fbpx

DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

Submit A Story

Photographer sues Bruno Mars for sharing a childhood photo of himself on social media

by 137 Comments

Most of us have posted childhood photos of ourselves on social networks. However, singer Bruno Mars is facing a lawsuit for doing it. Photographer Catherine McGann is reportedly suing the singer for posting the photo of himself, which she took back in 1989.

 

The photo in question shows Bruno Mars being the world’s youngest Elvis impersonator. He was only four years old at the time, and he shared the photo as a part of the “Way Back Wednesday” craze. He posted it on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and it reached over 1.2 million likes on Instagram only.

As Daily Mail reports, the photographer is seeking royalties for the photo she took, claiming that the singer never contacted her for permission. Reportedly, she has filed a lawsuit against both Bruno and his record label, Warner Music. She seeks damages and the profits they earned from her photo on Mars’ social media.

Now, I think that the rules need to be the same for everyone. The photo belongs to the photographer, and you should ask for the permission before you post it on social media (even if you’re a famous musician). But on the other hand, this photo was taken 28 years ago. Since the singer was only 4 at the time, it’s possible that he didn’t even know who exactly had taken it. I know I can’t remember who, besides dad, took all the photos of me when I was a kid. Anyway, I find this case very unusual, and I’m curious to know how it will end.

[via FStoppers, Daily Mail, image credits: Brothers Le]

Related posts:

Nike Files to Dismiss Air Jordan Logo Copyright Lawsuit Photographer sues model Gigi Hadid over unpermitted instagram post CBS sues photographer for posting screenshots of 1958 TV show on social media Rob Whitworth and Selina Miles Accuse Nike of Copying Their Work with Latest Neymar Video

  • 😑

  • Doh… So anyone who buys a pic a family pic can’t share it later in life without permission should they get famous …. Great thinking .. what an ass

    • He can’t. And he must not. Period. Everyone you uses a photo without mentioning the photographer is a fucking douchebag.

    • Dieter Greven does that include friends and family and all photos over the whole of time ? Think about it .. this is someone trying to make a buck on someone else hard work .. that is all .. typical me me me ..

    • So…a stranger offered to take a photo of me, hubby and my mom when we were on holiday (with my camera). I shared to fb and ig. I should have asked her name so I could credit her? Damn…

    • Damned straight Nicole Phillips go back and get before they sue ..

    • The photographer controls the usage rights to images they create. This is actually very important law, and it’s a shame people don’t understand it. Yes, you cannot share images that you didn’t create without permission

    • Travis they better get the share button stopped on Facebook then …

    • The photographer controls the rights … 🤔🤔🤔 Anyone asked Ansell if he minds his being shared ?.. better ask his family or stop it immediately..

    • Mark Helm the share button is sharing the original content as produced by the photographer, not a copy. This has been decided in court cases. Please don’t comment on things that you don’t know the answer to.

    • Travis Gauthier please don’t tell me what tondo online .. if you don’t understand it don’t use it derrrrrr… My point is that many images over time the photog has passed .. do we ask their family ? .. this image is probably a daily picture ? If so are we allowed to share portraits of our families from bygone days ? Unless we mention the tog .. what if we can’t remember their name you arrogant moron….

    • Yes. Copyrights, like all intellectual property rights are of value and pass on to heirs. You’ll need more than mention a photographer, you’ll need to pay the owner of the copyright.

    • Travis Gauthier and people wonder why photographers are dying out …… Because certain ones are money grabbing morons .. if this was average Joe she/ he wouldn’t have batted an eyelid … Get over yourself .. we all have images that get shared .. commercial usage is the issue not personal sharing ….

    • Speaking of:
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ansel-adams-the-lost-negatives-and-a-200m-lawsuit-2244107.html

      This specifically concerns the exact photographer you were talking about. Although you misspelled his name.

    • Lost content… Not same as well known images .. what if the tog is less famous ? Would it even be a case ?

    • I think you are deliberately mixing up fame and notereity with everyday .. there are loads of cases the, band that used an image without reference or payment .. not same .. does he even know the photographer? In this ? But you’ll happily claim he’s in wrong.. was he credited when she / he uses the image before he became famous ? Did they have a model release ?

    • Well, I’d like any excuse to return to the Amalfi coast. Lol. She was Scottish, so maybe I’ll stumble over her when we go to Scotland next year! 😉😝

    • Exactly. He didn’t sell it. He shared it.

