Governor signs anti-paparazzi bill into law
- Thread starter kingqueenknave
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 20
- Views 2K
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Looks like celebrities will be spending a lot more time with their children.
daveleo
what?
I believe the law applies to the photographer's behavior (did he/she actually "harass" the child?), not the explicit act of making the photograph.
It simply allows the parent to sue the photographer, then prove "harassment".
Aside: I expect the tabloids will take revenge on the celebrities who supported this.
It simply allows the parent to sue the photographer, then prove "harassment".
Aside: I expect the tabloids will take revenge on the celebrities who supported this.
DominikDUK
Well-known
And It's so easy to take revenge stop reporting about those celebs and suddenly their celeb status will be nil.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Where is the Yikes?
kingqueenknave
Well-known
"The bill bans actual or attempted recording of celebrity children’s images or voices without consent, and violators face fines of up to $10,000 for the first offense."
It's about consent. According to the law, an attempt without consent is considered harassment.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Well. At least they saved the rich celebrities' children.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
The law makes it illegal to acquire the content, but because of the First Amendment, the law can't prevent the distribution of such content. The yikes comes from the can of worms this law might open.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
I see this law making a bunch of lawyers rich fighting for or against it. And who defines who a celebrity is ? Dumb law..signed into law by Governor Moonbeam.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
I totally agree.
daveleo
what?
I think there are important words left out of that quote, and I believe the words are " . . . and in a harassing manner". It does not ban the making of pictures of children in public. It's up to the complaining parent to sue and prove in court that the behavior was "harassment" - as noted above, this will help keep lawyers wealthy.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Senate Bill 606, authored by Los Angeles Democrat Kevin De León, would protect the children of public figures from harassment from celebrity photographers. The bill bans actual or attempted recording of celebrity children’s images or voices without consent, and violators face fines of up to $10,000 for the first offense. Newspapers or magazines are presumably off the hook, since transmitting or publishing that content would not be considered a violation.
There you go. It doesn't change much.
Ronald M
Veteran
Ca. does not believe in the laws of economics. If you want to discourage the paparazzi, simply stand your ground. Let them, the whole group, take all the pics they want and don`t hide your face with your hat.
When an item is in plentiful supply relative to demand, the value drops. When the value is too low, it becomes not profitable to pursue movie stars.
I think they secretly want the attention or this would have been done decades ago.
However it would seem not good to subject children to the jerks with cameras.
When an item is in plentiful supply relative to demand, the value drops. When the value is too low, it becomes not profitable to pursue movie stars.
I think they secretly want the attention or this would have been done decades ago.
However it would seem not good to subject children to the jerks with cameras.
daveleo
what?
Read the second paragraph after the by-line in the LATimes report.
And the 2nd paragraph in the TIME/entertainment report.
The law regards "harassment" (whatever that is), not simply making pictures or getting parental consent.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-bills-paparazzi-20130925,0,7649417.story
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/09/25/california-guv-signs-bill-to-stave-off-paparazzi/
But, as noted above, I don't live in California either. 😉
kingqueenknave
Well-known
You can find the law's definition of harassment here, which specially states taking a picture without prior parental consent.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0601-0650/sb_606_cfa_20130522_152332_sen_floor.html
Glad I no longer live in California.
jsrockit
Moderator
Are security cameras capable of harrassment?
Lawrence Sheperd
Well-known
I found this interesting, to say the least, at the end of the bill:
" ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Motion Picture Association of
America states, " the bill, as currently drafted, implicates the
First Amendment's protection of free speech since it reaches
activity which may occur on public property or public spaces,
such as streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, as well as
restaurants, shopping malls, etc. In addition, a parent may
assert there is "no legitimate interest" in a photo of his or
her child, and will have a private right of action to attempt to
vindicate that position.
Cameras are ubiquitous; almost anyone with a cellphone is a
photographer. A person taking pictures of his or her child at a
sports event, or musical performance could run afoul of the
bill's provisions by capturing other children in a photo. And a
tourist who snaps a picture of a celebrity with his or her child
could also be prosecuted or sued under this bill."
It appears the law was originally drafted to protect the children of public servants, law enforcement and workers at health clinics offering abortion services specifically, and is now being amended to include "public figures". Seems the MPAA is in opposition to the desires of its "employees."
daveleo
what?
I think the law is generally unenforceable, because, as noted, security cameras and cell-phone snappers are everywhere.
You will not win if you argue that snapping a child's picture in public is categorically "harassment".
You will not win if you argue that snapping a child's picture in public is categorically "harassment".
frank-grumman
Well-known
Moonbeam strikes again!!! 😀 😀 😀 And folks still live in that state???
frank-grumman
Well-known
thank Gosh I got out!!! 🙂 🙂
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
