Monday July 13, 2015 15:52
Kim Kardashian, a shrewd mind atop a series of famous curves, may be threatening a lawsuit against a paparazzi agency, according to TMZ. The gossip outlet says that Kardashian’s lawyer sent a letter to notorious pap agency X17 (their Britney Spears coverage years ago was top-flight bottom-feeding), “claiming the company is hawking pics that were taken in a helicopter hovering over Kim’s Hidden Hills home.” The lawyer, Marty Singer, allegedly alleges (such phrases we get to use these days!) that the photos were illegal, as the photographer was using a telephoto lens from the helicopter. That’s not allowed, I guess!
TMZ says that Singer also claims that X17 is lying about the content of the photos-Kardashian was not naked, as X17 suggested; she was wearing a bikini, but covered herself with a towel once she saw the iron hummingbird in the sky, hovering over her. Which any sane person would do! Granted, one would likely have to be slightly less than sane to be in a situation where people are photographing you with telephoto lenses from helicopters, but that’s a matter for another day. The point is, Kim Kardashian’s lawyer says that X17 done goofed on several levels, which would not be surprising at all.
Apparently X17 may have realized their goofery, as they’ve taken the photos off their site and, one would think, burned them in a cauldron, then poured the ashes into a field, then buried the ashes, and then salted the earth around the ashes so nothing will grow in that accursed spot for a hundred years. As is traditionally how one rids oneself of paparazzi photos that have potentially violated some law, bond, oath, blood promise, or witch’s bargain.
Here’s my question, though: a faraway photo of Kim Kardashian nude by the pool. Is that . . . Why is that so necessary? Why is it worth a helicopter? I realize I’m being naïve here-people will always want naked photos of other people, especially famous other people, forever-but, to mangle an oft-used and horribly anti-woman phrase, hasn’t the cow, so to speak, already given this particular milk away for free? Which is a gross way of saying that Kim Kardashian, who is no cow, has willingly published plenty of bikini photos, nude photos, whatever, of herself, so why the scramble to fly a helicopter over her house and get some sneaky, blurry new ones? It doesn’t make sense to me! But then again, I am not the target audience for this sort of thing. Still, from my perspective, it seems like we’ve seen all there is to see on that front. If Kim Kardashian wants to release more photos on her own, then great, always interesting to see what she has to say about herself. Beyond that? A big Fred Armisen-as-Joy Behar “Who cares?” to the whole thing.
I mean, if we simply must accept the premise of an inevitably prying, unseemly world, one in which we can do nothing but embrace the fact that certain people will always be the objects of our lewd fascinations, then let’s at least commission the nudes we really want, and perhaps even need. No more Kim Kardashian. Where are our Edward Snowden nudes? (“No, leave the glasses on.”) I’m sure the N.S.A. has them, but we don’t! Where are the much-coveted Chris Hayes snaps, the long-sought-after John Oliver pics? I am in no way encouraging anyone to go out and take nude photographs of these people. I’m just saying that some people are never photographed naked, people I would much rather see naked at this point than Kim Kardashian. No offense to Kim Kardashian, it’s just that, y’know, the thrill of the new is what we’re always after, isn’t it?
So go steer your choppers elsewhere, if you must. And Mr. Snowden, if you hear helicopters overhead, don’t worry. It’s not some shadowy authority coming to get you. It’s just us, hovering and hovering and hovering, trying to see what you’ve got.
- Category: Uncategorized
- Comments Off