Actor Bill Murray got into a physical altercation with photographer Peter Simon on Martha’s Vineyard this past Wednesday evening. Simon alleges that Murray grabbed him from behind and slammed him against a door, and threatened to throw him out of a restaurant.
Simon, who is singer Carly Simon’s brother, has previously photographed acts like Bob Marley, members of The Beatles, The Police, and Led Zeppelin. Recalling the altercation, Simon said, “he looked like he was ready to strangle me,” and claims to not have recognized the notable actor. Simon continued to ask Murray, “Do you know who I am?” Something Simon intended to note that he was a well-respected photographer, to which Murray responded with the same question.
Simon was on assignment for The Martha’s Vineyard Times at Lola’s when Murray attacked him. He was to photograph the band and patrons of the restaurant for a weekly feature. However, Murray’s account of the incident to the police was a bit different, and that Simon was instead taking photos of him and harassing him while he was dining at the establishment.
The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”
While no charges have been filed, Simon is seeking an apology from both Murray and Domitrovich.
What do you think of the incident? Who do you believe? While I hope this isn't the case, with Domitrovich siding with Murray, it makes me question if Simon was acting as a paparazzi in this situation, and was really in the wrong.
Lead Image by Charlie Llewellin used under Creative Commons.
I wasn't there so I don't know, but leave Bill alone.
I wasn't there so I do not know, but leave Peter alone.
If the resturant owner is siding with the story, saying the photograher "had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying". Then the case is closed, it was a private property and the photographer had no right to remain there if he was asked to leave.
I must have missed the part where the restaurateur asked Simon to leave.
When you say "do you know who I am" then you've already lost...
especially to bill.
It's like saying, "what are you going to do about it," when someone is being aggressive. smh
i could care less who's brother he is. if he was a dick then he is a dick. he is probably used to people drooling over him because of his sister. and then to pull out the biggest dick line "do you know who i am" seals it with me. people in the public eye just want to be left alone most of the time and he was most likely being a dick ( i seem to be using dick an awful lot). since the owner is siding with bill............ya, he was being a dick.
Leave everyone alone. Paparazzi are like the ambulance chasers of photography. There should be a law.
But what about Bob?
It's a tragedy that more people don't know that movie.
Agreed. Nobody who sees that movie will ever look at corn on the cob the same way again. :-)
" Do you know who I am?" To Bill Murray?
Uhn... let think.
How can you have that resume of people in your portfolio yet you claim to not know who Bill Murray is? Seems suspicious.
Ok, it sounds crazy, but it is not only possible but likely.
Bill, in person, doesn't look quite as solid as in photos -he drinks like a fish and it shows.
A personal friend, retoucher, once hid all layers of of an unnamed female celebrity and I actually screamed -out loud, I was so startled. Everything is a lie.
This is filler material for the news media. It doesn’t affect anyone but those involved nor does anyone really care...
Doesn't matter which one is true, you don't have a legal right to assault someone just because they're taking photos.
Everybody breaks the law at times; some people have better reasons than others.
I read about this a few weeks ago, Simon said Murray looked quite different and didn't recognize him. It seems to me that both had an attitude and turned into a pissing contest. Simon was shooting for a local publication so the owner must have been aware that he'd be there. I'm a Bill Murray fan but everyone has to behave while out in public. We'll see what comes of it.
"The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”"
Sam - we all read the article. Quoting from the article, over and over again to different people asking questions isn't adding to the conversation.
In both cases, each commenter assumed the restaurant owner must have been aware that he'd be there. The restaurant owner said "No". Done.
It's not done because there are unanswered questions. Quoting from the article, which is all you're doing, isn't adding to the conversation. We've all read the article, so you're just being redundant.
Why do you care about this, anyway? Maybe it was Bill's fault (I call him Bill...he calls me Sam) ;-) and maybe it was Mr. Simon's fault (I don't really know him). Either way, so?? I'm going to go take a nap.
I made a comment below, but couldn't help but notice that you kept pasting the same text from the article, so you must have chosen a side on this.
Yeah. Two (Bill and restaurant owner) against one (photographer). Simple math.
The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”
The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”
Can someone ELI5 how anti-stalking laws don't apply to the paparazzi?
He wasn't stalking Bill, he was shooting bands at the restaurant bar.
"...Murray’s account of the incident to the police was a bit different, and that Simon was instead taking photos of him and harassing him while he was dining at the establishment."
The question wasn't about this specific incident, @Tony Clark, it's about paparazzi in general, and why the law allows it, while there are anti-stalking laws in place, why do these not apply to the paparazzi?
Everyone in the comments is taking sides, but it's all guesses.
This is an easy matter to clear up. He either was or wasn't on assignment for The Martha’s Vineyard Times. If he was, then most likely the restaurant owner would have known about and it was coordinated with the paper.
