The Paparrazzi

Remove all ads!

This is a thread that I've been pondering starting for quite a while now. Today is the day.

I like to know what's up with my favorite celebrities as much as the next guy, but what some of these idiots do is beyond belief. I don't care if a person did make the decision to step into the public eye, the invasion of privacy that ensues is simply not acceptable. I think we should have laws about how far reporters can go when covering a story that is not linked to "serious" news. I know that freedom of the press is important but when their acts infringe on the individual rights of citizens then a line must be drawn.

Anyone have any ideas on how such a law could be structured? Should we have such laws?

 

Honestly, as disturbing as I find the paparazzi behavior, I don't think there could be a law crafted that would solve the problem without stepping on someone's rights.
I think that is should be easier for a person to get a restraining order against a person or company that stalks celebrities, though.

 

I think that laws prohibiting the use of advanced photographic equipment to penetrate private property would be a good start. Also, publishing without their consent any photo of a person that does not reveal something of vital concern to national security should be illegal.

Harassment laws, laws against impeding the movement of an innocent citizen, and tighter laws on what photos people can and cannot publish would not, IMHO, be an unfair infringement on the rights of the press.

 

While I don't like a lot of the tactics they use (especially when they are illegal or borderline), I think a lot of celebrities bring it on themselves. I mean, paparrazzi avoid a lot of famous people simply because they don't do anything stupid. One person who jumps to mind right away is Johnny Depp - he keeps to himself, doesn't go looking for the limelight, and consequently is largely ignored as far as headlines are concerned.

 

That's way too far - you've basically outlawed any photography by doing that. Get a random schmoe in the background of your family holiday photo and suddenly you can't throw it up on Flickr or where ever without their permission. Unless you're thinking an extremely narrow law here (only celebrities, or something), it really doesn't work - and I don't feel celebrities should be having superspecial laws made just for them.

 

I agree with Aik. While the intention is good, the application of such a law would have to be very narrow to not massively infringe on everyone's day-to-day lives. You'd have to define things about focal distances, focal degrees, legally define the "subject" of a photo, etc.

 

I'm not familiar with Flickr, but could the law be applied to the idea that you cannot sell a person's likeness without their consent? In other words, if you snap a picture of your family at Disneyland and happen to catch Joe Blow in the image, as long as you don't sell it for a profit, you're ok. But as soon as you display it for the purpose of making a profit (like in a trash tabloid) then you need permission to do so. Still too narrow?

I know it's tricky, but when I read how these photographers treat people who are just trying to go out to dinner or spend the day at the beach with their kids, it really makes me wonder.

 

I don't have much of an opinion on Lady Gaga - her music isn't really my thing.

 

I don't post here often, so forgive me if my points are a little less refined than you're used too

Peoples obsession with knowing what celebrities are up to has long bothered me, I have favourite actors and singers but outside of their work I know they're just a normal person, and to be honest I don't care if they decide to go have plastic surgery or go swimming or play tennis...just like I wouldn't care if my neighbour did any of that stuff. I think "freedom of the press" is important, but the phrase has begun to be used for the stupidest things, just like "Politically Correct"...common sense has gone out the window and anybody can say these things as a get out of jail free card.

Freedom of the press is applicable in the uncovering of serious things, like rapes, murders, warcrimes, thefts, etc. Freedom of the press is not for finding out what Beyonce did on Saturday. If Beyonce wants to tell you what she did on Saturday when you ask her, then fine let other people know, but stalking her to find out is not right. (This example is completely ficticious and probably doesn't quite support what I'm trying to say but I hope you get the gist).

I don't know where the human races common sense went, but the lack of it explains a lot of problems with this world. I think I might have missed the point of the thread but meh...

 

Dave, you pretty well summed up why I started this thread, so don't worry about "missing" the point. I'm repping you for this line here:

I wish more people wrapping themselves in the Constitution when this sort of topic came up (no one here has as of yet) would get this simple truth through their thick skulls.

Uhh, Saber, where did the Lady Gaga thing come from?

