Paparazzi laws

glbeas · Mar 9, 2008

What's your take on this? While I'm against taking away a photographers rights to photograph I think this kind of thing has a lot of justification.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335848,00.html

Even a celebrity has a right to privacy and safety.

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 9, 2008

If people are driving recklessly or endangering the public or trespassing to get a shot, then they should be prosecuted for reckless driving or public endangerment or trespassing. There shouldn't be a law that restricts media coverage, because of its association with otherwise illegal or dangerous behavior.

glbeas · Mar 9, 2008

Agreed on that. Did you read the part about how the paparazzi would crowd so close as to make it impossible to move or drive off without hitting one? It think the gist was to limit how close the shooters can be to the celebrity without permission. These guys are not respecting personal space and are stalking people in such a way that would get them arrested if they did it to a non celebrity type person. it seems to be an attempt to give back some of that protection to a celebrity from uninvited exposure. Whether this is the right way to do it remains to be seen.

snegron · Mar 9, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
If people are driving recklessly or endangering the public or trespassing to get a shot, then they should be prosecuted for reckless driving or public endangerment or trespassing. There shouldn't be a law that restricts media coverage, because of its association with otherwise illegal or dangerous behavior.

I agree 100%! If those photographers tried this on any average person they would probably get arrested for stalking. There seems to be this idea that celebrities "asked for it" (papparazzi) by being famous. It as if the loss of privacy comes with the job of being famous. Granted, there are some famous people out there who play up to the papparazzi and do things to stay in the limelight, but not all famous people do. Since common sense and respect for privacy haven't worked to control papparrazzi, CA has to come up with these laws to protect the privacy of innocent people.

23mjm · Mar 9, 2008

While I love photography and most aspects of it---paparazzi are in general SCUM. But obviously there is a segment of the public who feel they "need" their services. Also there are "stars" who need them to. But I think it is good that someone is trying to reel them i just a little. They do not need to be endangering anyones life to get a photo of a "star" doin something. Well if they kill themselves thats OK!

arigram · Mar 9, 2008

The solution could be the embedding of an RFID chip inside the digital cameras as to be disabled at will by private-loving celebrities.
Unfortunately, due to the economic magnitude of the market, that would not be acceptable to many and it wouldn't work.
Celebrities are made for the public's consumption.
Their humanity is stretched and twisted to grotesque measures to enhance their taste.
They are a piece of gum which loses its sugar quickly and is to be quickly tossed.
Celebrities are victims and victimizers in the media game which survives on the extreme.
Paparazzi are just simple nameless tools of the trade and any danger or illegality that
comes with their work is not only acceptable but demanded.
Unfortunately the only real solution would be the death of the Star System, for example,
in the hands of the Internet MySpace generation, otherwise it will continue as long
as the media make money this way.
Privacy is dead anyway, didn't you know?

jd callow · Mar 9, 2008

What Ari said

MikeSeb · Mar 9, 2008

There is no right to privacy when one is in the public sphere. Existing laws against harassment, reckless driving, etc, if only they were properly enforced, would curtail much of the objectionable behavior of the paparazzi. I hate to invoke slippery-slope arguments, but where might this stop? What if our noble political class decide they no longer want public scrutiny, and legislate similar "space" for themselves?

It is possible to be a celebrity without being everywhere mobbed by fans and photographers. It has a lot to do with the personal behavior of said celebrity. Those who court notoriety and the benefits it brings should not whine when they experience the downside of celebrity. If you live your life recklessly in the public eye, and there daily plumb the depths of your personal self-debasement (thinking Britney Spears here as a prime example) then spare us the whining when it all bites you on the a--.

wildbill · Mar 9, 2008

A couple months ago we were driving down ventura blvd and happended to be passing a starbucks, imagine that, britney must have been thirsty and she was surrounded by the paparazzi which then proceded to follow her in their benz's and bmw's. Traffic was stopped, one of the cars take off with the passenger door open and the fauxtographer running along side before hopping in. When traffic cleared two cars came up behind us at about 60mph and then passed us on the right before cutting us off, almost hitting the car to the right of us. Wreckless is an understatement. I'm sure there are tons of folks who want to see pics of her drinking coffee but c'mon!

