June 28, 2011

Cheryl Cole Granted Injunction Against Paparazzi For More Privacy

After getting sacked from the 'X Factor USA', Cheryl Cole has been keen to avoid public events and has now been granted an injunction against paparazzi, according to reports.

The 'Promise This' singer has decided to "take a break" from the fame game after getting the boot from Simon Cowell's US show, and has since revealed through her official blog that she has been spending time relaxing with her family and concentrating on her charity endeavours.

Now, Heat magazine claims that it has seen a legal document which bans press from photographing Cole in any private settings, her home, friends' homes or venues that have been deemed private buildings and are not open to the public.

An insider told the magazine: "She believes it has cost her her health, her marriage and her peace of mind. It's time for a change.

"Cheryl has vowed to put her life back together, and for now that does not include any part of the fame game. She has said she's always making massive changes to her life."

Cheryl Cole is reportedly back with her ex-husband Ashley Cole after it was revealed that the pair had spent the night together in their formal marital home in Surrey before he left for a L.A. vacation.

Having drawn lots of criticism from the alleged reunion, after the couple's marriage broke down following reports that the Chelsea footballer had cheated on her, perhaps Cole is keen to avoid even more?

June 23, 2011

Pink explains that ‘unsafe measures’ by the paparazzi lead her to release personal photos of her baby

Pink and Carey Hart, new parents to their first child, Willow Sage Hart, debuted the first pictures of their daughter in People magazine on Wednesday. Although it is something most celebrity parents do, the singer explained on her website, she and Carey Hart made the conscious decision to have magazine photos published after the paparazzi had made it unsafe for her and her baby to go out.

In a lengthy message, directly to the paparazzi, Pink’s maternal instincts had kicked in. She explained her displeasure over the flashbulbs, and explained her photos were going to a good cause.

“Due to the unsettling, surprisingly aggressive and unsafe measures that the paparazzi seem to be willing to go to in order to secure that "first shot" of our daughter--stalking us, chasing us in cars and sitting outside of our home all day and all night, as new parents Carey and I decided that we would release personal photos of our Willow, and donate all of the money to charity,” she wrote on her website.

“We will be donating the money to children's' charities, among them one of our favorites, the Ronald McDonald House, an organization that houses and cares for the families of sick children so they can be together during treatment, as well as Autism Speaks,” she added.

Pink, 31, continued to express she didn't want her and her husband's fame be a factor in their daughter's early life because she didn't ask for it.

“Like any parents, we believe our little girl deserves the right to have privacy and be protected, but unfortunately, this media climate doesn't seem to provide for that,” she said. “We recognize that celebrity has its upsides and downsides and do our best to manage just being people without hiring stylists and bodyguards.…I've seen some photos of myself that make me smile and some that make me less smiley. But you see, it's one thing to harass and stalk us, the adults, the celebrity that signed up for this life, but children should be protected and safe. There should be a clear distinction between us.”

“In EVERY other country that I recall, children's faces are blurred out in magazine photos. Why is USA the only country that continues to financially incentivize intrusive paparazzi behavior to capitalize on photos of babies, infants and children? Why is this acceptable to any of us? Why is this even legal? These are questions I ask myself as a new parent,” she continued. “Why are celebrities/public figures having to seek restraining orders to keep strange grown men with still and video cameras from sitting perched outside of their children's pre-schools and elementary schools[?] After all, if a stranger was sitting outside of a school taking photographs of random little girls and boys, wouldn't he be arrested? But because it's the child of a celebrity, somehow it's okay? I'm just not sure what is wrong with us as a society, that we do more than tolerate this.”

“We don't want you to take our little girl's picture. We don't want you to one day follow our little girl home from school. We don't want our little girl's picture in a magazine or on a blog. If you take or publish her picture, it is against our wishes, and without our consent as parents, as people. Carey and I are new parents. We know we have so much to learn in our new role and are thankful for the family and friends around us....But this is about our daughter who just got here. In the face of camera lenses as long as my arm and flashbulbs as bright as the sun, Willow is powerless. All she has to protect her is us. But that's not all she has; she has you.”

