New Paparazzi Law Signed in California

[Echoes]

Buying a coffee is not a private activity.

But it's not a celebrity activity either. It's normal daily life which is what I see the bill designed to protect. If you or I were buing a cup of coffee, would there be dozens of Paps taking pictures and selling them? I think not.

I think it's about a celeb not being fair game anytime they're outside of their own house. I think it seeks to restrict Paps to shooting only when a celeb is "On" or 'at work'.

When you're getting coffee on the way to work in the morning, are you getting paid by your employer?

 

[*mette-marit*]

I think the comments about the fine not being a detterent could be right- if they are going to make so much money off it anyway.....like the super rich who don't pay their taxes....because it costs less to pay the fine.
It would be interesting to know what is seen as being taken with permission, and what isn't. just thinking back to the old death of a movie star thread, this may mean a return to more old-fashioned celeb coverage- such as publicity stills being released, and having a legit photographer taking photos on the set of movies and so on. But if it is only going to be california law, maybe they will all just set up their offices outside of california?

 

[*mette-marit*]

Just to add, I think it is good something is being done, as I think that while someone may be famous, they are entitled to privacy on their own property, and do not deserve to be harassed and swarmed on in public. there are too many paps now, some video footage you see is crazy. what amazes me if celebs don't all have their eyes closed from the flashbulbs in those photos!I wonder if anything would have been done about this if the governer wasn't a former movie star?

 

[dajrekshn]

does this means that, when we see "candids" of the celebs, that he/she arranged to be papped (as it was consentually done)? we'll know which celebs do this regularly?

 

[Meg]

I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm just saying that without seeing the explicit wording of the law, it is hard to tell how it will be enacted. I don't believe there can be a legitimate expectation of privacy while out in public but maybe some legal eagles can clarify.

 

[Echoes]

^^^ That's the point. Nobody really knows. It's too vague.

Is Maria off-limits? She's a socialite, news commentator/journalist/activist in her own right and quasi-political figure connected to two high-profile families.

 

[Echoes]

Then again, the pictures of Maria on her cell phone were published more as a news item than a gossip column item, so would they have been exempted anyways?

So what if Paris gets caught talking on a cell phone? What if LiLo gets caught in another DUI incident? Is it news? Or gossip?

There are just too many loopholes and questions. It's a good start and well meaning, but does it go far enough?

 

[jml2]

I don't like this, I'm addicted to candids for style watching

 

[Echoes]

Here's the full text for the lawyers among us to decipher. Its about 14 pages, way too long to post here, and goes into the history and reasoning.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0501-0550/ab_524_cfa_20090713_124145_sen_comm.html

 

[michyed]

Actually it is written in a pretty specific manner. I thought there would be loopholes but the law has made the distinction between what's okay and what's private pretty clear.

 

[*mette-marit*]

what is everyones thoughts on the fact that celebs have sued the tabloids( keira knightley and kate winslet both for earing disorder stories) and yet they keep doing it.
it seems to me they aren't interested in following the rules or even learning from their mistakes.

 

[LolaSvelt]

It won't change anything. People are too interested in the cult of celebrity and the paparazzi know that. Being a paparazzo has now become a job.

 

[before]

How can all celebrities be for this? For some, their livelihood/image is based on interactions caught by the paparazzi. Without them, people would forget and focus on people who are not only celebrities but also working musicians, actors, etc.

 

[happycanadian]

people would forget and focus on people who are not only celebrities but also working musicians, actors, etc.

one can only hope!

i'm really over this age of the celebrity. i have always adored MOVIE STARS, because they seemed special, unique, fantastical. since Paris Hilton, all of these celebrities from Jon & Kate, to Nicole Richie to that Kardashian chick with the booty. it's done nothing but tarnish the real shine of the true STARS.

i'm over it. get rid of 'em. let us have some mystery back. that's what makes a public person fascinating -- the mystery. the imagining what goes on in their life.

 

[*mette-marit*]

True. When I think of the stars of today, I can't really think of any that I would want to read a biography on. But since old time celebs were so mysterious, they are endlessly fascinating