h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A few celebrities like the attention of the paparazzi. This half-baked idea is not for them. Rather, it’s for those celebrities that would love nothing more than to shoot them. For these celebrities I propose attacking instead the one thing these so-called reporters treasure more than their lives- their
super-expensive telephoto-lensed cameras. Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating just a tad, but bear with me.
Repeated camera destruction will not do well for said photographer’s job prospects (if employed), or personal finances (if freelance). So what I’m proposing is this: have celebrities arm themselves with a water-gun full of disappearing-ink. Water-balloons can work well too. Shooting these at nearby paparazzi will stun and temporarily disable them without actually causing any permanent damage, as the ink will eventually become transparent and can be easily cleaned off. However, if the paparazzi are really getting on your nerves (and you have a really good lawyer on hand), you might want to get a sprayer with some sticky oily substance that can’t be cleaned off so easily from lenses. This latter approach will be a great deterrent for others photographers thinking of following in their footsteps, as well as being much more satisfying and fun for the celebrity.
Finally, the question arises how to protect oneself from a stealthy hiding-in-the-hedges paparazzo (the singular form of paparazzi). The answer here is surrounding ones property with motion detectors which trigger a fine mist of the sticky oily substance mentioned above into the air (assumed to be non-toxic and bio-degradable). This latter case is also on a somewhat better legal footing, since the mist originated on private property.
Paparazzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paparazzi
[imho, Jul 30 2009]
[link]
|
| |
I reckon latex paint would be the way to go - difficult to clean off when wet, but if they wait for it to dry (use a slow-drying variety, of course...) it can be peeled off.
(There's always the high-powered flash bulb - temporary blindness and a destroyed CCD in the camera will really ruin their shots.) |
|
| |
Actually, you can and will be held responsible for the action of
the wind. If a painter uses a spray gun on the side of a house
and the wind carries it across the property line and discolors a
neighbor's house or vehicle, the painter is held responsible for
the damage. The same principle would apply to your oily mist
dispenser. Also consider that many legal cases wherein
celebrities have damaged a journalist's camera have resulted in
judgements requiring the celebrity to pay back the cost of the
super-expensive telephoto-lensed cameras, and if your mist
infiltrates to the camera's innards and causes damage, you'll get
sued and lose. |
|
| |
OK, I agree that one can be found responsible for the action of the wind in principle. However, if a cameraman chooses to ignore all the warning signs on the fence, and deliberately takes his expensive camera into an area with a sticky mist cloud, his case for seeking damages might not be as clear cut at you may think. Certainly a good defense lawyer can drag such a case for far longer than a typical photographer can afford. |
|
| |
Sorry, this is one of those few cases that I find it very difficult to sympathize with the "little guy." |
|
| |
Provided it stays on your property, I guess it's ok... but an
automated, motion-activated water sprinkler would take care of
the camera just as effectively as most of those expensive
cameras aren't waterproof, and is already Baked. I shudder to
think about how the EPA would react to spraying oil everywhere. |
|
| |