I just caught the very end of Australian Story on the ABC tonight. If you missed it, it was about a paparazzi snapper who was taken to court after taking shots of "our Nic" and what I gather is, he lost. The final credits mentioned that he estimated the cost of fees etc was over a million dollars, and his wife said she had to now work seven days a week to make ends meet and pay off the bills.

But as he said, despite the decision by the judge, he was still free to sit outside her house and take photographs, and in a weird twist, there was footage of security guards also taking video of the paparazzi, often at face to face level!

Bizarre.

I once had the opportunity to take a photo, around 15 years ago, that would / could - who knows - have made me some decent folding stuff. Through a set of circumstances out of my control, I ended up flying 1st class back from Las Vegas to Sydney on Continental Airlines, and the only other person in 1st class with me was a prominent sportsman, revered in one state and hated in another.

The opportunity I had, was to take a photograph of this person smoking, a fact if the "other side" had got hold of, I have no doubt would have contributed to a huge media stink and public backlash considering the profile of the person. There had been a precedent a few years before with cricketing great Rod Marsh.
Did I take the shot?

No. I don't consider I have the right to potentially end someone's career for the sake of a few bucks. Was it news? No.

Similarly, a very good mate SMS'd me some years back from a race track. He had just taken the photo of the last seconds of a dying man in a race car accident, literally by accident. He was obviously distraught, despite being a long term professional in this game. His question was "do I publish?".

My answer, from afar was "does the public NEED to see this? Is it news?" The answer to the first is a resounding "no" in my eyes. The second is a yes, but words can better portray that. What does a photo add except morbidity?

Finally, and maybe this is where this ethic came from in my case. My late father was a part time photo-journalist for a country newspaper and his photographic studio was directly next to the major rail line that went through the town we lived in. The main street with boom gates crossed the railway line, and one morning in the mid sixties, the thrice daily express came through, the boom gates failed, and a car with mum, dad and kids was cleaned up.

No survivors.

As my Dad refused to photograph the accident as in his words "I live in this town (of 2000 people) and these are my friends and neighbours", he was fired.

I would have done the same thing.

So do the paparazzi act as leaches, feeding on the frenzy of an adoring public that just cannot get enough of their favourite stars? Is this creative work, or simply opportunistic rubbish? Do you NEED to be a good photographer to get these shots, or just a patient person with enough money to buy honking long lenses for rapid fire cameras?

WHat do you think? Do you agree, disagree or couldn't care less? I'd love to know.