzad claimed, "I'll be able to buy a house in those hills (above Sunset Boulevard)."[34] Paparazzi author Peter Howe told Time that "celebrities need a higher level of exposure than the rest of us so it is a two-way street. The celebrities manipulate."
In 2006, Daniella Cicarelli went through a scandal when a paparazzo caught video footage of her having sex with her boyfriend on a beach in Spain, which was posted on YouTube.[35] After fighting in the court, it was decided in her favor, causing YouTube to be blocked in Brazil. This caused major havoc among Brazilians, including threatening a boycott against MTV Brasil, where Cicarelli worked, unless she was fired.[citation needed] The block only lasted a few days, and Cicarelli was not dismissed. The legal action backfired as the court decided she had no expectation of privacy by having sex in a public location.[citation needed] Cicarelli appealed the decision, and the case was finally settled in 2015 with the Superior Court of Justice of Brazil awarding Cicarelli and her boyfriend in the video damages of R$250,000 (US$64,000) from Google.[36]
In the United Kingdom, Sienna Miller, Amy Winehouse, and Lily Allen have won injunctions that prevent the paparazzi from following them and gathering outside their houses. Miller was awarded 53,000.[39]
In addition to legal action, celebrities have taken other measures to avoid paparazzi. When Daniel Radcliffe was performing in the play Equus in London, he wore the same hat and jacket every day for six months, to make the photos look old and therefore "unpublishable".[42]
A few days ago my wife and I wrote tweets urging folks to boycott publications that buy photos of celebrities' children without the consent of their parents (paparazzi generated pics). We got a myriad of responses, ranging from heartfelt solidarity to vitriolic rage. The overwhelming majority was very supportive, and for that we are thankful. There were a few common threads that ran through the hateful responses, and I hope to address those here. First, however, I'd like to explain what led us to tweet in the first place.
A few months ago we were invited to a gathering at the home of Jennifer Garner. The bulk of the attendees were actors and musicians. I was excited. We had finally been invited to a celebrity orgy. I had heard about these as a 15-year-old boy from Michigan, and now, 23 years later, I was at one. Jennifer addressed the crowd, but instead of discussing boundaries, safe words and hygiene, she walked us through California Senate Bill 606, which made it illegal to photograph a child because of their parent's employment in a manner that "seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes" them.
She and Halle Berry had worked tirelessly, and at their own expense, to get this bill passed. I think I speak for everyone there when I say we were all incredibly grateful for Jennifer and Halle's momentous achievement.
The meeting had some of the key lawmakers who had drafted the bill, as well as law enforcement representatives who helped explain how to best enforce the law. Implicit in the bill are some obvious first amendment issues. It does, at the end of the day, limit the rights of the "press" to "alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize" children in the pursuit of "news gathering." I am starting to use a lot of quotes. This is my snarky way of hinting that I don't believe entertainment paparazzi are actually "press" any more than a peeping tom using a "shoe-cam" at the local mall is "press." Nor do I think photographing children being held by a famous parent can be considered "news gathering" by any definition. All that aside, I deeply value the freedom of the press and think it is an indispensable facet of a healthy democracy that should be protected fervently.
I left that night feeling like the implementation of this new law was going to be difficult. I hoped in my bones it would hold up in court, where it will eventually land and play out. I also left with the nagging feeling that this new law mirrored the "war on drugs" in one key way: it only really addressed the supply side of the equation, and not the demand. We Americans have proven time and time again that if we want something, through hell or high water, we will get it. So as long as people pay good money to buy magazines featuring famous people's children, there will be men popping out of bushes and lurking around playgrounds to get those pics. Those are just the facts. 152ee80cbc
abirami magic box tamil stories free download
bollywood music ringtone download