From Photo District News, September 2006

Meet the Payolarazzi

Secret setups. Million-dollar price tags. Deals to keep unflattering images out of sight. Is star power wringing the journalism out of celebrity photography?

By Daryl Lang

In the spring of 2005, a paparazzo peered through a long lens and fired off several frames of a couple strolling on the beach. The pictures, proving that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were vacationing together in Kenya, netted hundreds of thousands of dollars for London photo agency Big Pictures, which had paid a tipster for information on where to find the couple.

A year later, Jolie and Pitt made sure this would not happen again. When their daughter was born, the celebrity couple took extraordinary steps to shield her from photographers. In a still-mysterious deal with Getty Images, Jolie and Pitt licensed their baby pictures for millions—making them, by all accounts, the most expensive photos ever sold.

To some in the business, the Jolie-Pitt baby shoot was a fluke, "a one-off," as WireImage president Kevin Mazur puts it.

But no one was surprised to see stars managing their own photo coverage and distribution. This type of arrangement, a blend of paparazzi, celebrity portraiture and public relations, has become a small but steady business for some photo agencies. Call them the payolarazzi.

A number of successful celebrity photographers plainly admit to striking deals with stars and their publicists, quashing unflattering images and occasionally faking shots that look candid.

Granted, empires do not rise and fall on Tom Hanks's hair or Scarlett Johansson's cleavage. But as photo prices reach unheard-of heights, the images that readers see are increasingly subject to manipulation and spin.

Ask Big Pictures founder Darryn Lyons—who has ventured beyond buying tips to working hand-in-hand with the stars—if he considers what he does journalism, and he laughs. "This is show business, buddy."

* * * *

Lyons is himself a TV star. Sporting a candy-red mohawk, he appears in a reality show called Paparazzi on BBC Three.

Off-screen, a growing portion of Lyons's business is what he calls "friendly paparazzi."

As Lyons explains it, some celebrities hire Big Pictures as a media consultant, paying a monthly retainer. The stars cooperate with Big Pictures photographers on "setups"—staged images that look like paparazzi shots. The stars then receive a kickback from the sale of the images. Lyons is coy about which stars he works with, but Big Pictures has a strong presence in the U.K., which seems to have evolved an entire new social class of reality TV stars.

In some cases, celebrities approach Big Pictures when they realize the agency has access to embarrassing photos. They'll buy the rights to the images to be sure they are never published.

"What normally would take place is that we would get a phone call.... 'Have you got these pictures? We know they've been taken, we want to do a deal to keep them off the market,' " Lyons says.

Meanwhile, Lyons is enthusiastically promoting a Web site called "Mr. Paparazzi," one of several new sites that solicit celebrity images from the public. On the site's home page, a cartoon of Lyons beckons visitors with a wad of cash.

Among the photos that Lyons has sold to publications through Mr. Paparazzi, he says, are images of Pitt, Pamela Anderson, David Beckham, "TV presenters in bikinis looking pretty awful on holidays" and "footballers' wives doing cocaine in the toilet."

Lyons, needless to say, is not universally loved. In an interview for this article, Los Angeles paparazzi king Frank Griffin cursed and threatened to hang up at the mere mention of Lyons's name. "Don't believe what Darryn Lyons says," Griffin huffs.

* * * *

Pure paparazzi-style setups are rare, says Griffin, one of the founders of the Bauer-Griffin photo agency. Among the few celebrities known to participate in setups are Ricky Martin and Jodie Foster, he says.

But increasingly common is the celebrity-authorized photo shoot, shopped around to magazines by brand-name photo agencies like Getty and WireImage. Weddings and baby pictures are the most common examples.

Jolie and Pitt took this practice to a whole new level with their baby pictures this spring. The family sequestered themselves at a resort in Swakopmund, Namibia, a remote African town where a very protective police force kept photographers at a distance.

Shortly after the birth of Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the proud parents invited a Getty photographer in for a private portrait shoot. Photos in hand, Getty summoned magazine editors to a series of auctions in cities around the world, where the image rights sold for record-shattering prices. The money was for charity, and Getty says in earned no revenue.

