| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photographers shot at by Brady wedding bodyguards
Tim Vizer, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Belleville | IL | USA | Posted: 10:17 AM on 09.23.09 |
->> This was on my newspapers website.....wow!
Photographers sue Pats' QB Tom Brady; say they were shot at after his wedding
By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer
Two photographers sued New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and supermodel Gisele Bundchen for $1 million Tuesday, saying they were shot at during a post-wedding party in Costa Rica.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan alleged that the photographers, though the shot didn't hit them, suffered physical and mental harm from the attack during a celebration in early April at Bundchen's holiday home.
It said Brady and Bundchen hired improperly trained security guards for the April party, two months after their wedding, even though they had to know their activities were a press magnet.
AFP photographer Yuri Cortez and photographer Rolando Aviles of Costa Rican national daily newspaper Al Dia say Bundchen's bodyguards narrowly missed their heads when the guards shot at their car after they refused to give up their cameras and memory cards.
No one was struck by the bullets, but the lawsuit said Cortez and Aviles suffered physical injuries and mental anguish that continues. The lawsuit said neither of them were paparazzi.
The lawsuit said AFP is one of the world's largest and most respected international press agencies with 110 bureaus worldwide. It said it incurred great expense to send Cortez, a staff photographer, to Costa Rica.
Don Yee, Brady's agent and attorney, declined comment, saying he had not yet seen the court papers. Bundchen publicist Alison Levy said she does not comment on her client's personal life.
The lawsuit said the photographers received authorization from a neighbor of Bundchen to go on their property, where they "discreetly photographed" the party.
It said the photographers were returning to their rented car when a bodyguard approached them "in a menacing and threatening manner," demanding Cortez's camera and memory cards. Aviles ran off while Cortez tried to run but was grabbed by the bodyguard and immobilized with his arm behind his back, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit said Cortez was told that members of the Bundchen-Brady family wanted to talk to Cortez. It said he then picked up Aviles and drove to Bundchen's residence, where more men demanded his memory cards and one bodyguard tried to enter his car to remove cameras.
The photographers, both residents of Costa Rica, tried to drive away when they spotted a drawn gun in the hands of one bodyguard, the lawsuit said.
At that moment, a bodyguard fired the gun, shattering the rear window of the sports utility vehicle with a bullet that then hit the front windshield and ricocheted off it into the driver's seat, the lawsuit said.
"The bullet narrowly missed striking the heads of Cortez and Aviles," the lawsuit said. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 10:34 AM on 09.23.09 |
->> "The lawsuit said neither of them were paparazzi."
and would it make a difference if they were?
They had permission to be on the property they were shooting from
I hope they win this suit. So many of these "celebrities" think they are above the law. It's time the abuse of photographers stops |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 10:45 AM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> How's this work? The incident happened in Costa Rica, but the suit is filed in New York? |
|
Tony Rawlings, Photographer
|
Orange County | CA | US | Posted: 11:07 AM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> Only $1 mil lawsuit? Their lives are worth more than that. Shooting at a vehicle trying to drive 'away'? You've got to be kidding me! Using deadly force over photos? You've got to be kidding me even more!! I'm sure the body guards would change their version of the story to, "The photographers' vehicle was in reverse and tried to run us over so we had to use deadly force by shooting at the rear window." "And, one of the photographers had reached into his pocket so we had thought he was going for a gun so we shot at him." [sarcasm] (The photographer was actually trying to push the memory cards back into his pocket). This is just a theory how some of these (stupid) defense cases could turn out. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:17 AM on 09.23.09 |
->> While the actions of the guards needs to be addressed AND punished I am failing to see where Tom & Gisele can be held culpable. Neither is (as far as I know) a security expert so to expect them to know what is 'proper' or adequate training for a security detail is beyond their responsibility. Assuming (big and key assumption) that the company providing the security was licensed, bonded, or otherwise met the requirements to work in the locale I'm having a hard time thinking that this is more than a grab at the deepest pockets.
Debbie the celebrities in and of themselves didn't do anything but hire a contractor to provide a service. Had Brady fired a shot or Gisele taken a bottle to one of the photographers heads, then I would be in total agreement but that wasn't the case. To my way of thinking, you get into a car in the city and he plows into a stroller. Next thing you know YOU are being sued because the driver had a poor driving record and YOU didn't bother to check before hiring him to drive you to the airport. Doesn't sound right to me either.
my 2 cents |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 09.23.09 |
->> Eric,
It has to do with negligence. All they have to do is establish negligence. I had a similar case when bouncers ruffed me up once in college. The bar owner who directed their actions could have been found guilty of negligence so they settled instead. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 12:22 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> When you hire people to do something for you, you're taking on some level of responsibility for their actions --- hence the need to make sure that your home contractor provides workmen's comp insurance to his workers, and that he has a larger liability insurance policy than you....