“We are so appreciative that people are interested in seeing our daughter. We WANT to share our joys with you, but as parents (and new parents), we should be able to govern these decisions, shouldn't we?” she said.

“I've never shied away from a controversial opinion because of the fear of bad press,” she concluded, asking to put an end to paparazzi craziness.

June 22, 2011

Alyssa Milano Wants End to Paparazzi Photos Online: “Perpetuating Unethical and Unsafe Behavior”

alyssa milano baby bump 300x3001 Alyssa Milano Wants End to Paparazzi Photos Online: Perpetuating Unethical and Unsafe Behavior
Alyssa Milano is always sharing on Twitter – about her pregnancy, dancing with Prince at a concert, and sharing links about parenting and other topics.

But one Alyssa Milano tweet grabbed my attention. In response to a tweet from one celeb baby site that posted a photo of Alyssa Milano attending prenatal yoga, Milano requested that the site reconsider publishing paparazzi photos:

“@celeb_babyscoop I really wish you would reconsider publishing these paparazzi shot of celebs & their children on your blog. It is perpetuating unethical & unsafe behavior.”

Is she right?

Obviously, I’m a celebrity parenting blogger, so looking for celeb photos and finding pics of celebs with their kids is part of the territory.

After all, don’t most of us want a glimpse at the rich and famous?

But seriously, are we so celeb-obsessed that we need to see photos of celebs and their kids? Isn’t all that paparazzi attention just a tad intrusive? Yes, they’re famous and the attention comes with the territory, but where do you draw the line?

Tori Spelling recently got in a car accident trying to keep the paparazzi out of her kids’ faces. And how many cameras follow Suri Cruise around? At what point is it all just too much?

Alyssa Milano brings up an important point when she says that posting these photos “is perpetuating unethical and unsafe behavior.”

It’s such a huge invasion of privacy – can you imagine having photographers chasing you and your family around constantly?

It’s too bad that celebs have to put up with the intrusion, but there should definitely be laws that prevent paps from photographing kids.

Nicole Richie said it well last fall on her blog when she slammed paparazzi for chasing down shots of kids:

“You do not get to spend 200 dollars on a camera, and think that gives you a free pass to shadow my child. These are strangers, grown men, stalking young children. You think that’s ok? Here’s a better visual: Pulling up to school and seeing grown men slouched in black windowed cars outside of a preschool, all day. I’m not even there, so you cannot say you are following me as you always do. You are stalking the children. Now how do you feel?”

Chris Brown Calls Paparazzi “Gay” After Parking Ticket Scare

Chris Brown went off on some paparazzi in LA yesterday, accusing them of calling police to alert them of his illegally parked car. 

When he discovered a parking officer by his ride, TMZ reports that Brown turned to the cameramen, saying “Y’all n—as is weak. Did you all call them to try and film me? Y’all n—as is gay.” 

While Brown apparently was only fined a hug and an autograph, the photogs did get themselves a fresh new case of a celeb using the word “gay” negatively. So it’s not like they went home empty-handed.

This isn’t the first time Brown has done such a thing, tweeting that B2k’s Raz B was a “d— in da booty ass lil boy” during feud online late last year. 

So far Chris has yet to acknowledge the accusation, but he may eventually share the same apology he did then: “I love all of my fans, gay and straight. I have friends from all walks of life and I am committed, with God’s help, to continue becoming a better person.” 

Keep trying, Chris!

Photograph With Director/Producer Brett Ratner!

Brett Ratner, one of Hollywood’s most successful directors, producers and photographers is inviting aspiring photographers to work with him on a photo shoot with Treats! Magazine in Los Angeles. 

Participants are asked to submit one original portrait photograph displaying their creativity for the chance to work with Brett. 

The winner will work with Brett on a Treats! photo shoot to learn invaluable advice from an industry professional. 

The shoot will take place in Los Angeles and will be featured in the 3rd issue of the magazine and will also be credited in the same issue. 