    • The law needs common sense and only when you get an average Joe being harassed will that happen . It’s only these headline money grabbers that make news . Sadly photo theft is a thing and that’s why people splat watermarks .. the only people that say you shouldn’t tend to be those wishing to nick .. or the photogs hoping to cash in

    • That’s the same. He made a copy to his social media. It was not shared from the photographer.

    • 🙄🙄🙄🙄 I wonder if you’d be so voiciferous if it was a “nobody” being charged … Or if families yoi shoot stop sharing just in case…

    • My point being, that’s not up to me, you, Bruno Mars or anyone else but the photographer and or copyright holder.

    • Travis Gauthier actually it’ll be up to the courts and effect everyone all because of the greed …. But hey tomatoe tomato

    • A person not wanting to be stolen from is greed?

    • Hardly stoeln when the photo is already in his possession who says ut hasn’t been bought already ? The fact is he shared one and didn’t give free advertising to someone

    • Mark Helm Look man, you obviously don’t have an understanding about copyright law. Possession of a copy of a work does not give mean someone can reproduce the image as they please. He copied it to his own social media for his own financial gain without permission of the copyright holder.

    • Actually I do have a clue hi laws need updating with the times oddly enough and this proves it … What financial gain has he made from that image lol ?????

  • Going for the $$$.

    • Perhaps but after 28 yrs, pre-fame, I don’t know… A picture of a child, his parents presumably paid for? I don’t know, sounds a bit grabby…

    • Deserve for what, Travis?

      Do you go spray and pray at every kid’s talent show hoping one of them has a few number #1 records someday so YOU can cash in on their fame?

    • Seems Travis is “one of those”… photograph them all, one might be a start one day so you can hunt him/her for money.

  • The photographer wouldn’t ha e batted an eyelid if it were a regular Joe, but as Bruno has a good few quid in the bank, he’s going to sue. But transparent why the photographer is doing g it.

    • Bingo

    • Bruno Mars is making tons of money on PR using a photo he does not have the right to use. This photographer will win.

    • Yeah but it’s a bit petty, as in from when he was a kid, I’m all against copywrite theft but this just seems like a way to make a quick buck and a bit more publicity.

    • Some things appreciate in value, some don’t

    • Sometimes a photographer sees dollar signs and gets greedy. I bet he is suing for over a million too?

    • Travis Gauthier what’s you connection? Seem very passionate do you have a backlog of images you are hoping will be used eventually? If so I hope the law finds in Bruno’s favour and says trying to grab money off his hard work is wrong …. He didn’t know he’d be famous back then .. nor did the photog .. end of .. only o e is trying to cash in …

    • My connection is that I’m a professional photographer with an interest and knowledge of copyright cases. This photographer has a right to control their work and her lawsuit will serve as example and potential legal precedent. By standing up for her rights and ownership, she’s standing up for all photographers that would have their work stolen. He (or his PR staff) is profiting off her hard work, not the other way around. He was famous back then that’s why she took his photo.

    • So am I Travis, but it’s rediculous.

  • This is why no one takes Photographers serious anymore… whos the retard that took the pic and is now trying to get rich?

    • This is very basic copyright law.

    • So that means that if i want to share a school pic taken by whoever took it 30+ years ago I now have to go hunt for him and ask permission? Even if I did it the poor guy would be laughing is ass off and look at me like if I was a retard…

    • Depends on how old, but, Yes. You can not reproduce images that you don’t own the rights to reproduce. That’s simple copyright law.

    • I reproduce/share/do whatever the f*** I want with all pics that im the Main interest… care less what any law will say, especially if im a Kid when those were taken.

    • Well good for you. But, understand that you are breaking copyright law and open up yourself to potential lawsuits.

    • No im not… If you took a pic of me when I was like 5-6 and I decided to share it why the heck do I even have to ask permission for it? If I want to write a book and use that pic of me in there do you really think me or anyone else would pay the photographer?

      Theres a common sense in here that you seem to fail in getting.

      She is only asking for money because he is famous, if he was me or joe whatever she could care less.

      Also was that pic a paid Pro Photoshot? In what circunstances was that pic taken? A wedding? A birthday party? Its a generic crap photo anyone can take actually.

