kristen-stewart-rupert-sanders-kissing-pics-cheating-photos-gi.jpgDid the paparazzo who snapped the photos of Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders kissing just luck out with his celebrity scandal find or was he actually on assignment from Us Weekly?

Randy Bauer, owner of top paparazzi agency Bauer-Griffin, tells Fox News that he heard Us Weekly had assigned FameFlyNet Pictures — the agency responsible for the pictures — to follow Stewart and Sanders on a tip that the two were hooking up.

“The magazine was actually working the story,” Bauer says. “(The story) didn’t come from the photographers. It was the other way around: It went editorial to photo, as opposed to photo to editorial.”

PHOTOS: Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders caught in the act

Interestingly, the photographer trailing Sanders and Stewart didn’t recognize the “Snow White and the Huntsman” director, according to the Los Angeles Times. He just knew it definitely wasn’t Stewart’s boyfriend, Robert Pattinson. The paparazzo called his agency, FameFlyNet, for backup once the pair started “pawing each other like teenagers” in Stewart’s Mini Cooper, and three more photogs showed up to snap pictures. It wasn’t until they were uploading their photos at the office did they recognize who Stewart’s partner in crime was.

“That was when we realized, ‘Oh, my God, she’s not just cheating on Rob — this guy is married and has kids,'” Scott Cosman, owner of FameFlyNet, tells the LA Times. “It was pretty scandalous, and it had so many different angles to it.”

RELATED: Hollywood’s Cheating Hearts

An expert estimates to Fox News that the photos have likely fetched between $250,000 and $300,000, but Bauer points out that if it was an assignment, the agency likely won’t see that money for awhile.

“There’s an understanding that the photo agency or the photographer will have the back end sales of the pictures worldwide, and that’s where they’ll make their money, in exchange for the information (the magazine gives them about the stars’ location),” he says.

Regardless, if the magazine or the photo agency was acting on a tip, doesn’t that completely negate Stewart’s insistence that the hook-up was a “momentary indiscretion” and the sources saying it was a one-time thing?

Posted by:Jennifer Harper