Pixiq

Who defines who's a "celebrity?" Why do they get special treatment? Break the law or endanger others while trying to take photos of anyone is wrong. The first shooter than is arrested on this will test the constitutionality of this poorly written law.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by CarlosMiller: New Blog Post: California enacts law to protect celebrities from the paparazzi http://goo.gl/fb/1uuT...

[...] the original here:  California enacts law to protect celebrities from the paparazzi … By admin | category: Uncategorized | tags: carlos, correct, crackdown-on-people, [...]

[...] the original post: California enacts law to protect celebrities from the paparazzi … By admin | category: california | tags: angeles, are-beginning, big-stories, california, [...]

It is the baby boomers trying to block freedom. They have messed up the whole world:

http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/01/2010-more-bab...

Photographers in California should unite and go on strike for a week. Absolutely no photographs of any celebrities or others, even if they want their picture taken. Let the press print blank pages and see how the so-called celebrities like it.

The other danger of this law, which is not mentioned is that the language does not expressly apply to celebrities or even define who a celebrity is. All street photography and news gathering is threatened.

I'm pretty surprised that US doesn't have the same privacy system we do in Finland. By our system it is illegal to photograph people in their houses and the immediate surrounding which is considered recreational areas. Here even the celebs have that right to privacy and I think it's a good thing.

Its not about Finland, its about "we the people's" rights. Can't have it both ways, either there is a right to a free press, or there isn't. Jay, you are exactly right, first shooter arrested will be the test of this law.

I never said that it was about Finland. You completely missed the point. The point is that we have a system that guarantees peoples rights to privacy and the freedom of the press doesn't override that. We have free press here too. That doesn't however mean that they can send guys with +1000mm zoom lenses to climb trees near celebs houses to get shots of them skinny dipping or hire a helicopter crew to hover around their house to get that first picture of a wedding going on in the backyard. Freedom of the press doesn't make them so high and mighty that they can spy on anyone wheter or not they're celebrities or not. All people here are equal in that law and celebrities are not special in any way.
Also what's up with the having to login to comment and not being able to register my previous nick which I didn't register but used for one comment only?

JpR1: in the united states, we have the first amendment, and that basically states that anything that the public can see is considered fair game for photography or publishing. IE if i see my neighbor going crazy with flower planting, i can write about it on my blog.

However, if a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy, then you cannot take pictures. this essentially works out to meaning “if you have to expend any effort to take a picture, then you’re doing something wrong”

Picture window open with no blinds drawn facing the street? Hope you don’t nude sleepwalk!

a lot of people feel that any part of private property should be immune from public scrutiny (my roommate included, but i don’t think he understands what prior restraint is, or really why we have a first amendment) – but luckily that’s just not the case.

Yeah the thing is that as technology advances there should be something to keep privacy safe. We already have stuff that sees through walls. Not to mention zoom lenses, telescopes etc. which you can use to ‘reach’ from public place to where people live. Your place of living should be considered as a place where you have reasonable expectation of privacy with the recreational areas included. I don’t see it as going against 1st amendment. As I have used Finlands laws as an example we do also have freedom of speech and press but privacy trumbs those. Also it’s equal right for all here celebrities or not. Even a trucker who has a sleeping cabinet in his truck has a right to privacy.

While I find the behavior of the pap pretty distasteful, on the pure basis of law, I do have to side with the argument that if it’s done in public, it’s fair game.

The poster above who said “If you have to expend any effort, you’re doing it wrong…”

Like, if I see Rihanna arriving at a club on Washington Avenue, she’s fair game for a photo until she is inside the venue. However, I don’t have the right to harass her repeatedly for the “right” to take her image. It might be legal for me to do so (is it?) but it’s bad form and gives photographers a bad name. I’m not a pap, but the easiest way to get me super-pissed off is to lump me in with them.

However, I certainly don’t have the right to climb a tree and snipe a photo of her cavorting by the pool at her house with her boyfriend. And, I’m pretty sure it goes into harassment territory if I get into a car and keep following her around to get the shot.

Once you’re off the street, it really gets into a hazy territory of legality.

However, the California pap have bought this upon themselves with their behavior. Celebs wield a lot of political muscle in the state, and the fact that a major actor is the governor helped their cause. The law might not be “right”, but it’s the law now and it will be a battle to get it struck down. In the meantime, the majority of innocent working photographers will suffer for the actions of their less-than-subtle colleagues.

It’s funny though. These guys think they have to be in-your-face and aggressive to get the shot. Not true at all. I’m not a pap shooter but the best celeb photos I’ve gotten are with the express consent of the subject. A friend of mine is arguably one of the best celeb photographers in the world, and he always asks permission to get the photo beforehand. With that tactic, he’s often given the exclusive by the people he documents. Short term payoff? No, not at all. Long term? Hell yeah. The fact that every time Nikon sneezes out a new $6000 body he picks it up without a second thought is proof of that.

“All street photography and news gathering is threatened.”

Which is exactly why this law will be struck down the first time anyone tries to apply it. It’s a text book example of exactly the kind of law that 1st amendment says Congress (and by incorporation, the state legislatures) can’t make.

First, this law doesn’t change when you can take a picture—the “personal and familial activities” nonsense has already been around a couple of years. What it does do is make PUBLISHING one of these pictures actionable—even if it was taken perfectly legally in another state. Which makes some sense—except the across-state-lines part—most paps aren’t worth suing personally, and previously there wasn’t as direct a mechanism for going after the publisher.

Secondly… since it’s still wrapped in “reasonable expectation of privacy” it should be pretty safe. Under the current understanding of that term there’s just no way this can be applied to street photographers or even street paps.

But we’ll probably be deprived of Kate Moss snorting coke in the washroom shots. Although as a limitation on publishing rather than taking, this law should be a lot more vulnerable to a 1st Amendment challenge.

The one problem it will present is being vague enough to act as probable cause for a cop to spend some time harassing a tog he doesn’t like but can’t actually pin anything on. And the publicity may get the “concerned citizen” type riled up for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2AE8Oj2tII&feature=player_embedded

When I watch a video like this, photographers blocking driveways, interfering with people’s rights to even leave their own home, I have to wonder, why does your first amendment right supersede her right to move about freely?

There’s a difference between taking a photo of someone and harassing them. As long as you refuse to acknowledge this difference, then you’re doing more harm to your cause than good.

And the comments about boycotting celebrities is a joke. You won’t damage their careers by refusing to stalk them on the street…they’ll still be interviewed by EW and People and US, there’ll still be press junkets. You might be overestimating your importance.

EMERGENCY ! ABOUT THE OIL SPILL! HELP SPREAD THE WORD !

http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/06/an-open-letter-to-the-president-on-t...

“EMERGENCY ! ABOUT THE OIL SPILL! HELP SPREAD THE WORD !”

Go away and pollute another blog.