 

LKD: I'd still be very wary of that. What happens if a journalist needs a photo of a crowded beach? Do they have to get permission from everyone in the photo? Doing any sort of public photography for profit would become extremely difficult, and the photographer's ability to 'capture the moment' and then be able to sell it later would be pretty much gone. It would force photography to become an amateur practice only, except in limited situations.

I also just in general feel a bit squicky about the idea of your image being your property. I think that's taking property laws somewhere they really don't belong, and needing to get permission to publish images of people would imply that (I think).

They actually did try to bring in a law similar to this in Australia some time ago, and I'm fairly sure it didn't happen for these reasons. I think it mostly had to do with photographing children though.

 

If you can't recognize the person from the photo, then no big deal. Photos of mass political or social gatherings could also be fair game. But photos of a person leaving a quiet restaurant snapped by a bunch of douchebags who are impeding the free movement of the subject should be subject to a higher form of scrutiny.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I think that's opening up a huge hornet's nest. But then again, if I were a lawyer, I'd be drooling over the fees that said nest could generate.

 

Le sigh, I was trying to be clever... she has a song called Paparrazzi, so I was making a reference to that instead of the actual paparrazzi. Looks like I failed.

 

There are laws regarding what they can take, It is illegal to take a photo of someone when on their own private property, but the way they get around it is by being vague about how the photo was aquired.

if there wasnt money in it they wouldnt do it, maybe people should stop buying this crap and it wouldnt be a problem anymore

 

THAT'S common sense, Shoshino. Too bad more people don't have it.

Le apology, Saber. I don't know squat about Lady Gaga other than that I think she's an idiot, so I totally missed the reference. I guess I'm on the express train to Old Fogeyville.

 

I'm a big fan of the comedian Adam Carolla (formerly of The Man Show) and he does a great comedy podcast on iTunes. He covers this every so often. One point of his that always sticks with me is that other people are using pictures and video of celebrities to make money, yet the celebrity doesn't receive any compensation. I think this is a valid point. If Walmart were to make a commercial using footage of a celebrity, that celebrity would sue for compensation. The fact that TMZ, ET, etc. use the same footage and for some reason that is O.K. I think we will eventually see a celebrity "trademark" (I believe that is the correct term) his/her face and then it could get interesting.

 

Of course, I don't agree, since the "greed factor" is already large enough with all these people. THAT'S the big problem with America, IMO - Everyone has his/her hand out along the way; everybody wants "compensation," whether they are doing anything for it or not. Everyday I wonder, "who am I going to have to pay-off today just for the 'privilege' of living in this country, and just to get by with my day-to-day life?"

The reverse argument is, that without these guys a lot of these "celebs" wouldn't be worth a plug nickel anyway. Most of them are no-talents, know-nothings, who are only celebs, because that's what they ARE and for no other reason (Paris Hilton is an excellent example). Much like DtMT, I'm sick-to-death of our celebritiy culture. If nobody cared, and without the media, these people would probably be down at the unemployment line or going to night school trying to get their GEDs.

 

Agreed in a big way with DtMT and Chandos. Are we as a human race so shallow that we have nothing better to do than to buy into this degradation? I suppose a lot of this exploitation isn't really the fault of the celebrities (aside from those who invite it and thrive upon it), but rather the fault of America as a whole...if we all just ignored this crap, turned a blind eye at the grocery aisles, skipped over channels like E! and TMZ, I think a lot of this would simply go away. Unfortunately, it's fueled by the American dollar so it won't be going anywhere any time soon.

 

Hmmm...good point. How about, instead of stepping on anyone's rights, we add to people's rights.....as in, the right to beat the paparazzi into a bloody pulp if they get out of hand!

If they can use super-telephoto lenses to snipe a semi-nude picture of a person at a topless beach, under the pretense that they aren't taking the picture from within the camera-banned area....then why can't we pick the paparazzi off with a .50cal sniper rifle, under the pretense that the shot was fired for within a shooting range!

I mean, it's simple logic here!