Contractors, assistants, body guards -- there's really not much of a difference. You can be sued successfully for their behavior.... |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> I'm with Alan - where's the cause for US jurisdiction? |
|
Bruce Ely, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 1:14 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> Funny. When I read the thread title, I was assuming Matthew Brady of the civil war era. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:03 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> The are a lot of unanswered questions and while I believe that the guards and the company that they were working for are culpable I don't agree that a couple contracting a security detail is expected to check on their training much less have the knowledge themselves at to what is 'proper' training for a security guard.
I do agree with Debbie in that I don't care if the photographers are working for AFP or TMZ. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> I was also thinking about suing Tom Brady for the mental anguish he's caused my fantasy football team. Maybe we can get a class action suit going. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 2:23 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Since this is a civil action, I believe the lawyers are suing in the jurisdiction that at least one of the plantiffs has a residence in.
If it was a criminal action, different story. I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen the game played this way. If what these guys allege is true, and I have no reason to doubt that something happened, a check will be written to make it go away.
The other reason Brady and his wife got sued is obvious: Cause that's where the money is.
Net effect is that some insurance company writes the check. Why criminal charges weren't filed is anyone's guess. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
102 Yards From The Beach | CT | | Posted: 2:55 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Let me get this straight...so two Costa Rican photographers are shooting an assignment in Costa Rica. One shoots for a French news service the other for a Costa Rican newspaper. The two primary subjects of the assignment are a US Citizen and a Brazilian citizen. Everything that occurred happened in Costa Rica.
Can someone explain why this law suit has been filed in the United States? |
|
Andrew Villa, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
San Jose | CA | United States | Posted: 4:02 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Steven and Eric,
thank you for summing exactly what I was thinking. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 4:51 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> "They had permission to be on the property they were shooting from"
The photographers of the security guys? |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
|
Fayetteville | AR | USA | Posted: 10:07 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Thank you Steven. In America, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty.
Two photographers are saying that they were shot at in another country by security guards from a wedding. Let's hear the other side first. We do not have any idea what really happened. We are assuming the photographers are telling the truth. Because why????? they are photographers...... |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:21 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> OK Joe thanks for the link. First thing that screams out at me is the total LACK of any mention of police or law enforcement at the time of the 'incident'. I'm not going to make the reach to all out fabrication BUT someone puts a round inches from your head and there's no PD involvement? You're writing a story about gunshots and attempted murder at one of the TOP celeb weddings of the year and no mention of OFFICIAL statements, reports, comments? The most official person quoted was Brady's agent? Really??
If there isn't some credible link between a bullet and a gun that you can put in one of the guards' hands then this is even MORE of a reach. Something just isn't adding up in all this. Is there in fact a PD report or investigation. Someone pops a round at a person's head..... chain of custody on the weapon and round? Anything besides the photogs saying that they were shot at? Witness statements from guests? ANYTHING??
Michael I have to disagree with you this time. IF ..... IF there isn't a slam dunk in favor of the photographers, paying a bs claim to make it go away just paves the road for others to follow. It may be what the plaintiff's are hopping for but I don't see it happening. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> One thing I've found interesting is that they say they found a .38 caliber slug in the passenger seat. Now I'm not a firearms expert or anything, but a .38 isn't a very typical round for any weapon a private security agency would tend to carry. Its more of a revolver round and you'd expect private security to have a semi-auto hand gun like a Glock, H&K or S&W firing a .40, 45 or 9mm round.
If your providing security for a very high profile celeb are you really going to have a 6 shooter with a .38 ? A "Saturday night special" ?? Sounds more like a cheap weapon you'd obtain to shoot a hole in your own window...... just saying.
Only thing I think we can really say for sure that is if you want to shoot Tom Brady and he's not on the field, do it as the hired wedding photographer.
I'm sure he pays very well.
Lurking in the bushes from someone elses property with a super long lens is a bit low. Though I guess in all fairness we can't so much blame the photographers as much as society itself because our endless thirst for photos like that are what drives that market and makes people go to such lengths to get the photos in the first place. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:47 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Eric,
Not saying I agree with what happened, just that the general perception that guys fired at photographers with live ammo is a tough one to overcome.
