News Headline - California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs amendments to California Law regarding Paparazzi photographers.
By Gary Gray
I'm not going to get into the Roman Polanski thing here. Different issue, though there are some striking parallels and trends to be found in comparison. I'm talking about celebrities of course, and most particularly, Hollywood Celebrities.
What exactly makes a Hollywood Celebrity a special person who requires special treatment by enacting laws designed to protect only them and punish people they don't like?
I'm a photographer. I am a former newspaper man. I am not a lawyer. I don't live in California and I don't want to live in California. I don't take photographs of celebrities unless I'm invited to do so. I strongly believe in freedom of the press and the 1st Amendment. I also believe that paparazzi are the bottom feeders in our industry. But, I'm going to call out celebrities as well here, because it seems many of them have far too little self control and seem to think that people doing what I do for a living are fair game for abuse.
The recent news headlines concerning the amendment to what is called the "anti-paparazzi law" being signed by Governor Schwarzenegger raise red flags in this photographer's mind, so I'm going to take a tangent from my normal pursuits and comment a bit on the situation. I'm sure I won't be the only photographer with an opinion here.
Firstly, I understand that the intent of this law is to prevent unscrupulous photographers (and others) from invading the privacy of private citizens in the form of celebrities. IE... Photographers hanging from trees, dressed in camouflage, with telephoto lenses attached to their camera, observing and photographing Jennifer Aniston running around her back yard half-naked or something like that. With the legal addition that it has to be done in “a manner that is offense to a reasonable person.” The law goes on to say that images and recordings taken in this manner may not be done with the intent to sell, publish or transmit these images. The amendment Schwarzenegger signed extends this to apply to publishers or media outlets who would buy and or distribute the obtained now illegal photographs.
So, what’s this all really about? Laws are being passed to protect celebrities from photographers, but it looks to me like it should be the other way around. We all recall how the death of Princess Diana was blamed on paparazzi, but when the truth came out, it was actually a result of her riding in a car driven at high speed by an intoxicated driver. Paparazzi were there, sure, but they didn’t cause the problem.
But we’re talking about “special people” here. Big stars are special people and they are probably the only people on the planet who can whine their way to success. I don’t blame an actor for being annoyed for trying to sit with friends in a restaurant and enjoy a meal without being hounded by autograph seekers or photographers. But, being annoyed at somebody’s presence doesn’t give them the right to physically attack them or destroy someone’s personal property. They have choices. 1, ignore it. 2, acquiesce to the needs of others. 3, have a fit (which probably works on the job) without getting physical. 4, attack the intruder or have somebody attack them on your behalf (this is against the law.) 5, get up and go somewhere else, or better yet don’t go where you know you’ll be hounded. 6, call the police.
Celebrities have choices. Photographers have choices. It seems to me that the people who are making the poor choices are falling into the celebrity column more often than the photographer column.
So, why do photographers hound celebrities? Money for one, and that's a big one! There is money to be made by taking photographs of celebrities. Some photographers are a little more legitimate than others. Some photographers will go to any length to get a photo, including breaking the law and I say enforce the law against those photographers. We don't need new laws though. Photographers are in general fairly passive people and I've yet to hear of any photographer having been found to be a menace to society or a threat to national security.
It's a game of cat and mouse. Celebrities need photographers to promote their image, but only when it suits their mood? Sorry, if you go out in public, you can have no expectation of privacy. I don't, neither should somebody who makes their living from selling their image to the highest bidder. On the other hand, celebrities should have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
A good example of a photographer getting out of control is a recent situation regarding actor George Clooney.
The photographer climbing the wall of his private Italian residence and photographing a 13 year old girl through a bedroom window is a way over the line in my opinion. Clooney is suing the photographer and two magazines over the incident.
Contrast Clooney's recent experience with that of Sean Penn. Sean Penn goes to a public place to have lunch, a photographer begins photographing him as he walks through the parking lot, Penn attacks the photographer, kicking him and threatening him with his life. The photographer files a battery charge against Penn. In this case, Sean Penn is way over the line. He has no right to kick a photographer or anybody else for that matter. Penn blew a gasket, plain and simple. A classic Hollywood hot-head and he's just the tip of the iceberg.
So why do celebrities attack photographers? Well, there seems to be a culture of hate in Hollywood. Hate for anything or anybody that doesn’t give them (celebrities) their way. There are stories upon stories of various Hollywood actors behaving as though they were royalty, with expectations and demands far exceeding anything a rational human would expect when interacting with other humans. Within the inner circles, they can get away with this behavior. Paparazzi photographers seem to be the victims of choice here. Could the gossip amongst the familiar circles in Hollywood be so strong that a mass celebrity hysteria has developed over the presence of photographers? I'm not having a hard time imagining that there are celebrities who privately commend and even brag to one another for their disdain and attacks on photographers. Could some of these celebrities be suffering from other problems in their lives and simply taking their frustrations over their lack of control out on the nearest photographer? How many of these celebrities are in legal trouble over drugs or alcohol? How many of these photographer attackers have a track record of violent and anti-social behavior? Not all, but there sure are a lot of them on public record. Are photographers really the spawn of Satan who must be confronted and assaulted at every opportunity? Are photographers really causing problems or are celebrities with anger management issues or poor decision making ability causing their own problems whilst the photographer simply witnesses the event?