      This kind of stupid stunts hurt more Photographers than it helps. After this anyone that knows the story will never allow Pics without becoming the full owner of them… heck I wouldn’t. Want to be my Photographer for Ceremony A or B? Sure but all pics are mine to do whatever I want, dont agree? Next!!!!

      Usually this shit happen the other way around.. Person X was a no one when they were new, took a bunch of nudes or silly pics, after being famous Photographer sells them for Thousands or Millions at crap Magazine/Newspaper and the person in that Pic gets nothing…

    • Marco Peixoto , The photographer owns the copyright to images taken and can control where they are reproduced and ask whatever compensation they want for reproduction rights. No pay, no rights.

    • Sure… if it was a paid PRO Photoshot. Take a candid Photo like this was was and go say that to any court. In Europe they judge would punish you for wasting their valuable time with stupid shit.

  • Bogdan Iorga

    No the photo does not belong to the photographer exclusivley. The photo is as much as much property of the photographer and as much as is porperty of the subject in it. The photographer can not use a photo without the consent of the subject. And the subject can not use the photo withou the consent of the photographer. This is reciprocal, it can’t be only one way.

    • Jayson Carey

      Legally, that is not at all true.

  • Frank Nazario

    Suing as the first options is not good business… did she approach them and was denied or flat out ignored?
    Even though it does not say in the article but was the photo taken as a commercial photo promoting the kid or was it just a personal photo taken by the photographer in the spur of the moment.
    The photo involves a minor… did the photographer asked his dad for permission to photo his kid or was this at a public event.

    Too many questions in the air… still suing as your first approach always ends in a long battle and at the end the “photo income” usually ends in the lawyers hands. Also, remember that when you go to court you need to bring two bags of money… one to receive (the one you are looking for) but also the one to give ( usually ends up being MUCH more than you thought in case you loose), you see those lawyers on Bruno’s side are VERY VERY expensive and you might get hit with those fees on the loosing side.

    I have a love/hate relation with courts… that is why I dont like the suing part.

  • Did she get permission from his parents to take the photo or was it just a photo op and she didn’t have him sign a release? Shameon her.

    • Unless it’s for commercial use, a model release is not needed.

    • So no model release = no right to the picture? Or can anyone still make money off unreleased picture?

    • The rules were different 20+ years ago. If she took the photo with the intent to sell it, obtained a copyright, she should have protected herself with getting permission from the parents of the child and a model release because he was a child – no matter who he became. She owns the negative but to sue him because he put it on his social media as a memory of his childhood is ridiculous. He’s not famous because she took his photo. She should be happy with the publicity it got, if it got any. As a photographer, I would not take a photo of a child without written permission and signed model release or contract if I wanted to sell the photo.

    • The laws were no different twenty years ago concerning copyright.

    • I wasn’t talking just copyright but protection of children against exploitation is very different now. Every major stock site now requires a model release for every age of person and parental permission for children even if they are not easily recognizable. I ran into this recently when I put a holiday photo of my deceased mother with my dog on one of the stock sites. It wasn’t rejected but they won’t publish the photo until I provide a signed release from her. A little hard to get now. At the time I took it, I didn’t think of getting a release from her. She died shortly after the photo was taken. In this day and age, I now ask for model releases from anyone I take a photo of so if and when I want to use it, I have their permission. It’s common sense to protect yourself.
      Editorial photos don’t need releases but they also bring in less sales.

    • What we have here is an editorial photo being used for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder. Likeness rights have nothing to do with it.

    • It appears Bruno was working as an Elvis impersonator so one would guess that the parents gave permission, a 4 year old can’t go out and get work for themselves….

    • It’s obviously a press photo — no release necessary for editorial/news images.

  • The photographer is the author of the photo. He alone determines how and where the photo may be published. Period.

    • Not quite,, The IP holder also has to obtain authority for an image other than for journalism. There are also laws which determines what constitutes journalistic purposes.

    • Unless it’s sold to the family and they share it as memory? Or do we stop that now?

    • Depends on what was basically agreed with the customer and the type of usage rights.

    • Unless it’s commercial uses, like selling a product with the image, the photographer has the right to do with it as they please.

    • ^ THIS ^
      however, you’re right Mark, Bruno should be able to post a picture of himself. it wasn’t for capital gain, which is usually where problems can arise with images designed for personal use.

    • Everything Bruno Mars does is for capital gain, this photo drives traffic boosts his celebrity and = $$$
      Bruno Mars is making money off the photographer’s work he didn’t pay for, pretty plain and simple.

