| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Possible restrictions for paparazzi
John Stubler, Photographer
 |
San Jose | Ca | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> An LA Times article about possible legislation to restrict paparazzi from illegally obtaining photos of celebrities by allowing civil fines up to $50,000.
While I don't like paparazzi or their techniques for getting photos, I wonder how long it will take before this branches out to photojournalists?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/a-bid-to-restrict-paparazzi.h... |
|
Eric Neitzel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Clinton | UT | USA | Posted: 12:16 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> I think there is a tad bit of a difference between photojournalism and what they do to get their photos.
I would be all for the law. |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 12:49 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Eric,
At first glance I'd be inclined to agree with you. Those who do bad things should be punished. Then comes the sticky part. Who punishes the offenders, and to what extent? With the concentration of "famous" people, California may have laws on the books already that address the situation.
The US as a whole certainly does - it starts with the 1st amendment. The point is this - anyone is free to sue anyone for anything. Creating a sub-class starts to remove guaranteed freedoms.
What do you do when an aggressive attorney decides to sue everyone present at a perp walk or outside a courthouse. Or at a municipal hearing when a "famous person" wants to close their beach access |
|
John Stubler, Photographer
|
San Jose | Ca | USA | Posted: 1:13 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Dave,
I'm with you. The law seems like a slippery slope.
I also don't like the KKK, but if you put restrictions on their 1st amendment rights, how can we stop lawmakers from infringing on ours? |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 1:15 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> at what point is a photojournalist considered a paparrazzi when it comes to covering a news event when a celebrity is involved? Hundreds of what most consider legitimate news photographers covered the recent Jackson funeral in Los Angeles side by side with what most would call paparrazzi without incident, what made them any different? how they dress? Who they are assigned by? what about all the freelancers that covered the event that had their images run in newspapers as well as gossip rags worldwide.
It always bothers me when one group tries to put themselves above another group. Both news photographers and paparrazzi have done pretty ridiculous things to get an image. |
|
Eric Neitzel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Clinton | UT | USA | Posted: 2:19 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> From the blog...
"A state Senate committee approved the bill by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), meant to keep photographers from sneaking onto celebrity estates and from violating traffic laws in pursuit of pictures."
So which of you "photojournalists" are sneaking onto celebrity estates and violating laws to get your pictures?
I dont think they are talking about the hundreds of photographers that are covering things like the Jackson funeral or red carpet stuff, I think they are talking about reining in the out of control ones.
Maybe the law might or might not be perfect, but something should be done about the issue.
After working with WireImage for a couple years, I got a chance to be able to ask a "celeb" for their picture, and if they didnt want it taken I would politely say thank you and walk away.
I even had a couple times where I helped block people like Eva Longoria from paparrazzi while she was leaving an event I was inside covering.
And I dont like the KKK as well, but can they climb over your back fence and have their rally in your back yard???
Just my 2cents. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:25 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> The only laws that they could pass that would not be unconstitutional are already on the books. It's already to enter private property without permission or to photograph somebody where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Any law that would "control" paparazzi would also violate the rights of the rest of us. Either that or it would be a needless restatement of current law.
This comes up every few years in California and then fades away. I guess that's what we get with term limits: Lawmakers who don't have enough time on the job to ever learn how to do it well.
--Mark |
|
Eric Neitzel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Clinton | UT | USA | Posted: 2:32 AM on 07.15.09 |
| ->> Mark I see your point...so maybe what we need is better enforcement? Or what would be your other ideas? |
|
Dave Prelosky, Photographer
|
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 2:33 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Eric,
As I said above, I suspect that the State of California has statutes in place that deal with the conditions you mention. Defiant Trespass comes to mind. While this is probably a misdemeanor, the arrest would keep the offender busy until released.
Again - adding classes of citizenry is a slope I'd rather not get close to the edge of. PJ's - OK, defined Paparazzi - Nope, Phone-Cam guy OK, but not near a home or store, Kids - Maybe depending on whether they have Tiger-beat on speed dial, College students - campus protesters, if for, nope - if against - sure, and on and on....
As the anti-gun control folks are fond of saying, use the laws that are in place. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:40 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Eric,
There is no solution I'm aware of that would not be worse than the cure.
Perhaps instituting civil remedies against publications if they publish images that are the result of unlawful tactics.
--Mark |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:41 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> I've thought that last one through and it would have prevented the New York Times from publishing "The Pentagon Papers." So no, not even that.
--Mark |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 8:03 AM on 07.15.09 |
| ->> Mark's right. To which I'd only add, the 1st amendment applies as equally to "paparazzi" as it does to "photojournalists." Both are making images for public distribution for a profit. Constitutionally there is no difference. The Constitution makes no reference to journalistic ethics, intent, etc. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:13 AM on 07.15.09 |
->> Mark -
Civil penalties in the form of blocking one from "profiting" from the sale of such images however could be fair game. There are already an abundance of statutes that prohibit convicted felons from profiting from the telling of their story. They can tell it - via TV, book or movie - but they disgorge all financial benefit.
So if a pap were subject to similar legislation, the financial incentive to do so would be removed - no? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:27 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> Mark P.,
You might have something there. It bears discussion.
--Mark |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 3:33 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> Correct me, I'm probably incorrect - Isn't the no profiting law mute after time served? In other words, they can't profit from the crime while serving time. After (if) they serve the other parts of their sentence the profiting would be possible. Maybe it depends on the place and kind of crime too.
I'm all for better enforcement. Our law makers should have more important things to do than writing more laws that may or may not be enforced. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:59 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> I don't know but defining a "paparazzi" is going to be the tough part in my opinion. Where does the line get drawn and how, so that 1st amendment rights are preserved while still protecting the general public? Is there a fundamental LEGAL difference sneaking a camera into a meat packing plant to ferret out unsavory facts? You're still taking a camera onto private property without consent and (may) have gotten access to the property by way of deceit. As in a producer applying for a job so that they can gain access to obtain secret footage.
The "public" is just as hungry for information about poor sanitation at a meat packer as they are about Jon and Kate's meat packing practices. Love or hate it, if you weaken the rights of a tabloid you have just weakened the rights of the broadsheet too. SUPER dangerous slope to be on.
If they're going to try to put 'fines' on the "pap's" then how about billing the celeb's for PD and security costs when their people leak their evening's dining and dancing itinerary? More often than not the throngs of paparazzi show up to a locations as the result of a publicist's "leak". Its a ploy to stay relevant.
Call me a cynic but me thinks that the people doing the complaining need those "paps" just as much as the "paps" need them. |
|
Alex Witkowicz, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 07.15.09 |
| ->> As long as demand exists for a particular good, someone will find a way to supply it, regardless of what the law says. Just look at the illegal drug industry. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 4:52 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> David I'll skip the anonymity...
(1) HUH?
-Eric |
|
Aaron Rhoads, Photographer
|
mccomb | ms | | Posted: 5:08 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> Mark P.
Who would that hit? The pap or the tabloid? If its the pap, and the tab paid him..
You'd have to fine the tabloid right? |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 5:18 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> David,
now that was funny |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:48 PM on 07.15.09 |
->> Eric,
You mean the guy in the video isn't "defining a 'paparazzi' ?"
Oh crap, that was satire. My bad.
Let me get a more definitive definition from the department of redundancy department.
Stand by. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|