Here's a list of celebrities with a known propensity to attack a photographer. I particularly like the Quinton Tarantino video near the bottom. A little snippet which shows you how big an A**hole somebody can be and how quickly they realize how stupid they are about to get. I get the feeling he was asking the guy for a do-over, but too late. He let the cat out of the bag! Some of the other stories are hilarious as well. Hugh Grant wins my award for biggest Hollywood A**hole, for kneeing a photographer in the testicles without provocation.
Special people.... just click the names to see the story.
It seems to me that in the bigger picture, this issue isn't so much about privacy as it is about controlling publicity. Governor and former actor/movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger is taking his personal involvement and personal interests in a particular industry and enacting laws based on this personal interest. I consider this to be a conflict of interest at the least and unconstitutional at best. A movie star enacting a law on behalf of movie stars, making it easier to control their publicity by making it illegal for a private citizen, and a photographer is a private citizen, or a news company (press) to take photographs from a public place of certain “special people.”
The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution basically allows anybody to photograph anything that can be viewed from a public place. If you can see it in public, you can take a picture of it. A photographer may not enter private property without the permission of the owner(s) and take pictures any more than a person can simply enter private property without permission. The basic concept is that a photograph is nothing more than seeing. It is now illegal in California to see celebrities without their permission.
There are already a multitude of laws on the books in every state concerning rights to privacy, trespassing, harassment, stalking, assault and just about anything else involving the public conduct of private citizens and the US Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts have fairly well defined how these laws are to be interpreted and enforced.
A photographer is also a private citizen. What California is now doing is creating a new class of private citizen with new special laws that essentially only apply to this new class of “special” citizen. The Celebrity. What California has done is to create a new class of criminals, the photographer and the press. What California is doing is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
You read it, you decide. In my opinion, this law will eventually be challenged in court and will eventually be ruled unconstitutional. At least I certainly hope so.
---------------
The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE-SECTION 1708.8
1708.8. (a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy
when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person
without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to
physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to
capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial
activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.
(c) An assault committed with the intent to capture any type of
visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the
plaintiff is subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (h).
(d) A person who commits any act described in subdivision (a),
(b), or (c) is liable for up to three times the amount of any general
and special damages that are proximately caused by the violation of
this section. This person may also be liable for punitive damages,
subject to proof according to Section 3294. If the plaintiff proves
that the invasion of privacy was committed for a commercial purpose,
the defendant shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff
of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the
violation of this section.
(e) A person who directs, solicits, actually induces, or actually
causes another person, regardless of whether there is an
employer-employee relationship, to violate any provision of
subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for any general, special, and
consequential damages resulting from each said violation. In
addition, the person that directs, solicits, instigates, induces, or
otherwise causes another person, regardless of whether there is an
employer-employee relationship, to violate this section shall be
liable for punitive damages to the extent that an employer would be
subject to punitive damages pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
3294.
(f) Sale, transmission, publication, broadcast, or use of any
image or recording of the type, or under the circumstances, described
in this section shall not itself constitute a violation of this
section, nor shall this section be construed to limit all other
rights or remedies of plaintiff in law or equity, including, but not
limited to, the publication of private facts.
(g) This section shall not be construed to impair or limit any
otherwise lawful activities of law enforcement personnel or employees
of governmental agencies or other entities, either public or private
who, in the course and scope of their employment, and supported by
an articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual
image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person
during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of any conduct
to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity, the suspected
violation of any administrative rule or regulation, a suspected
fraudulent insurance claim, or any other suspected fraudulent conduct
or activity involving a violation of law or pattern of business
practices adversely affecting the public health or safety.
(h) In any action pursuant to this section, the court may grant
equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction and
restraining order against further violations of subdivision (a) or
(b).
(i) The rights and remedies provided in this section are
cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided
by law.
(j) It is not a defense to a violation of this section that no
image, recording, or physical impression was captured or sold.
(k) For the purposes of this section, "for a commercial purpose"
means any act done with the expectation of a sale, financial gain, or
other consideration. A visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression shall not be found to have been, or intended to
have been captured for a commercial purpose unless it is intended to
be, or was in fact, sold, published, or transmitted.
(l) For the purposes of this section, "personal and familial
activity" includes, but is not limited to, intimate details of the
plaintiff's personal life, interactions with the plaintiff's family
or significant others, or other aspects of plaintiff's private
affairs or concerns. Personal and familial activity does not include
illegal or otherwise criminal activity as delineated in subdivision
(f). However, "personal and familial activity" shall include the
activities of victims of crime in circumstances where either
subdivision (a) or (b), or both, would apply.
(m) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision
of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application.
---------------
Celebrities who’ve attacked photographers. If you know of other news stories, send them my way. Every celebrity listed in this article has made national headlines for attacking a photographer, some more than once. I’m looking for a story that shows it the other way around, a photographer physically or verbally assaulting a celebrity. Probably happens, but rare at best.