    • Travis Gauthier no, the photographer is being a money grubbing whore. It’s a picture taken 30 years ago of a kid.

    • Josiah McLaughlin I don’t agree with Travis, but there’s no need to resort to pejoratives.

    • Michael Johnson I’m sorry, it was taken 28 years ago. My bad.

    • How did mr Mars obtain the image? Was it in his files? Was it in the public domain already? Dont I have ownership of my own image? Can anyone else profit from MY image without my consent?

    • Gary Graeff likeness rights only come into play with commercial uses, like selling a product. This is actually a really important first amendment protection. Politicians or anyone else featured in news stories could claim likeness rights.

    • So Mr Mars made no profit nor did he intend to. His cute image did not make me purchase his product

    • Every image a celebrity puts out there drives traffic which equals clicks, notoriety, and $ales

    • In that light the photog has a claim

    • I suspect this would fall under fair use.

    • No. It does not fall under fair use.

    • I would tend to defer to Travis on this as it is his life’s work

    • If an image of me by another boosted my nonexistant fame I would make a commitment to fairly compensate that image maker. Art is art is art and we must help each other flourish

    • I have a great image of you Gary Graeff, hurry up and get famous! 😂

    • Im both working on it and actively avoiding it😆😆😆

    • As a system integrator, if photographer thinks he can just take a picture of a system I built and not get my release to use it he is incorrect. my art is just as much art as his.

    • Travis Gauthier It does.

  • I can just see how this is going to be played out…
    “Dear Photographer, did you secure the right model release and license usage with Mr Mars upon delivering the media to him? Was he also capable of comprehending the legal implications of not abiding by this license agreement at the age of 4. Are you aware that Mr. Mars has the legal right to sue you for also publishing his likeness without authority and that you are in breach of laws concerning photographing and distributing imagery of minors?”

    • And in this case I hope he does

    • There’s no such thing as likeness rights for non-commercial usage

    • Exactly. So much #this

    • Travis Gauthier there can be. Always safe to get a model’s release should the possibility arise, or be resigned to no claim to commercial use. No models release, no commercial use.

    • I do believe Travis has a glut of images of folks he either knows or hopes will become famous that he is waiting for them to be used lol

    • “Mr. Mars has the legal right to sue you for also publishing his likeness without authority” Boy that would be a very dangerous world to live in.

  • The problem may hinge on the fact that the photographer’s work was used to make money for the singer and record label.

    • Daniel Shortt

      doubtful, it’s not like its an album cover. it’s just an insta post… They could argue that the profits of it are 0 there for the greedy tog gets nothing.

    • Not really, the photograph isn’t worth anything itself, any value it has now is because of Bruno’s career.

    • The photo has value because of his career, that value belongs to the photographer

  • As a photographer with a heavy heart I say screw the photographer. She is just taking advantage of his celebrity to try and extort some money out of him. Hope he sues her back.

    • Adam Sternberg

      Sues her back for what, NOT copyright infringement? She is within her legal rights to sue him, if she even is (it’s speculatory at this point). I’m not saying what she is doing is morally right, but she is within her legal right to go after him. Also, this is a very poorly written clickbait article where you don’t know all sides to the story.

    • Adam Sternberg

      Sues her back for what, NOT copyright infringement? She is within her legal rights to sue him. I’m not saying what she is doing is morally right, but she is within her legal right to go after him. Also, this is a very poorly written clickbait article where you don’t know all sides to the story.

    • Motti Bembaron

      Absolutely agree. And I am a photographer. I said it before that it will get out of hand and it did and continue to do so until better and more strict royalties rules are in place. If the court has any common sense (they usually don’t), they will throw it out the window.

      This is a great example of someone who just want to extort money. What damages exactly? Did she even look at this photo in the past 28 years? Ask the singer to add your credential, I am sure he will have no problem doing so and go on with your life.

      But no, here is a great way to make money :-(.

  • At very least give photographer credit for taking. That’s about it.

    • Credit is worthless. The copyright to the image has value

    • Would he necessarily even know swing as that the photo was taken when he was four

  • I hope Bruno wins, 28 yo photo licensing agreements don’t last that long, after 20 years or so it no longer matters, she is a douche probably broke as shit trying to pay for Christmas, this isn’t the way you do it bish…

    • 1- I doubt this was a photo session. 2- where is the photographers copy write logo? I’m sure if someone shared a life touch photo then no one would care because of the context. It’s the same thing.