The photos grossed more than $10 million worldwide, according to widely repeated figures that appeared, unsourced, in The New York Post. People spent $4.1 million for the U.S. rights to the images, according to the Post. ("I know for a fact those numbers were completely false," says People director of photography Chris Dougherty, but he wouldn't drop any hints about the true figures.)

Even though one of the images leaked online before publication and others followed soon after, People and Getty basked in the publicity.

The paparazzi, including those who traveled to Namibia at great expense, were shut out. Some photographers sold images that didn't include Shiloh, but none scored the winning lottery ticket—the baby picture.

"We didn't get the baby but we did get enough to make it worthwhile," Griffin says. He's reluctant to do it again. "There's lots of other stuff that could make me good money rather than having lots of presence at the Pitt-Jolie household."

Now that the celebrity world has moved on to other pressing matters (like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes's baby), some basic facts about the Shiloh shoot remain a mystery.

Like, who took the picture. And where the money went.

Getty Images, which won the family's favor partly because it supports AIDS-related causes, is mum on both questions, though a spokesperson confirms that the shooter was indeed a Getty Images staffer. Sources who know the identity of the photographer have been sworn to secrecy.

The Jolie-Pitt family promised to give the windfall from the images to charity, but as of late July, the family still had not announced where the money will go, according to Pitt's publicist, Cindy Guagenti.

Selling a big photo shoot for charity has become the preferred model for celebrity baby photographs recently. Before baby Shiloh, Britney Spears and Kevin Federline sold an exclusive photo shoot of their first child, reportedly to benefit Hurricane Katrina victims.

* * * *

Having stars manage their own photo shoots does not sit well with tenacious celebrity photographers who are out in the field and, sometimes, out of the loop.

"For me, the war is on PR people," says New York celebrity photographer Steve Sands, whose work often shows up in the city tabloids. "I think they're responsible for all the evils that this business has endured, including greed and corruption."

At the moment, Sands is peeved that the publicists for Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin passed him over for the chance to photograph their second child, Moses. Sands says he was tipped off by Paltrow's publicist on when and where to get exclusive shots of their first child.

When Moses was born, the couple distributed their baby pictures through the 500-pound gorilla of celebrity photography, WireImage.

WireImage and its family of photo agencies—including FilmMagic, Contour Photos and DMIPhoto—are owned by parent company MediaVast, which occupies several floors of a skinny building with slow elevators in Manhattan's Flatiron District. Among WireImage's backers are Time Warner (which owns People) and Lions Gate Entertainment.

Kevin Mazur, who co-founded WireImage in 2001, got his start as a hobbyist taking pictures at concerts. "I was a ticket scalper and I used to shoot from the audience," he says. "I did it for the love. And it ended up being a job for me."

Since then, the agency has cemented itself as a powerful brand. WireImage gets much of its exclusive photography by striking deals to be the official photographer of celebrity events (including the Billboard Music Awards, which is presented by PDN parent company VNU). Other agencies also have event deals, but WireImage is the most notorious for the practice.

Unlike the major wire services, which follow ethical guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest, WireImage will buy access. At the Golden Globe Awards this year, most major photo services refused to pay a $1,200 fee levied by NBC for access to handout photos from the event. WireImage paid it.

Also unlike its journalistic counterparts, WireImage kills unflattering photos as a matter of practice.

"I'm a photographer. My name goes on the picture. I don't want a bad picture out there with my name on it," Mazur says.

As WireImage has grown, its detractors have accused it of dirty dealings, such as using the WireImage brand to distribute celebrity-friendly photos while selling embarrassing outtakes through the DMI brand.

"Doesn't happen," says Mazur. "We are very straight and very honest."

The prestige of the WireImage brand even appeals to the stars. In a CNN Presents special about paparazzi that aired earlier this year, Mariah Carey herself name-checked Mazur.

"I would definitely call Kevin," Carey told the TV interviewer. "Anytime I see him I want him to take my picture 'cause I know he'll do his best to capture a good moment."

Photographers are fond of Carey because she takes time at events to pause, smile and tilt her head for a good shot. Pretty much every picture of Carey looks good (and the same).

* * * *

In the U.S., the biggest buyers of celebrity photos are the glossy magazines like People, US Weekly, Star, In Touch Weekly and OK!.