Courts could throw it out, but I'm betting that if they don't toss it, it never gets to trial.
IF they can prove that security personnel did indeed "capture" one of the photographers, detain him as well as use a half nelson on him, the spent round is almost a moot point: They'll pay because the PR would be worse. Fortunately, I don't have many BS insurance claims, but I've certainly had some over 30 plus years. When someone says "give me the name and phone number for your insurance agent", I know we're in for a ride. My CFO, who I sleep with, usually starts frothing at the mouth over stuff like this.
Up until recently, my insurance carriers for my other business would pay claims that couldn't hold water simply because it was "cheaper" than going to court. We quit handing claims over and would fight it out ourselves because if they did pay, they would then raise your rates. Lately, with the economy, they have found religion and refused to submit to what amounts to extortion. If we ever meet, I'll have to tell you about the lost dog that was our "fault."
I still think someone writes a check. They'll weigh the PR impact and settle if these guys can make the jurisdiction stick and prove at least part of what happened. Brady and his wife are too famous and the potential impact on Tom's endorsements is a lot bigger than $1M.
Make sense at all? |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:52 AM on 09.24.09 |
| ->> In civil cases, you sue where the money is. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 09.24.09 |
->> "In America, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty."
Tell that to Jose Padilla. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:53 AM on 09.24.09 |
->> Mike it makes sense in the cynical pragmatic sense that the world operates in. I just don't see them paying off on the claim unless there is a reasonable chance that they could loose in court. The story as it stands has more holes and less substance than my first marriage.
And even if this was ALL true, every last bit of the photographers' stories, I don't think it would impact any of the endorsement deals that they have. The story is a million years old at this point. It's not the kind of trial that would get past page 2 of the sports page. The total scope of interest in the case lies in a TINY TINY group of people, namely other photographers.
The issue doesn't play to any of the hot buttons that would garner much media attention beyond what it has already gotten. There isn't a "family values" "sportsmanship" "drug" or other twist that will give anyone pause. So in the case of PR as long a Mrs. Brady has her looks and Mr. Brady finds his mojo and can get back on a winning streak companies will fall all over themselves to get them to pitch a product. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 11:40 AM on 09.24.09 |
->> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2009/04/06/po...
the pair drove directly to the federal police office in San Jose after the incident.
So much for no police report.
According to Cortez, they were shot while fleeing after refusing to hand over their cards. They did not break any laws, were not trespassing.
BTW, I know Yuri, he covered the war in El Salvador for AFP.
This sort of comment:
"Sounds more like a cheap weapon you'd obtain to shoot a hole in your own window...... just saying" is totally uncalled for IMHO, given you know nothing about the facts or the people involved.
Yuri was on an assignment for AFP. BTW, when I worked for AP, I had more than a few of these kinds of assignments. Did I like them? No.
Did I try to do the best job I could under the circumstances? Yes.
Did I deserve to be shot at because if I got a photo I would ruin the million dollar exclusive sale the couple made with a magazine?
I guess that's what a jury will decide. |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 12:41 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> I personally find it very sad that Tom Brady can expect there to be more control over who takes his photo and how it is used when he is playing a football game than he can at his own private wedding ceremony.
EDITORS NOTE: This in no way endorsees the use of weapons of any kind in any way to limit photographic coverage.
I does endorse the use of some common freakin decency on the part of photographers across the world to respect the fact this is a couples wedding and have enough class to turn down such disrespectful assignments. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Joe, I have as much right to an opinion in the matter as you do because its simply that, opinion. Its up to a court of law to rule on the case after viewing all the facts which neither of us know at this point.
Maybe I am completely wrong and everything they said was completely true but its my right to be cynical and doubt the claim.
It just doesn't add up to me and I have a hard time believing it. Again, doesn't mean its not true, but unless I was presented with some more evidence to ballisticly link that .38 round to a firearm from the security service, I'm not a believer. I need more evidence, simple as that.
Someone could just as easily say I shot at them and produce a bullet but it would be my word against theirs. They'd have to find a way to link me to that spent round. Was there a witness that saw me shoot at the person ? Could that round be linked to a firearm I own ? Was a shell casing found at the scene ? Did I have powder stains on my hands or any other evidence that could physically link me at the scene ?
Thankfully in a court of law the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If someone wants to sue me for $1 million for shooting at them its upon them to convenience a jury that I in fact did it.
Its not a perfect system of course, but it certainly beats the alternative of being guilty til proven innocent and allowing people to make any claims against me they want and the burden of proof being upon me to clear myself.