Travel and two nights’ accommodation will be provided. The 5 highest voted submissions will each receive a signed copy of a Rat Entertainment DVD and a year long subscription to Treats! (4 issues).

Read more here:


Britney Spears Tells The Paparazzi F*ck You In "I Wanna Go"

Britney Spears tells the media and paparazzi, "f*ck you, f*ck you, you're okay, and f*ck you too" in her new video "I Wanna Go."

Britney channeled a little bit of punk rock and a lot of rock 'n roll in "I Wanna Go." The anti-paparazzi themed video gave Britney the perfect opportunity to make fun and address all of the outrageous rumors she's heard about herself.

When asked if she was pregnant with Brad Pitt's love child, her response was simply, "That is false, it's actually quintuplets."

Check out Britney in "I Wanna Go" below,  please feel free to use the MUTE button...

June 17, 2011

Vancouver Rioters Hunted On Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr

There's little anonymity left in rioting these days. Thanks to cameraphones and tagging, police will be able to identify some of the Vancouver hooligans who set fires, smashed storefronts and overturned cars in Stanley Cup related rioting.

There are already loads of photos on a Facebook group and Tumblr set up by Vancouverites to out the rioters. There are also pictures all over Twitter, where the mayor and police have issued tweets asking people to preserve their videos and pics of the rioting.

Uploading images is one thing, but authorities also need people to snitch out their associates and tag the photos. It looks like that's already happening. Inevitably, some innocents have already been incorrectly dragged into the social media manhunt.

Hopefully the Vancouver PD is able to bring charges against a large number of wrongdoers. The deterrent value of social media shame over drunkards is admittedly limited. But if people know they could get sent to jail thanks to anyone with an iPhone, the contagious allure of rioting could, at least, be reduced.

June 16, 2011

Apple to 'ban iPhone gig filming'

IPHONE users may soon be stopped from filming at concerts — as a result of new Apple technology.

The leading computer company plans to build a system that will sense when people are trying to video live events — and turn off their cameras.

A patent application filed by Apple revealed how the technology would work.

If an iPhone were held up and used to film during a concert infra-red sensors would detect it.

These sensors would then contact the iPhone and automatically disable its camera function.

People would still be able to send text messages and make calls.

The new technology is seen as an attempt to protect the interests of event organisers and broadcasters who have exclusive rights to concerts.

The companies are often left frustrated when videos of shows appear online via websites such as YouTube which let users watch them for free.

Apple filed for the patent 18 months ago — and it is thought if successful it will help them negotiate deals with record labels to sell content through iTunes.

June 14, 2011

Tori Spelling involved in "pretty big" car accident

Tori Spelling and her two children were involved in a car accident on Monday, and she says the incident was caused by an aggressive photographer.

"Paparazzi chased me w/the kids 2school," the pregnant star tweeted. "I was trying to get away from him and had a pretty big accident. Took down whole wall of school."

"He thn STILL got out to try to get pics. 10 school moms chased him away," she added. "Wht will it take? Someone dying for paparazzi to stop? Going to dr now to check on baby. I think its just shock."

"Tori is really shaken up but she and the kids are doing fine," her rep told People magazine. "She's going to the doctor for a checkup."

LAPD spokeswoman Officer Rosario Herrera told E! News, "She hit a curb near the school and no one was hurt. "There will be no further investigation." Herrera added that Spelling did not hit a wall of the school.

June 10, 2011

For Stars, Fans and Paparazzi, Court’s the Spot

The scene outside the courthouse in Lower Manhattan on Wednesday was familiar, as a central figure, surrounded by a flock of photographers, lumbered toward the building’s entrance.

A few feet away, a man in a baseball cap wore a look of disgust and surprise.

“What happened to Ja?” the man shouted as the rapper Ja Rule walked past.

“Ja, you good?” the man asked.

Outside the main Manhattan Criminal Courts building, a path to the entrance has become a law-and-order version of the red carpet. While celebrities stroll, reporters and camera crews line the periphery. Fans and others are relegated to the back.

Until recently, the platinum standard for such chaos was set by the rapper Lil Wayne, when he received a one-year jail sentence in 2010 for attempted possession of a weapon.