    • Having a watermark makes no difference. A photograph is copyrighted by the creator when the shutter is pressed.

  • Tj Ó Seamállaigh

    I’m a photographer or so i claim to be, but this is silly.
    On a commercial basis, when you take a photo of a “model” you are requested to get a release so you can use the photo in specific events and occasions, not vice versa.

  • Pure greed.

  • DIY Photography is also sharing and using TWO Bruno Pics on a website that makes money… should any of the Photographers and even Bruno be compensated for it? Also seems NONE of the pics are even saying who the Photographer was.

  • I’m wondering if it matters on where Bruno got the picture from? If he got it from a family album or among family pictures thinking it was just another picture not knowing a photographer took it. I want to see how this ends. Very interesting. Might even set a precedent.

  • After reading the coments, i feel sorry to see so many people ( photographers, I assume since this is a photo page) who just do not understand the very basic of IP law. Do youself a fevour, do some basic reading of the law before you post.

  • Capital Gain:
    PR isn’t capital Gain. You are not making a taxable income from PR & Marketing, therefore it isn’t capital gain.

    • Rick

      This is more than just PR. Celebrities generate income from their social media accounts from the paid advertising that is piggybacked.

  • Should read, “photographer, irrelevant for years, tries to gain relevancy by suing Bruno Mars for using childhood photo”

    • The photographer is actually a well known celebrity photographer

    • okay, irrelevant to me. I revise my statement. Just seems kind of pointless.

  • It seems the internet and smartphones have complicated greatly a once straightforward concept…again

  • DIYPhotography is deleting comments defending the photographer, so I’ll say this and bow out.

    Do you think that Bruno Mars would like his songs used for profit of someone else without his permission and paying for usage?

    No, I think not. Copyright law exists to protect the rights of maker of works, so they can control and, yes, profit off their works. It’s incredibly important.

    • Please take some time and learn about Copyright Law, it protects creative professionals. http://www.ppa.com/content.cfm?ItemNumber=1720

    • Travis Gauthier It can be taken too far. Photographers often think they own the rights to any picture they take – even when they were hired to take them.

      In this case, she might fully own the copyright, if she got a release from his parents, and wasn’t paid to take these photos.

      FWIW: I bet the design of the back seat, and some of those clothes are copyrighted also.

    • Unless there is a specific work for hire agreement, as in you are on the clock for an employer under contract, the photographer owns the copyright. Being paid as a freelancer is not such an agreement.

    • John Mora Model releases and copyright law are separate things. A model release is needed if someone’s likeness is being used to sell a third product only.

    • Not sure what you mean by a “specific work for hire agreement”.
      If you were paid to take a picture, the person who paid you owns those rights, as that work was commissioned. When you hire a wedding photographer the copyright on those images would belong to the person who hired the photographer, unless they had a contract specifying otherwise.

    • Sorry John Mora, you are incorrect. It’s exactly opposite.

    • Only because photographers choose to misunderstand copyright law. Somehow insisting that they are neither employed, commissioned or hired to take the photos in the first place.

      (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
      (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned

      Please explain how someone can pay you to come do a specific job, but not hire or employ you.

      Please explain how someone can hire you to you to take photos of their event and in your mind, that doesn’t count as being hired, or commissioned ?

      Sorry you Photographers abuse copyright.

    • Contract labor is not a work for hire situation.

    • John Mora, it’s just legally not. A specific contract is required to transfer Intellectual property like copyrights. If you hire a painter to paint a portrait you don’t automatically own the rights to reproduce it at your heart’s content.

  • Paul Willy Brown

    Unless you are a copyright lawyer, don’t try to play one on an internet forum.
    Right and wrong, ethical, fairness, common sense – those things do not apply.

    Start up cost to defend this suit will be around $10,000. Photographer will get half that to go away.

  • Adam Sternberg

    All the people in here saying the photographer is greedy and shouldn’t be suing him are probably the first to scream and yell and demand blood when someone steals one of their photos. LOL

  • If I was BM I would never show up to court and I would just say f*** it all arrest me if you will I’m not showing up to that b*******

  • I’m all for photographers rights but this kind of stuff works against photographers and just makes us look like greedy jerks. Since it was used on social media and not necessarily part of a formal promotional campaign, and wasn’t published in any real media outlet, unless she can show that she sent Mars a cease and desist letter and he still refused to take the photo down, I don’t know if this case is really going anywhere.

