New Paparazzi Law Signed in California

[Echoes]

Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law

October 14, 2009


(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new bill into law Sunday that will fine paparazzi for taking photos that invade a celebrity's right to privacy. The law also targets media outlets who purchase the photos.

Singer Britney Spears' run-ins with paparazzi took center stage a few years ago when she took an umbrella to a photographer's SUV.

Throngs of photographers often jockey to get the perfect shot of a celebrity, but that doesn't mean it's welcomed. Britney Spears famously had enough one night, taking an umbrella to a photographer's SUV.

In 1998, Schwarzenegger himself had his car swarmed by paparazzi while he was picking up his child from school.

Jennifer Aniston received $550,000 and an apology from a photographer who used a high-powered telephoto lens to shoot her in the backyard wearing only panties.

While paparazzi may get a bad rap for their methods, celebrity columnist Ben Widdicombe said things are not always what they seem.

"A lot of times the shot you see in the magazine is actually orchestrated by the celebrity themselves," said celebrity columnist Ben Widdicombe. "Celebrities like Britney Spears, for example, are infamous in the industry for letting their assistants tell the paparazzi when they'll be leaving the gates."

Celebrity photos can be big business, especially when it comes to major milestones. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher reportedly pocketed $3 million from OK for their 2005 union. Eva Longoria and Tony Parker received $2 million from OK for photos of their lavish Paris, France, wedding.
advertisement

Expectant celebrities can also rake in big bucks. People magazine reportedly paid $14 million for the first pictures of the Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie twins.

The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in "personal or familial activity." Violators face fines up to $50,000. The anti-paparazzi amendment takes effect in January.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/14/paparazzi.law/

 

[Echoes]

What California's new anti-paparazzi law means for Hollywood

October 14, 1:01 PM

For the streets of glitzy Los Angeles, mobs of paparazzi drooling over the latest hot celebrity have become commonplace. Not anymore, according to Governor Schwarzenegger. A new California law was signed today that will prohibit paparazzi snapping unauthorized photos of your favorite celebrities. Bad news is, the media will still be plastered with a Jon Gosselin or a Spencer Pratt who allegedly inform paparazzi of where they will be in order for more shameful exposure. Sorry.

What does this mean for Hollywood and the future of tabloid magazines? Celebrities have become a sort of "American royalty" in our society. We ache for their wealth, status, and popularity. When the movie ends or the series is canceled, we continue the storyline in our minds. The storyboard comes from these candid pictures. Tabloid magazines, such as OK! and Us Weekly, thrive on making celebrities seem "just like us." These magazines will have to find a new angle (suggestion: act more like People magazine and deliver real stories) or flounder.

For the celebrities, this law is the answer. There have been numerous stories of celebrities reaching a breaking point and lashing out against the paparazzi for lack of privacy, and possible endangerment. Lawsuits have been made and in rare cases, lives have been lost. The late Princess Diana is an unfortunate example.

This anti-paparazzi law will not go in effect until January 2010. So get your tabloid fix in now, because once this law is set in place, the blinds will likely go down on the lives of Hollywood's elite.

http://www.examiner.com/x-26690-Day...ias-new-antipaparazzi-law-means-for-Hollywood

 

[Echoes]

As I understand things, this will make it effectively illegal for paparazzi to take pictures of celebrities without their express permission. It will enable fines against the paparrazi themselves as well as magazines and other media outlets (websites) who publish or allow posting of pictures taken by paparazzi.

No word yet on how it will affect forums such as this, but it is reasonable to infer such fines would also apply.

-----------------------------------


Personally, I'm all for it. They may be celebs in their career, but they deserve to be left alone when not on a set, stage or at a scheduled event.

 

[Escale Cherie II]

Good!

This was a really good decision on California/Schwarzenegger's part. I agree with Echoes, they're people and should be left alone in their personal lives-it's none of the public's business. Paparazzi pics and the tabloids that result can be really damaging, hurtful and harmful to a celebrity, not only to their career but also to themselves as people.

I hope people take it seriously though. Tabloids and websites (which are hard to regulate since the internet can seem limitless) can make a lot of money, so they may not see a fine as a big deal.

Hopefully this will help us become less of a celebrity crazed society like we have been for the past couple years

 

[Label Basher]

I guess it just means that more of the paps will move to New York or if they can afford to they will move to London.

Funny story I heard last year was that over the Christmas/New Year period the UK paps "shut down". Why would they want to miss out of New Years Eve picture opportunities. Celebs still fall out of clubs on Jan 1st.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ Not true though, they were out in full force for New Year as well.

I think this is great, and long overdue. I mean there are celebs out there who do lead private lives, and things were getting crazy in the last 5 years. Chasing them to kids school's, and overstepping it all the time. Now they can be held responsible at least.