Digital image files pour in by the thousands every day, fed into secure computer databases. The magazines usually pay pre-negotiated rates for images, but some noteworthy photos get auctioned off as exclusives.

The images most in demand are the ones that reveal news: sudden weight gains or weight losses, boob jobs, budding romances, engagement rings and new babies.

"We get a lot of reporting from photographers," says Michael Todd, director of photography for In Touch, among the most celebrity-friendly of the magazines. "I sort of consider myself a photo detective... I want the pictures to talk to me and sort of give me clues."

Todd says celebrities sometimes cooperate with photographers when they determine it is easier than being chased by paparazzi. The magazine trusts its photo agencies to be on the up-and-up about how the photos are obtained, he says. Only in cases in which a picture seems to have been obtained illegally or through excessive intrusion (from private property, for instance) does the magazine take a pass for ethical reasons.

Celebrity magazines are more than willing to deal with agencies that work closely with celebrities. In fact, they must if they hope to stay competitive.

"It's such a common part of the business now," says US Weekly director of photography Brittain Stone. "Everybody's doing it."

Readers don't seem to give it a second thought, and buy more than a million copies a week of US Weekly, Star, and In Touch.

But no other celebrity weekly has the critical mass of People, which sells, on average, 3.8 million copies a week—over twice as many as second-place US Weekly.

People tries to take the high road, treating celebrities kindly and mixing its entertainment coverage with gee-whiz features about everyday folks. The magazine famously does not pay for interviews.

Does paying celebrities (or their designated charities) for pictures mean People has a different ethical standard for photographs than for reporting? Dougherty, the People photo director, says no.

"Every magazine buys pictures from photo agencies," he says. "We're not really paying for access. We're not going to these people saying, 'Go do this for us.'"

As for the high prices, Dougherty says it's a competitive market and prices go up when there is heavy demand and interest. "It's not like we're setting up a high price to scare people away."

But as the top bidder on the Shiloh baby photos, People now shoulders much of the responsibility for letting celebrities control the content of photographs—and for the escalating price tags.

* * * *

"There's no money in journalism. The money is in celebrities," says photographer David Allocca, who shoots news and entertainment for The New York Post, among other clients. "You're not going to get a resale of [Senator] Chuck Schumer standing in front of a gas pump. But you will see them reselling pictures of J-Lo and Marc at the Puerto Rican Day parade."

In the CNN documentary on celebrity, WireImage's Mazur is presented as the good guy in contrast to Bauer-Griffin's aggressive crew of paparazzi. He plays the part well: the photographer who got into the business for the love of entertainment, who wants to show people at their best.

Still, there's something about Griffin and the paparazzi that seems to match the spirit of photojournalism. Set off flash bulbs to illuminate darkness, expose the excesses of wealth, knock the pretentious down a peg.

But this is not a story about journalism, and there are no heroes of integrity in this business.

Back to the subject of setups, Griffin says he is seldom offered the chance to do them, but he gladly would.

"The money's so big that even 50 percent of 50 grand for a couple of days' work isn't bad," he says. "I'd do it. I wouldn't feel guilty about it. I'd pay for information, I'd buy information. If someone comes to me and says, look, I'll do a setup, I don't have any moral problem with doing that."

* * * *

The Baby Billboard

When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's baby pictures were published, fans were apparently eager to dress their children in the same outfit.

It helped that there was a logo clearly readable on the sleeve of baby Shiloh's shirt. The shirt company was swamped with orders.

A lucky accident, or shrewd product placement? Publicist Ronn Torossian of 5W Public Relations took credit for placing the shirt in the hands of Jolie and Pitt. Torossian says he represents Belly Maternity, a Denver retailer that sells the shirts, which are designed by Kingsley Aaron.

Torossian says the product placement was done at no extra cost to his client, but refuses to explain how he pulled it off. Torossian's firm also represents some celebrities, but not Pitt or Jolie.

Other reports of outrageous product placements have surfaced before. A New York Daily News gossip column reported last year that coffee-guzzling couple Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner have a seven-figure endorsement contract to be seen and photographed drinking Starbucks. Starbucks denied it.

Movies and TV shows regularly include paid product placements. Are celebrity baby photos the next frontier?

© Copyright 2006 PDNOnline/VNU eMedia Inc.

Return to Daryl Lang's clips