Fans and the news media gathered hours before Lil Wayne’s arrival. His sport utility vehicle had to make a second pass at the building before he could get out. Once his feet touched the pavement, a mob scene ensued. More than a hundred people swarmed him, nearly trampling one another.
Sports stars get similar treatment; court officers placed metal barricades so the former New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress could make his way to the courthouse relatively unimpeded.

But the honor for creating the most carnival-like atmosphere might go to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund. When Mr. Strauss-Kahn arrived at the courthouse Monday morning to be formally charged with attempted rape and other counts in State Supreme Court, a roar went up, and hotel housekeepers began chanting, “Shame on you.”

The reception for Ja Rule, who was to receive a two-year sentence after pleading guilty to attempted gun possession, was less of a spectacle.
At the most, 10 photographers awaited his arrival, including a television camera crew with a boom microphone. There was no noticeable gathering of fans. A court officer who works at the building’s entrance said, “Compared to the last couple of weeks, that was just like a normal person walking in.”

For his part, Ja Rule did not seem to be embracing the moment.
When his black Ford Flex pulled into a parking lot across the street from the courthouse about 1:50 p.m., he sat behind the tinted windows for several moments while the photographers pounced.

“It’s unbelievable they’re converging on the car,” his lawyer, Stacey Richman, said.

A man standing nearby said that whoever was in the car needed to step out to face his time.

Then, at 1:52 p.m., Ja Rule emerged, dressed in a white V-neck T-shirt, gray sweat pants and white shoes. He wore brown, thick-framed Ray-Ban sunglasses.

When a cameraman asked if he had anything to say to his fans, he responded, “See ya’ll in 18,” a reference to the number of months he expects to serve before he is eligible to be released.

“One love,” he added.

The only other thing he said, as he clutched his wife, Aisha Atkins, was, “Watch out for my wife now.”

Ja Rule’s manager, Ron Robinson, said that it made sense that Lil Wayne would create more of a furor on his way to jail. “At the time he went to jail, he was the No. 1 rapper in the game,” Mr. Robinson said of Lil Wayne.
But that is not to say that Ja Rule, whose latest album, “Pain Is Love 2,” is due out at the end of July, was shy about his fate.

On Tuesday, he sent a Twitter message that he was spending his last day out with his family, going to see “X-Men: First Class.” Just after noon on Wednesday, he posted another message, “Out on my patio having my last free moment I love all my fans Pain is love!!!”

The courtroom proceeding lasted all of about two minutes, and Ja Rule declined to say anything before Justice Richard D. Carruthers sentenced him to two years in prison.

When members of his family said, “Love you,” after he was handcuffed, Ja Rule replied, “Love ya’ll too.” Then, court officers escorted him through a back door and out of sight.

Tenn. law bans posting images that "cause emotional distress"

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to "transmit or display an image" online that is likely to "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress" to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

The Tennessee legislature has been busy updating its laws for the Internet age, and not always for the better. Last week we reported on a bill that updated Tennessee's theft-of-service laws to include "subscription entertainment services" like Netflix.

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender "reasonably should know" would "cause emotional distress" to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a "legitimate purpose," the sender faced jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the "emotionally distressed" individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you "should have known" that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you're not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn't require that the picture be of the "victim," nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, "pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group," could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill "pretty clearly unconstitutional."

Another provision of the legislation governs law enforcement access to the contents of communications on social networking sites. The government can get access to "images or communications" posted to a social networking site by offering "specific and articulable facts," suggesting that the information sought is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This section, too, faces constitutional problems. Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute, tells Ars that "this is a lower standard than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act requires" for unread communications. More importantly, because Tennessee is in the Sixth Circuit, it is bound by that court's Warshak decision, which held that the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a full search warrant in order to access e-mail communications. "That case dealt with e-mail," Sanchez said, "but there's no good reason to think a private message on a social network site is any different."

Rep. Charles Curtiss, the lead sponsor of the legislation, did not respond to our request for comment.