  • davv

    this is a moneygrab
    she even added a picture from that day on her portfolio
    https://catherinemcgann.photoshelter.com/index/G0000zjwd5z54v3I/I00006y_GCHpxs9s
    how did bruno get a hold of that picture ? its obvious, his dad paid for the shoot or something.
    i bet that’s what gonna get out of that lawsuit. he acquired the picture and lawfully used it.
    duh.

    • Nostalgic Memories

      She is actually gaining from Bruno’s image by showing it as her primary title page of her photography website. Does she have permission from Bruno to do that???? bet not.. she’s publicly exposing this image for HER GAIN and HER recognition as a photographer..So who else is using this photo for profit.. Bruno… no.. Big deal she took a photo of a Kid that looked like Elvis..My neighbor does the same thing for Halloween… Maybe he’ll be a tribute artist as well or just famous.. Maybe.. hope hope hope..

  • Kuba Stachu

    Wasn’t she compensated back when the photo was taken? Was she robbed? What are her actual claims?

  • Sherry

    I am all for the photographer, she is well within her rights. If you don’t make a stand they’ll run all over you, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Celebrity or not, BM shouldn’t be able to to get by with it just because he’s a celebrity, so what.
    BM, ha, ha, get it, B-M, very funny 😆

  • Nostalgic Memories

    She (the photographer) is using the photo in question for her title page for her photography website. Does she have permission from
    Bruno to do that???? bet not.. she’s publicly exposing this image for
    HER GAIN both for notoriety and profit, and HER recognition as a photographer, of celebrities (by accident probably)..So who is using
    this photo for profit.. Bruno… no.. Big deal she took a photo of a
    Kid that looked like Elvis at that timr..My neighbor does the same thing for
    Halloween… Maybe he’ll be a tribute artist as well or just famous..
    Maybe.. hope hope hope Bruno good luck and hope it goes smoothly.. I do know that I take many photos of famous people, mostly for the artist to use as he/she wishes free of charge.. I’m not looking for notoriety, I do it for pleasure.. I give the images to the artists, that’s where the pride come into as payment. They in turn use the images as they wish, however if used publicly for sale or used as an album cover.. it ‘s another issue..

  • Nostalgic Memories

    Actually her page only features Music. She is paparazzi, as she says “I photograph situations I’m thrown into that would be called Paparazzi Events” for “The Village Voice” newspaper ” The image she captured AKA Bruno Mars doesn’t even feature him as THE main subject..This is definately not a “sitting portrait” to be used for hopes of public sales. He happens to be sitting next to the featured subject, who knows who,.. dressed as tribute artist but obviously the main feature captured.. Bruno is only accidentally a secondary feature in the pic. Many call them “LUCKY SHOTS” Background per sai. Taken 2009 of a child sitting in a car, Candidly
    https://catherinemcgann.photoshelter.com/index/G0000zjwd5z54v3I/I00006y_GCHpxs9s
    She began her career in ’86
    her website https://catherinemcgann.photoshelter.com/index/G0000zjwd5z54v3I/I00006y_GCHpxs9s BTW other artists are also featured.. Did she do the same thing with them as well??? For instance Aretha Franklin in 1993 along with Smoky Robinson, Boy George ’93, Courtney Love’s butt ’95, Johnny Cash older shot not id’ed. LL Cool J ’88, Peggy Lee ’88, Ertha Kit, B52’s, Green Day ’87, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Kenny G ’93 and Ted Nugent and son (is she gonna sue his son as well?) Grace Jones while she’s hiding her face.. true sample of paparazzi style she calls her work “Snatched Shots”
    Lots of unknown casual shots of unknows as well She does point out in some of her work that some are portrait sessions but even those are from way back..87 There’s an interesting magazine article about paporatsy on her site. https://catherinemcgann.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Press/G0000vzidRLKyO8c/I0000Y9IB0c5e2jk

    Bottom Line I think this paparazzi photographer should check in with my close friend Bill Hale and learn how to photograph celebrities/music artists ethically.. ( standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:) Go To https://www.tavana808.com/news/legendary-rock-metal-photographer-bill-hale or any other site for Bill Hale Photography.. He surely does not succeed via Law Suits.. He does this type of photography with ethics.

Recent Posts