As I said, sure it could be completely true, but it could just as well be fabricated for personal gain or promotion as well. Neither would surprise me.
I don't know Yuri for that matter. I'm sure he's a great guy as you say, but I have no personal experience with him, just as a jury isn't going to have any personal experience with him. As such, they are going to base their ruling, just as I form my opinion, off the facts of the case and not personal experience. Obviously if you know the guy you wouldn't even be allowed to be on the jury in the first place.
I think just as photographers we probably have a bit of bias in the case. Would a working photographer be more inclined to take the side of a fellow peer than would, say, a housewife in Boston when she hears two photographers say they were shot at ? There is definitely bias in perception both for celebrity and the media, especially when its something of a "paparazzi" related incident. People are still divided to this day regarding the Princess Di situation.
As I also said, I don't hide the fact I don't really have a lot of respect for photographers doing that type of work, regardless of who its for. I'd personally decline such an assignment even though I'm sure it pays well. HOWEVER, I certainly don't believe anyone should ever be shot at in that situation, or otherwise struck, or have their property destroyed etc.
At the end of the day though all I can say is that I hope that whatever the ruling, that truth and justice prevailed. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:02 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Jeff said, "As I also said, I don't hide the fact I don't really have a lot of respect for photographers doing that type of work, regardless of who its for. I'd personally decline such an assignment ..."
If you are a wire service stringer/staffer in NY/LA or other large markets with a celebrity presence, declining assignments you deem not worthy, for whatever high-minded reason, is not a realistic option if your are interested in career longevity. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Here's the lawsuit via those nice folks at PDNPulse:
http://tinyurl.com/y8qfgak |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 1:40 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Jeff;
well, there's a big difference between "being cynical and doubting the claim,"
and accusing someone of fabrication of evidence, and shooting his own car, don't you think? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:19 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Joe thank you for the link. It did shed much more light on the subject and the link to the complaint was (is) priceless.
The fact that they are trying to distance themselves from "paparazzi" is laughable. The difference between a $10 hooker and a $1000 hooker is price point. The act is unchanged by the price and the $1k whore is no less a whore at the end of the day. That's not to say that they should have been shot at or harmed. I'll never support the actions of the guards (if proven), but the language to attempt to elevate the act to some pious news gathering mission is comical. They were 'paps' for a night. IMHO. Have to wonder if there was an AFP photog in the pack that chased Diana's car, the 'other' 20 were paps but the AFP person hell he's a REAL photographer. Give it a rest, if you are getting celeb shots of a private event that the media isn't invited to YOU ARE A PAP. Again no one is justified in causing you harm, but take ownership of what you are.
Maybe there was another shooter on a grassy knoll? |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 2:21 PM on 09.24.09 |
| ->> When your job is on the line you will turn down part of your job. Do not talk about what you will do till you are in that position. No one shot be shot at for taking a photo no matter what. Some old actor said if you want to be famous get ready to have your picture taken. As far as Brady is concerned,that is the price of fame, no privacy. |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 6:10 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Bruce,
It could have been Matthew Brady. Tom and Gisele looked a little too posed.
Ya' gotta know your photo history for that reference, and I'm betting you do.
Jim |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 7:21 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> After reading the filing on the link provided by Mr Cantor, I call BS.
They are claiming injuries requiring physical therapy and nursing expenses. They were "forced to drive" to her property but were still able to refuse to hand over the cards. The actions by the security detail are outrageous. I'm not sure if any of this is against Costa Rican law. The photogs demanded to be shown the ID of the guards claiming to be police. Is this required of in CR? Dies it matter if AFP went to great expense to send someone to cover this party? Is our legal system seriously screwed up, for even entertaining this suit about something that happened in CR? Finally a question I can answer. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> This is, in many ways, fascinating.
Two photographers, people just like us, are taking pictures from a place where they have permission to be, and are shot at. With bullets.
And some people here dismiss that because they were "paparazzi".
Photographers taking pictures of celebrities.
Celebrities that may not want their pictures taken by "unauthorized" photographers.
Unauthorized, perhaps, because they are not a part of a big bucks deal with a magazine for "exclusive" wedding pictures?
How about this. The next time ANYONE, athlete, criminal suspect, politician-gone-wrong, etc. tells you that he/she doesn't want their picture taken just stop.
Try it.
Let us all know what happens when you tell your editor/client.
Really. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> I'm truly bothered by the tone that this thread has taken.
I guess because the victim here is just some guy in Costa Rica, it's OK to drag his good name through the mud- call him a paparazzi. Accuse him of shooting his own car? Staging the incident?
