posted
I recent lawsuit by a paparazzi against a well known star has raised my hackles again. I think it is high time that these predatory 'photographers' were reined in a bit. I acknowledge that they have a right to do their job, and I acknowledge that celebrities accepted this when they chose to become public figures, but everything has reasonable limits. We have the right to free speech in this country, but that right is not without limits. Free speech is restricted by liable and slander, and by public safety; the old 'Fire!' in a crowded theater idea.
Reasonably, celebrities have limits, they do have a right to some degree of privacy and some right to go about their life unimpeded and without interference. Yes, predatory photographers have a right to take pictures, but like all rights, that particular right is not unrestricted, and yes, celebrities have to accept that their is a certain cost to being a celebrity, but again that cost is not without limits.
I first propose that photographers not be allowed to impede the free movement of celebrities.
- You can't block their car or other conveyance either in front, back, or at the sides. You can not in anyway prevent them from moving or leaving by whatever conveyance they are in. Standard tactic to stand in front of the car and prevent the celebrity from being able to leave.
-Further you can not block their progress on foot. Photographers can not stand in front of, at the side of, or behind a celebrity in a way that impedes their free movement through the world.
-As an extension of the above, I would institute a minimum 5 foot (or better yet, 10 foot) rule. The celebrity photographer is not allowed to get within the designated distance of the subject. If they do enter this 'safe zone' in a way that is deemed hostile or threatening by the celebrity, the celebrity is free to consider it an assault, and to respond accordingly.
This also prevent photographers from making physical contact with celebrities. something they are not above doing.
-Further, predatory photographer will NOT be allowed to take photographs of private property or people on private property without the property owners consent, and the consent of the people being photographed. No more peeking over the hedges hoping to catch them in a private moment. No more peeping in through the windows. No more huge telephoto lenses, peering into a space in which the celebrity has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-When photographers are following a celebrity as they move about in some type of conveyance(car, bus, train, plane, truck, van, motorcycle, other), they must obey all traffic laws, and maintain reasonable and safe distances. Further their actions can not create a potentially dangerous situation for themselves, the celebrity, or for other on the road or in the vicinity. No more Princess Diana's.
- Finally, their action in general can not by any reasonable standard become a form of harassment. They can not create situation with the intent of provoking a celebrity into a 'photo-op'. They can not conduct themselves in a way that by any reasonable standard would cause undue mental or physical stress. This includes verbal harassment, or verbal provocation.
Celebrities are people,...really, they are, and like all people they have a breaking point. There is only so much harassment they can tolerate.
Recently Prince Harry was accused of shoving a photographer that was waiting for him outside a nightclub. The Prince, also very human, was having his own set of personal troubles (girl friend, military, etc...) that certainly left him in a bad mood. Now we only got to hear the photographer's version of these events, yet even hearing his versions, my reaction was 'Hit him again, Harry; hit him a good one for me'.
Sorry, but I have far more sympathy for Harry than I do for a photographer who would do or say anything for money.
I think the restrictions I've suggested are more than fair.
First, it's already illegal to do illegal things in pursuit of a photograph. That's why they're illegal. People already have to obey traffic laws when they're following a celebrity, for example, or they'll risk a ticket just like anyone else.
For the other parts of your law that put special provisions on photographers, you're going to need some unrealistically specific definitions of "celebrity" and "predatory photographer" in order for that to work. I used to be a DJ on a local college radio station. Would I be protected by your law as a celebrity? If I am currently involved in selling photographs to tabloids, am I bound by your restrictions? What if I just do it part time? What if I haven't sold a picture in 18 months? What about on my day off? If I happen to pass Denzel Washington on the sidewalk, do I have to walk into traffic to avoid the 10-foot limit? What if I'm taking a picture of my friend and Brad Pitt walks into the shot? What if I'm taking a picture of Jessica Alba and she walks within 10 feet of me just to get me in trouble? What if I cut Jerry Seinfeld off in traffic accidentally? Should my penalty be greater just because he is a celebrity?
Just a few things to consider.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think celebs should start carrying their own cameras and reporting paparazzi for harassment, with video proof. Do it enough times and get a rep, the paparazzi will leave them alone. Or at least stand back a bit.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paparazzi definetly need to be reined in a bit. They are probably amongst the lowest type of people ever in my opinion.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Paparazzi definetly need to be reined in a bit. They are probably amongst the lowest type of people ever in my opinion.
Right next to the people that buy Entertainment Weekly and the other worthless magazines printing that trash. In my opinion.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think celebs should just hire photographers to act as paparazzi against other paparazzi - simply pick the worst offender and send a pack of photographers to follow him as completely as they are hounded. They can pool their money for the pack and for either a tabloid or tell-all website.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets create a new Hatrack Logic Fallacy to use as a short cut when facing these types of arguments.
I suggest calling it "Undefinable Sets".
In other words, we have two sets of individuals here--Celebrities and Paparazzis. While it seems that these are easily definable sets, they are not. Who is and who isn't a celeb? What limits do we use to define a Paparzzi? Are there not laws already on the books that say endangering lives, even of celebrities, is wrong?
No, the idea is good, and the definition of paparazzi as visual parasites is appropriate, but as law or logic, it just is too dangerous.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way to resolve the paparazzi "problem" is to make the argument that all individuals own the rights to any images or likenesses of themselves. But this creates new problems.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I agree with the sentiment, this particular part here won't work:
quote:-Further, predatory photographer will NOT be allowed to take photographs of private property or people on private property without the property owners consent, and the consent of the people being photographed.
This would kill investigative reporting, among other things.
I do agree with the segment of that paragraph that speaks to reasonable expectations of privacy. Wholeheartedly.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as celebs can be frustrated by paparazzi sometimes, they also thrive on and need the press. I think many celebs would be in trouble without the free exposure. Of course, it would save us from the Paris Hiltons of the world, so I'm all for it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