 

[Echoes]

Some questions I have:

What is a celebrity? Actors & actresses of course. But what about print and runway models? What about professional socialites like the Hiltons?

Do they need a signed release to take pictures or sell them? How will it be determined if they were tipped off by the publicists or not?

What about pictures taken in locations outside California? Will media sources based in California be able to use them, or will the law bar that as well?

 

[Label Basher]

^ Not true though, they were out in full force for New Year as well.

Exactly. I just laughed and told the person they were deluded if they thought it was true. The UK paps are just as bad as the LA paps and they don't take holidays not even for Santa.

 

[Label Basher]

Some questions I have:

What is a celebrity? Actors & actresses of course. But what about print and runway models? What about professional socialites like the Hiltons?

Do they need a signed release to take pictures or sell them? How will it be determined if they were tipped off by the publicists or not?

What about pictures taken in locations outside California? Will media sources based in California be able to use them, or will the law bar that as well?

1) They are all considered celebs unfortunately. There is a class system (A, B, C, D list) but every single person has different opinions on who goes on what list. Models aren't as big as they were in the 90s but Kate Moss is followed every day. As for the Hiltons as far as I'm concern they are Z list.

2) I guess that if the celeb is in California and there is a pap pic of them in InTouch etc then that celeb has said it's ok. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this.

3) Outside California pics will still be fair game. That's why I said before that more paps will relocate to NY which will p*ss off New Yorkers cause from what I understand it's not as bad there as it is in LA. I think they still use long lense with Zoom in NY but don't quote me.

I'm sure we will be getting a statement from the guy that runs TMZ.com.

 

[Echoes]

3) Outside California pics will still be fair game. That's why I said before that more paps will relocate to NY

I'm not so sure. If the media outlet is based in California, they're subject to California law no matter where the picture was taken, even if in London or Tokyo. If that picture was taken without the celeb's permission, technically a media outlet under CA law would not be able to publish it, even if other media outlets not under CA law did.


As welcome as this law is to me, I'm not sure it will stand under U.S. Supreme Court review.

 

[Label Basher]

^ I never thought about it that way. I guess they could move their offices to another state. Nevada maybe , Las Vegas - the city of sin lol.

 

[Alvedansen]

^but that would mean that the "media outlet" could just relocate to ...say nevada and problem would be solved?!
i'm not sure how this is supposed to work. i mean if i see pap-videos it's crazy and they have no respect and are out of control, that should definitely be regulated. but i don't think this law will work the way it sounds now...and to be quite honest, i'd much rather see a few pictures of "real celebrities" taken from a reasonable distance than getting millions of pics of fame-hungry nobodies like heidi montag.
papz in LA are too crazy and there should be stricter laws, but when did we get the last candids of e.g. keira knightley?! stars can hide if they really want to and i don't think their lives are affected in a horrible way when we get pics of them getting coffee or going shopping. as bad as it is, that attention comes with the territory. papz should just have to back off, give them space and not hunt them in packs or follow them to their homes

 

[á la Balenciaga]

Every part of Los Angeles you'll eventually find a paparazzi. Last weekend I went down to Hollywood to check out a movie, there were two paparazzi's waiting outside with their fancy cameras.

 

[Meg]

I think people are expecting too much of this law. What exactly is a 'private' activity? going to the grocery store? I would expect not as you are engaging with the public and doing something outside of your personal property. I would only expect the ban to be enforceable in that regard.

 

[Escale Cherie II]

There are going to be a million loopholes for this

 

[Echoes]

I think people are expecting too much of this law. What exactly is a 'private' activity? going to the grocery store? I would expect not as you are engaging with the public and doing something outside of your personal property. I would only expect the ban to be enforceable in that regard.

I think that's exactly what it IS targeting.


At an event, fine. Arriving at an event, fine. Leaving home to go to the event, grey area. At the hairdresser or store earlier in the day of the even, off limits.

Taking a kid to school, off limits.

Buying coffee on a set or near an open air set on a shooting day; fine.

Buying a coffee on a normal day, not associated with any event, off limits.

---

Timing of the signing is interesting in that it came shortly after Maria got caught by the Paps talking on a cell phone while driving (violating CA law), but that borders on off limits talk for this board, so...........

 

[sergeantkero]

i think this is great. but i agree the limits are still gray.

 

[Meg]

Buying a coffee is not a private activity. As I said before, you are going out in public, engaging in a public activity, interacting with other people. There is no expectation of privacy in buying a coffee. I don't think if I'm going to starbucks to buy a coffee that no one is watching me. I know there will be people around. That is totally different than being at home and expecting privacy outside in your backyard. In my opinion.

 

[michyed]

About time!

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

It's not even just about their privacy being invaded. What about paps who have no problem putting people's lives in danger just for pictures or harass and are just plain nasty to people to get a reaction out of them? But this law sounds kind of vague. I hope there's more to it than that.