6 Responses to “Out & About in West Hollywood”

1. Amanda

   November 29th, 2012

   I really hope you decide not to go candid-free. While sure, it’s invasive of the paparazzi to intrude on her personal life, I still just love seeing the photos. She’s so cute! And because (I assume) the site doesn’t PAY for the photographs (sorry if this is a misunderstanding), it isn’t actually funding the photogs in the first place, right? “Boycotting” the candids on a fansite isn’t going to really make a point to the paparazzi– they’re still going to be taking the photos because the gossip magazines (or whatever) will still be buying them, right?

2. RMCfan

   November 29th, 2012

   Photos that are intended for public distribution is all that I think should be presented. I admit I have looked at these photos but have felt uneasy about how this must make her feel being continuously accosted by photogs. Lets not provide fodder for these hounds that couldn’t care less abouting intruding on Rachel’s privacy.

3. Wendy

   November 30th, 2012

   idk, i saw that the ryan gosling’s fansite removed theirs, and while i agree with that decision i’m not sure about this one. ryan is an exception bc the paps LOVE him and he’s literally everywhere – though i love him and his george the dog – he’s just too “it guy” to really be a fair fan… if that make sense. rachel on the other hand, is almost always in toronto and idk, i feel that kinda protects her bc there are less paps in toronto so there wouldn’t be a great difference anyway. so yeah. i am undecided.

4. Wendy

   November 30th, 2012

   ^ to add: whereas pap photos would interfere more greatly in being a “fan” or the opinions of ryan gosling, i feel like rachel wouldn’t bc she’s so down-to-earth and low-key and lives-in-toronto-where-practically-nobody-bothers-her, her pap photos are just idk, -there-… wow i make no sense. but basically, i think i’m trying to talk about “protecting their public image”

   maybe there is a way to limit the number of pap photos. like only 1 post per month and keep adding them to the gallery, but don’t make individual posts about them until end of the month? idk.

5. Lindsey

   November 30th, 2012

   Thanks everyone who voted or left a comment. I am going to keep the poll up for a few more days, and I still haven’t made my final decision.

   @ Wendy – You make total sense to me, I always post candids because in general paps leave her alone. Like you said, she is so low-key and not really scandalous ;) She never expressed negative feelings towards them.

   I don’t care for candids myself, but they are the most popular ones in our gallery. And I have to admit, it’s nice in times when is is so low-key that we have finally something to update on. But I really like your idea that I only add them to our gallery.

6. Amanda

   December 1st, 2012

   I love that idea too, about adding them to the gallery but not necessarily making posts about them!

   And I really just feel, in general, that until people stop buying the magazines they’re in, meaning paying the people who pay the photogs for what they’re doing, that it seems a little silly to boycott them, if that makes sense. Just because they aren’t added to a fansite doesn’t mean they aren’t going to still be taken whenever a paparazzo is around and it doesn’t mean they still won’t end up in magazines because those companies are still going to make money off of them. If people are uncomfortable viewing them they don’t have to, you know?

   And of course, it goes the same way for you, Lindsey– if you’re uncomfortable putting them in your gallery you don’t have to do it, but in terms of like, morals and ethics and “protecting Rachel” or things like that, I just don’t feel like there’s a real basis. And it IS really great that, overall, she’s mostly left alone, so it’s much less invasive than someone who does get photographed literally every day or every time they leave the house.