Here's a google images search of Yuri Cortez:
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=yuri%20cortez&oe=UTF...
How many of you have done tours in Iraq, covered wars in El Salvador, coups in Haiti, hurricanes, earthquakes?
How many New York Times A1 pix you got in your portfolio? Lots of Time Magazine credits, like he does? Were you risking getting your ass kicked in Honduras last month, this week? Did your photos of the M-13 gang in El Salvador run in Esquire?
I define a paparazzi by how someone makes their living. This guy was on an assignment. That kind of assignment represents less than one percent of the kind of work he does.
How many times have we heard about this sort of thing happening to a photographer, and the reaction is "someone ought to sue, to teach them a lesson."
I don't think AFP would be a co-plaintiff in this case if it had no merits.
Is our legal system screwed up for entertaining this suit? Hell no. That is what makes it so great. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 12:32 AM on 09.25.09 |
->> Thanks to the esteemed Mr. Cantor for posting a link to the action.
Gentlemen, we may differ on this; you may feel that the stress and other things claimed by the lawsuit are all BS, that's fine.
But go back and read paragraph 31 - please. What AFP is fighting for is this: When you're on assignment, conducting yourself in a legal and proper way, and someone SHOOTS at you - employing deadly force - then AFP is going to stand up and make you pay for your incredibly reckless behavior.
Jim and Joe, I'm with you - I get it. I think those of you who think this is a money grab miss the point - totally.
Let me put this to you a different way: What if either one of these photographers HAD DIED while covering this assignment? I would be willing to bet the howls coming from this forum would be incredibly long and loud - and with good reason.
It's pure luck neither photographer was killed or wounded.
Go to trial? After reading the filing, if half the things alleged are true, I'll be willing to bet that this NEVER goes to trial. If it just cost the insurance company a $1M, they will, in my opinion, be getting off cheap.
Forgot the money - focus on the fact they allegedly had people shooting at other people who were acting in a legal and proper manner. If you can't grasp that is what this action is about, then some of us are evidently going into the darkrooms again and inhaling too much fixer.
Michael |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 9:45 AM on 09.25.09 |
->> What is really interesting about this is there simply isn't ONE aspect worthy of discussion. There have been several brought up and all are worthy.
1) The alleged shooting. What is interesting to me is some people dismiss this. Equally interesting is some people assume that just because it's a photographer making the claim, it must be true. It's amazing people have already assigned guilt here without any due process. So to me it's interesting that some people trivialize it and others assume that since it's a photog claiming it, the story is above reproach. For my part, I haven't seen enough facts to form an educated opinion on the truth of the allegation.
2) The discussion of WHERE any court case should take place. Here I have formed an opinion. This action happened in another country invovling residents not of US nationality. On this matter I have formed an opinion - no US taxpayer money should be spent on any court case for this incident - criminal or civil. Since I don't know the facts I don't know if anyone should pay money or be punished criminally but I do believe my tax dollars (or tax dollars of any US citizen) should be spent in determining either.
3) The discussion of what is legitimate journalism and the ethics involved in paparazi type behavior. It's an interesting topic. Is it OK because it's only once-in-a-while? And not OK for another photographer that makes their living on these types of photos? Where is the line drawn.
All three are very interesting topics and all 3 have been brought up here. What is interesting is: just like politics, there seem to be individuals who want to ignore other facets and focus in on only one aspect of this. I think all 3 are worthy of discussion/debate and all 3 very relevant to this particular situation. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:57 AM on 09.25.09 |
->> For the record I extend the SAME protections, rights, and respect to members of VII as I do to TMZ. I brought up the paparazzi SOLELY because the lawyer filing the complaint sought to distance these two and AFP from the label. As if it would somehow make their actions more valid or legal. Period. To me and to my senses, they were shooting a private event from a legal patch of earth using (assuming here) long glass to get shots of a celebrity event to which the media was not invited. There is NO distinction in my mind between the people who stand on the sidewalk with their camera to get shots of someone getting out of a car and going into a nightclub and what the 2 AFP photographers were doing.
Joe your definition is (allowably) different than mine. What happen to them was wrong but to elevate what they were doing to something pious and high brow is also wrong. Call the spade a spade, if they had been there for TMZ or 'freelancing' to hawk the photos to the papers and magazines they would have carried a different label. I agree with Jim and say so in my second post, TMZ or AFP or AP doesn't matter to me. I take issue with someone thinking that one is more holy than another. It was wrong for the filing to try to distinguish between paparazzi and 'regular' photographers. |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 09.25.09 |
->> This is simply an example of people seeking "Jackpot Justice"..
