New law hits paparazzi in the pocketbook LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- They lurk in bushes, camp out in cars and hover in helicopters. Some are brazen enough to openly brandish their cameras, like old Western gunslingers. They may be hated, but their work -- candid pictures of celebs in unguarded moments -- is coveted. They are the paparazzi, purveyors of pix that are the lifeblood of the weekly star-tracking mags and tabs. Their photos demand huge sums of money and are circulated worldwide. And as the public hunger for such glossy grist has grown they've become ever more relentless and ruthless. But starting January 1, there'll be some new reins on the paparazzi parade. Full Story: » www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/30/stalk.···dex.html
 home
|
 | | :-( So what are they going to do now, outlaw long lenses because they could be used to breach privacy? Sounds like our gun laws these days, being tightened just because some people choose to misuse or irresponsibly keep guns.
Sure, the paparrazi is dangerous, but if there were already laws protecting celebs against viscious paparazzi, then let it rest! These celebs are people too, but they're highly looked up to. If it's not the photogs, it'll be reporters or fans....
--
My vision, My gallery. Known formerly as zakooldude. | |
|  |  B52GUNRKM 7D love and D3 NirvanaPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA | Re: :-( Yah, I'd say I have ambivalent feelings about this. The problem is when a picture could be worth 400K no one will respect the law. Good analogy with the gun laws, you're spot on.
--
Dear Buddha, I would like a pony and a plastic rocket. | |
|
| | I agree but disagree That's when a new California law goes into effect that increases penalties against overly aggressive photographers -- dubbed "stalkerazzi" -- who forcefully thrust their cameras into famous faces or crash their car into a celebrity's vehicle. They'll now be liable for three times the damages they inflict, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn. Publishers can also be held liable.
I think this is good news! I will be the first to say that too many are taking the Photog stuff too far to get "that shot". They are smashing their vehicles into Actors/Actresses' cars just to get shots, they are cramming cameras in their faces sometimes actually hitting them with lenses. They are acting more like sharks in a feeding frenzy then Photogs.
The huge drops in dSLR prices, making equipment affordable to the every day "Joe" that didn't use to be, can be somewhat to blame for the so called competition. Too many think just because they buy a dSLR and lenses they instantly become a Pro.
I didn't read anything about Lenses being banned because they are too long though.
I do agree that the law should be more refined because it lets a door hanging open for the Actor/Actress to more or less control pictures.
--
"Photography is 50% being at the right place at the right time, 25% gut, 10% skill, 10% luck, 5% equipment" -JKS | |
| | B52GUNRKM 7D love and D3 NirvanaPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-06
Vallejo, CA | Re: I agree but disagree It made reference to the constructive trespass law which states that using a long lens to take a picture of someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy is trespassing.
I.E. you're in a tree on public property and using a long lens to take a picture of a nude sunbathing celeb in his/her backyard.
--
Dear Buddha, I would like a pony and a plastic rocket. | |
| | |  pogPremium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI | Re: I agree but disagree Reasonable expectation of privacy is already the standard in most places.
The difference, it seems, is that in CA the subject now can sue to quash the photo, be awarded triple damages and collect any payment the photog earned. | |
|
| |
|
|