Maybe she should be sterilized, thrown in a real jail with her parents not a hollywood jail with a starbucks, then her child visitation rights revoked. Those poor kids are doomed.

Snapshot · Mar 9, 2008

Unfortunately, I would bet that the public demand to consume these photographs will ensure this proposed law will not be terribly successful if passed.

MurrayMinchin · Mar 9, 2008

MikeSeb said:
It is possible to be a celebrity without being everywhere mobbed by fans and photographers. It has a lot to do with the personal behavior of said celebrity. Those who court notoriety and the benefits it brings should not whine when they experience the downside of celebrity. If you live your life recklessly in the public eye, and there daily plumb the depths of your personal self-debasement (thinking Britney Spears here as a prime example) then spare us the whining when it all bites you on the a--.

Couldn't agree more. Some celebrities use the paparazzi as a tool to become famous in the first place, so they don't get my sympathies when it gets ugly. They must have pondered the consequences in the beginning, but the lust for fame made them go for it anyway.

My sympathies do go toward those who had the paparazzi thrust upon them, Lady Di being one example.

Murray

pauliej · Mar 9, 2008

Sadly, there will probably be more Princess Di incidents, as the police & courts will do NOTHING to reign in these murderous craperazzi. They are like bounty hunters, who assert their RIGHTS in chasing and hounding Lindsay, Brittany, etal. I am NOT defending these ladies who break laws in public, but they will be the victims if something is NOT done soon. There oughta be a law... But sadly, with gov. muscles-where-his-mouth-should-be in charge in CA, nothing will happen for the better out there I am afraid.

Paul

arigram · Mar 9, 2008

I think they should ban rock'n'roll, pop, cocaine, magazines, cameras, cars, motorcycles and money.
Or make it a crime for a person's name to be known to more than four people.
Or expose everybody's private life in hope people will be overwhelmed.
One of those things ought to do it.

Nigel · Mar 9, 2008

arigram said:
I think they should ban rock'n'roll, pop, cocaine, magazines, cameras, cars, motorcycles and money.

I am sure you can immigrate to North Korea

arigram · Mar 9, 2008

Nigel said:
I am sure you can immigrate to North Korea

You're good!

Steve Smith · Mar 10, 2008

In the thirteenth century there was a public offence in England called scandulum magnatum. This translates to 'scandalising the mighty'.
It's purpose was to prevent people from speaking out against the rich and powerful.

Luckily, we don't have that offence anymore and the law is the same for everyone regardless of status, power, wealth, etc.

That is the way it should stay. As has already been stated, there are plenty of other public order and obstruction laws which already exist to deal with this problem.

Steve.

arigram · Mar 23, 2008

The last (season 12, ep 2) episode of South Park features Britney Spears and the boys turning paparazzi with dramatic results, exactly the ones discussed here.

SPOILER:
the media-paparazzi want to make her kill herself as a sacrifice for harvest. a good quote is "the lust of people for sacrifice has been the same since gladiator times. in the end, a mob attacks a mostly headless britney with cameras

snegron · Mar 24, 2008

arigram said:
The last (season 12, ep 2) episode of South Park features Britney Spears and the boys turning paparazzi with dramatic results, exactly the ones discussed here.

SPOILER:
the media-paparazzi want to make her kill herself as a sacrifice for harvest. a good quote is "the lust of people for sacrifice has been the same since gladiator times. in the end, a mob attacks a mostly headless britney with cameras

I happened to see that episode last night! It was funny in a creepy way. Did you notice though that none of the papparazzi had film cameras?

Paparazzi laws

glbeas

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

glbeas

snegron

23mjm

arigram

jd callow

Moderator

MikeSeb

wildbill

Snapshot

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

pauliej

arigram

Nigel

arigram

Steve Smith

arigram

snegron

Paparazzi laws

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency