LOS ANGELES - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Friday a Southland lawmaker's bill to penalize paparazzi when they engage in assaultive behavior in pursuit of a photograph.
"This bill hits the paparazzi where it hurts -- the wallet," said Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez, D-San Fernando. "Money is their motivation. So taking away their money will be the solution."
Through AB 381, a photographer engaging in a dangerous pursuit can now be held liable for assault and subject to civil damages, in addition to losing any proceeds from the photo or recording, according to Montanez's office.
| |
Lindsey Lohan's Mercedes-Benz was hit by a photographer's car, and Scarlett Johansson clipped another car when she pulled into a Disneyland parking lot to elude several vehicles containing paparazzi who followed her from her Los Angeles home.
In 1998, Schwarzenegger, who at that time was still making movies, and his wife Maria Shriver were boxed in by paparazzi as they picked their children up at school.
The two photographers involved were convicted of false imprisonment. One of the men also was convicted of reckless driving.
However, Montanez said her bill was more about public safety than creating special protections for celebrities.
"When paparazzi engage in reckless behavior on the streets and sidewalks of L.A. -- or anywhere -- it puts everyone in harm's way: the movie star and the movie-goer alike," she said.
The bill was supported by the Screen Actors Guild and Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley
22 comments:
should be interesting to see if this actually changes anything at all...
i think im gonna start shooting paparazzi...should be interesting to see how they react to a camera in their face any chance i get...
my fellow shooters are event photogs as far as ive seen. very few that ive talked to run around chasing celebrities on motorbikes or stake out their homes waiting to get a shot of them at the park.
some people deserve to be respected, some dont. its that simple.
"...Celebrities shouldn't expect special treatment..."
should celebs be able to expect what 'normal' people expect then?
fact is you cant photograph the 'ordinary person' as you are allowed to do with a 'public figure'. under the law, celebs and public figures are different. based on this difference, different laws need to be taken into account, hence the new proposed laws to protect them.
if they were the considered the same there'd be a lotta fotogs in jail for harassment.
theres no question that the magazines and the public are a driving force in the larger eqaution in this massive cess pool of celebrity.
one of my ultimate goals is to photograph the insanity from all the different points of views.
that should read "celebs and the public are different"
"The celebs and the public are different?"
legally, yes. celebs are considered public figures where the laws dont apply the same as "private citizens". why do you think you can shoot em so much and get away with it?
You need a physcological test and you may have several self-esteem issues my friend if you think celebrities are better than everyone.
where did i say celebs were better or worse than anyone?
you need to start learning how to read....or is this why you take pictures, because you can't comprehend a simple sentence?
"Over the past year, Us Weekly and its competitors have soared in popularity even as the circulations of newspapers, business weeklies and practically every other print publication have been falling."
so by your logic, does a story about OJ Simpson in TIME magazine make killing OK because it sells a lotta magazines?
whos the psycho now?
:D
Without them we would be shooting the trees and rocks in Central Park.
by the way, ansel adams made a fine living shooting trees and rocks!
:P
"As long as you take photos that were taken legally and professionally - NO-ONE is going to complain."
uhhh, i think some "celebs" would disagree with you there my friend...
;-)
tbickle, how many celebs do you personally know very well and could call them a close friend or loved one?
Just a quick note:
G had mentioned in a post: "fact is you can’t photograph the 'ordinary person' as you are allowed to do with a 'public figure'. under the law, celebs and public figures are different. based on this difference, different laws need to be taken into account, hence the new proposed laws to protect them."
Actually, you can photograph anyone on a public street, celebrity or not.
Celebs accept that the "Paparazzi" shoot them on the street; it's all part of the Great Gig In The Sky between Us and Them. They need the exposure and we need the exposures.
But you can also shoot any ‘non-public figure’ on the public street in the same manner if you want. It’s called street photography and has been around since the birth of the silver halide image. I just wouldn’t count on getting and “exclusive” full page rate for any photos you take. If you’re a good photographer, you’re more likely to wind up in a gallery or museum.
Now I’m not getting high and mighty here, but if there is Art in paparazzi images, I haven’t seen it as of late. I don’t find myself looking at Pap pics going “I love the way he uses the 600mm to blur the foreground trees” or “What a great use of flash to make everything look like it was shot in a cave”. C’mon, I think use of the term ‘Photographer” is a little loose when describing ‘Paparazzi’ or event photographs. Yes, they are photographs by definition, but I don’t think they encapsulate the true spirit of the word. Then again, Ron Galella’s collection of Jackie O photos is considered to be the definitive ‘image’ of her at that time. Maybe I’m just full of BS.
And mark my words on this one… once we figure out how to train monkeys how to take photos, this business is toast. Let’s compare:
We run in packs.
We stay penned in one area for long periods of time (a Zoo)
We sit in one place all day, scratching our butts.
The more noise a pack makes, the more attention is gained.
We ‘chimp’ thru our photos making primal grunts. Ooooh, OooHH. OOOHHH!
If we do well at the end of the day, we get a reward (Money vs. a banana)
Now what’s the difference?
kingfreak,
yes, you can shoot pix of anyone on a public street. can you stand outside my home and harass me everyday, then take pix of every move i make? no you cant. with celebs you can.
thats my point. thats why laws are there to protect celebs. thats why britney spears gets a police escort to the hospital to have her baby and my mommy didnt.
shoot first, are you talking to yourself again?
i asked t bickle if he knows any celebs personally bc of statements like "all celebrities live their life lying, pretending, and fooling us into believing what they actually are"
i dont see where he/she can come off assuming these things without actually knowing these people.
its utter bs, and pure assumption.
Hey Shoot First:
1997 Pulitzer Prize: Alexander Zemlianichenko, for his photo of Russian President Boris Yeltsin dancing at a rock concert in Rostov before elections.
Check for yourself.
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/feature-photography/works/
So actually, there IS HOPE!
I lost all respect for the Pulitzer that year. That photo still haunts me!
does bipolar ring a bell SF??
thats a bs pulitzer...they won bc of the category in which that photo was placed. they knew it wouldnt win as a standalone so they entered it in the features category. cheap shot by AP. cha-ching!
All I know if Mitch (Front page) won a Pulitzer for a set-up Hilary Duff photo op- I would bring in my rifles the next day and begin my random 'cleansing".
(just Kiddin') ....kinna
i'll reload for ya
show me once where i said celebs are better than anyone else, please.
regarding your persistent caste society bs, why did britney spears get a police escort to the hospital when she was about to deliver? is this normal practice for all US citizens? or is she somehow not made out of flesh and blood like you suggest we all are? why should she be protected any more than anyone else? does her life mean more than anyone elses? is she better? if shes the same why not let her fend for herself like everyone else has to?
please, enlighten me...
tbickle, youre simply passing judgement on people you dont even know, just as people pass judgement on paparazzi. do you enjoy those tags people place on you becuase you shoot celebrities? are they true?
hmmmm...
"LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL"
Laws change, thats a fact, and in cali they are. thats a fact too.
Professional? is it professional to chase and harass your fellow human being, flesh and blood? would you enjoy being hounded every single second of youre life? i mean after all we're all the same according to you right? so whats the big deal if you dont 'get the exclusive'??
publicy safety for what? paparazzi are professional law abiding citizens right? they wouldnt attempt to harm anyone in their pursuit of an image right? they wouldnt dare chase after someone and break the law too would they?
you say theres no 'caste' system correct?
if thats true then why do you treat a 'celebrity' any different than anyone else?
why run and chase and trample over your fellow pit photographer to run to the next barricade to get the same image you already got?
its a pathetic site, it really is. if you like i can start taking pix of you when you do it next time.
maybe then you will gain a glimpse of enlightenment.
unfortunately, basic greed, from every side, seems to be the cause of all this crap.
public wants their mags, mags want the money, fotogs want the money, celebs want the fame when it suits em and they need something to promote.
where does it end?
seems to me theres a basic misundertstanding and lack of respect and compassion for anothers life, whether they be a celeb, a fotog, or whoever.
life aint ez, so why make it harder then it already is.
btw, thanx for proving my point SF.
g'night.
Post a Comment