Has anyone followed up with The Martha’s Vineyard Times?
"The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”"
Yeah, I know. I read the damn article. That's not what I asked. I asked if anyone followed up with The Martha's Vineyard Times.
Maybe the owner was afraid of losing Bill Murray as a customer and sided with him just because he was famous. Maybe she didn't want to tell him, after the fact, that he was supposed to be there because that would have embarrassed him.
So how long was he "generally annoying"? I'm guessing it's not cheap to eat there. How long was he there taking photos if he wasn't supposed to be there? Why wasn't anything said to him prior to the conflict with Bill Murray?
These are not controversial questions and honestly, I'm not taking sides, but we're not hearing the full story. There was either a misunderstanding or someone is lying.
I'm in complete agreement with Steve. Regardless of who was "in the right", Bill Murray will create infinitely more buzz and cash flow than a somewhat famous photographer and therefore it's more likely for the owner to side with him.
Maybe she is telling the truth though. Nobody knows (yet).
So the owner said he had no business there and you don't take them at their word!? Since there's a disagreement, I wouldn't blindly take the principal parties' (photographer and Bill Murray) word without verification but the restaurant owner has verified Bill's POV. Even if the photographer does work for the newspaper and even if he did have a specific, legitimate assignment, it doesn't mean the restaurant was notified or his behavior was correct.
I'm inclined, obviously, to take the available evidence and do the math: two against one.
Again, you've missed my point - " even if he did have a specific, legitimate assignment, it doesn't mean the restaurant was notified or his behavior was correct."
And I'll ask again - did anyone ask the newspaper? Maybe it was set up, maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was set up with a manager and not the owner. I've dealt with restaurants for years and it's not uncommon for something like this to happen.
How long was he there shooting photos being "generally annoying"? Why didn't someone say something sooner?
There are a few questions that need to be answered. Doesn't matter what your inclination is or what you think is obvious because I don't think anything is obvious.
Fair points. I guess I don't really care enough about the story as a whole to be that caught up in the nuances. :-)
Nuances. I'm a photojournalist, so nuances, details, obvious questions that aren't being asked, is part of what I do.
For example, I wouldn't have gone into a private business to photograph a celebrity and lie saying I was on assignment. This photographer is well known, established and I couldn't see him risking his reputation for photographing Bill Murray. Hardly a career-making photo. A photo of Bill Murray eating dinner isn't valuable.
I've shot too many stories that weren't what they first appeared to be and had I believed the first thing I heard, I would have gone in the wrong direction. The restaurant owner may be correct, but something doesn't seem right about the whole situation.
You're a PJ? I thought you guys were extinct!? This is way off topic but I'm really curious. How does that work these days? Do you get assigned a topic and photograph it? Is it open-ended or specific to a subject or event? Are you teamed with a reporter or do you also write the copy?
Sam - I freelance, so I work a couple of ways. I do self-assignments and have a couple of wire services that I submit the work to. Sometimes it gets picked up, sometimes it doesn't. I also do get assignments but have never been teamed with a reporter. Typically the assignment will be for a larger event like a Presidential campaign/speech or a protest.
I'm in St. Louis and never work with local media. Everything I shoot has to have a national or international interest. While St. Louis isn't the most exciting city to work in, we did have the Ferguson protests and presidential candidates always come through.
Doing self-assignments you look for current topics that aren't just local. For example protests at Planned Parenthood, $15 minimum wage protests, anti-gun or pro-gun rallies.
Other sources already said both the paper/photography and resturant are making different claims but the resturant owner was clear that "Simon did not have permission to be taking pictures at the restaurant." So wether he was on assignment or not is besides the point, since the photographer for the paper didn't have premission to be there. Plus, Carly Simon is on the board of director for the newspaper so we probably wouldn't get the true answer from the paper anyways.
I guess photographers don't read because if you had actually read my comments you would have seen a possible scenario in which he could have had permission to be there.
"Maybe it was set up with a manager and not the owner. I've dealt with restaurants for years and it's not uncommon for something like this to happen."
I've run into this several times in the past.
I'd still like to hear from the newspaper.
The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”
Photographers must think that other photographers can't read. Dude - I read the article. Maybe you didn't read my comments that there are some questions that haven't been answered.
But let's play your stupid game since you obviously didn't read my comments or the comments of people who left the same exact comment you did - if he was being 'generally annoying' then why didn't someone say something to him prior to the conflict with Bill Murray? Obviously, the owner knew he was there if she made that statement, so why didn't she kick him out? Why didn't she go up to him and ask 'what are you doing in my restaurant'?
"The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”
100%, this is exactly it; also the article is very specific in the phrasing, "...story to Police..."
"The restaurant owner, Katherine Domitrovich, backed up Murray’s account of the incident, and told the police Simon “had no business at the restaurant and was generally annoying.”