From what I've read, the only reason this matter is in a U.S. court is because Tom Brady is U.S. citizen. The gist of the case alleges that Brady was culpable for not making sure the security people at the reception were professionals.
Has a similar suit been filed in Costa Rica?? If not, why not?
I don't know the laws of Costa Rica. I don't know if the Costa Rican legal/criminal system views aspects differently than the American system. Whether you like it or not, it's their country, it's a case that involves their citizens. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 09.25.09 |
| ->> Are you sure the body guards are not U>S citizens. They were shot at for crying out loud I would want justice if someone shot at me. Brady hired them I am sure he would not approve of someone being shot at but he as the employer is still responsible for there actions. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:37 AM on 09.27.09 |
->> I agree with Jim Colburn-again!
I wonder how many of you are called PAPARAZZI while you are on the sidelines shooting any sporting event. If you think people aren't calling you that, you are clueless. And regardless of what you THINK you are-THAT is how you-WE-are all perceived when we are shooting pretty much anything these days. Like it or not-that is the reality.
While shooting a well known concert series in NYC last summer along with 50 other photographers-press and invited event photographers-a major well known morning host says "and the paparazzi are all here" as the camera shows us all for several seconds for the country to see. So, since he calls us "paparazzi," would it have been ok if some nut was waiting for us outside the photo pen to beat one of us up or throw hot coffee on us because he hates paparazzi? Well, according to most of you here, yes it would have been since after all, we were just called "paparazzi"
And how many "news" shooters have to do stake outs for criminals? What makes a stakeout of a criminal, known or unknown, any different? Was everyone staked out in front of Bernie Madoff's apartment last year all paparazzi?
If a person doesn't want to worry about some PHOTOGRAPHER taking his/her photo, they should not have made the CHOICE to become an actor or pro sports figure. They beg for the press on the way up and once they get to the top all they do is whine about it. I recently saw an interview with Patrick Swayze and his attitude was right on-he said something to the fact that he loves his fans and he loves the photographers-they helped him get where he got and he appreciates it.
And I'd like to hear from one person here who has turned down an assignment because they said it was a paparazzi shoot and they don't do that. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 09.27.09 |
->> "If your providing security for a very high profile celeb are you really going to have a 6 shooter with a .38 ? A "Saturday night special" ?? Sounds more like a cheap weapon you'd obtain to shoot a hole in your own window...... just saying."
I wouldn't be calling a Colt Python at "Saturday Night Special" Or Cheap Gun!!
At over $1500.00 in Todays Market, that is not Cheap!!
FWIW, The late Detective Jim Cirilo, took care of business in NY for years with an S&W Model 36, a FIVE Shot .38 Special!! |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 1:20 PM on 09.27.09 |
| ->> I really don't care if they're "paps" or not, US citizens or not. I don't even care if they were trespassing and it doesn't seem like they were. Shooting at them is way over the top and they need to be dealt with by the law. Costa Rican law in a Costa Rican court. The US legal system is not the place for this. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 09.27.09 |
->> why US court?
How about this: "If we go to Costa Rica, we can just hire a bunch of goons to rough up anybody who shows up, and never have to answer to anyone.'
Just sayin' |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 3:41 PM on 09.27.09 |
->> "And I'd like to hear from one person here who has turned down an assignment because they said it was a paparazzi shoot and they don't do that."
While I have not had that many offers, I have turned down every one of them. If I am not being hired by the subject I am photographing or if I am not covering them doing whatever it is that makes them famous then I say no. Famous people being photographed doing what it is that makes them famous is not the same as famous people being stalked in their private lives so someone else can make a buck.
I had a friend when I was younger that became a pretty successful musician and later ended up becoming a victim of heroin and died of an OD. At his funeral, the family did all they could to keep media away so they could mourn in peace.
One of the photographers who disregarded the families requests showed up and got into a verbal altercation with his mother saying how he "had a right to cover whatever he wanted." I got see first hand the incredible suffering his mom went through over this on top of what was already a very terrible situation.
There is no amount of money in the world that would make it worth it to me to cause someone that much added pain. I can't control what others do but I can control my own actions and if that means losing and assignment or not making a ton of money, then so be it. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 6:38 PM on 09.27.09 |
->> Joe, I think they should answer to the Costa Rican legal system.
Kevin, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think these guys caused any "pain" to MR & Mrs Brady. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|