US police to photograph public using iPhones

Police across the United States have been given license to photograph members of the public using iPhones, to establish whether their face matches a criminal database via facial recognition software.

Law-enforcement agencies in the US are gearing up to kit out police forces with the technology in September in a move likely to raise privacy concerns, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The device, called Moris, is a piece of hardware that attaches to an iPhone and is designed to recognize whether the person has a criminal history from an image of their face or the iris of the eye.

'The Moris system analyses 235 unique features in each iris and uses an algorithm to match that person with their identity if they are in the database,' reports the WSJ.

A police officer would need to be no more than five feet away for the facial recognition software to work, based on an image of their face alone. The system analyses '130 distinguishing points on the face', according to the newspaper.

Sarah Jessica Parker won't leave NYC despite presence of pesky paparazzi

Sarah Jessica Parker has revealed that the prying eyes of the paparazzi cannot shoo her away from New York City.

Rather, the actress has chosen to deal with her celebrity status directly, and not shy away from it.

The actress and husband Matthew Broderick were believed to be moving out of the city to pursue a suburban life with their kids, but Parker says that she's not ready for that kind of life right now.

"They follow every move I make until I'm back inside the house," the New York Daily News quoted her as telling the Vogue.

"You do start to understand the behind-the-gate mentality, the getting in the car in your driveway, but I can't imagine living in seclusion," she said.

"We flirted with it. We went outside the city and troubled all these realtors and stood in these homes and fantasized," she explained.

"The beautiful thing about New York is, you have to expose yourself to other people the minute you step outside the door. There is no choice. And I love that," she added.

Jennifer Aniston, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Lopez Participate in Paparazzi Doc

In "$ellebrity," rock and roll photographer and WireImage co-founder Kevin Mazur chronicles the rise of tabloid journalism told through the prism of the lens.


Longtime rock and roll photographer, red carpet fixture and WireImage co-founder Kevin Mazur is turning the lens on his own industry, chronicling the rise of the modern-day paparazzi in his first documentary, $ellebrity. The topic is a perfect fit. After all, WireImage (acquired in 2007 by Getty Images) is famous for shooting the stars at awards shows, onstage and on the street.

Mazur started the project two years ago with encouragement from Marc Anthony. “We’re friends,” Mazur tells The Hollywood Reporter, and he said, ‘Nobody Knows this business better than you.’ ” So Anthony, wife Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Aniston, Sarah Jessica Parker, Elton John, Kid Rock and more were interviewed and wound up narrating the doc, which is in its final editing phase.

“People have always expected me to do music videos, but I’ve wanted to do films for a long time,” says Mazur, echoing the ambition of fellow shutterbugs-turned-directors like Spike Jonze, David Lachapelle and Danny Clinch. “Our goal in making the film was to have an intelligent conversation between all the parties -- the paparazzi, celebrities and people in the industry.”

Rolling Stone contributor David Wild conducted the interviews, which are both candid and, in some cases, surprisingly laid back -- a testament to the stars’ trust in Mazur and their faith in the film. “It’s fun to watch the Jennifer and Marc segments because they’re so relaxed and joking with each other,” says Mazur. “It’s like just hanging out in their house.”

At the same time, some of the conversations are incredibly intense, such as one scene when Parker describes being hounded by paparazzi while pregnant and another when Aniston explains the many methods she’s used to try and reason with the photographers who follow her every move.

But in chronicling the evolution of tabloid journalism from Hollywood’s earliest scandals to the recent issues of Us Weekly, Mazur emphasizes that his team didn’t just focus on the stars. “We talked to people on the street, newsstand owners and some photographers,” he says. “But most of those guys turn out to be hypocrites: they will take pictures of celebrities, but they won’t be photographed themselves.”

Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency?

A year and a half ago, we wrote about a movie that was entirely filmed by chimpanzees, and wondered about who held the copyright on it. Technically, in most cases, whoever makes the actual work gets the copyright. That is, if you hand your camera to a stranger to take your photo, technically that stranger holds the copyright on the photo, though no one ever enforces this. There were some different theories made in the comments about who actually holds the copyrights, but no clear agreement. Of course, the whole discussion was purely theoretical, because it wasn't like anyone was concerned about the copyright.

However, now we have a similar, but different, story where I think it's a very valid question. Mr. LemurBoy points us to a story involving an award winning nature photographer, David Slater, who was in Indonesia in a national park. At some point, he left the camera unattended, and apparently a macaque monkey wandered over and took this hilarious self-portrait:
Now that's the best photo of the bunch, and appears to have no copyright notice on it (though that doesn't mean it's not covered by copyright), but two of the other photos, which the article also claims were taken by the monkeys, do have copyright notices, with the claim being that the copyright is held by the Caters News Agency.

So here's the legal question: how did the copyright get assigned to Caters? I can't see how there's been a legal transfer. The monkeys were unlikely to have sold or licensed the work. I'm assuming that it's likely that the photographer, Slater, probably submitted the photos to the agency, and from a common sense view of things, that would make perfect sense. But from a letter-of-the-law view of things, Slater almost certainly does not hold the copyrights on those images, and has no legal right to then sell, license or assign them to Caters.

Will & Kate royal visit: LAPD has plan to rein in paparazzi

Paparazzi anticipating a veritable royal feast of photographs when Prince William and his wife, Catherine, visit Los Angeles may be in for a rude awakening -- and a potential jail stay -- if they expect to take shots of the royal couple in certain parts of Hancock Park.

The Los Angeles Police Department has secured no-trespassing letters from residents who live in seven homes around the June Street residence where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will spend the night.

Those who live around the British consul general's residence have also signed keep-away orders, giving officers free rein to arrest prying paparazzi on the spot if they try to capture images of the royals while on private property.

"Our primary concern is to protect the rights and privacy of the residents as well as the safety of the royal couple upon their visit here to the United States," LAPD spokeswoman Mitzi Fierro said. "If they trespass on property where we have a signed trespass letter, they will be arrested immediately."

Some tabloids have already made lucrative offers to residents in the area but have not gotten any takers in the immediate area where the royal couple are staying, Fierro said.

The royal couple arrive in Los Angeles on Friday. On Saturday evening, they will attend a black-tie dinner and reception hosted by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts — of which William is president — at the recently renovated Belasco Theater in downtown Los Angeles. The “BAFTA Brits to Watch” event aims to spotlight emerging British talent and build partnerships between Hollywood and up-and-coming British actors.

D.C. Police Violated Photographer's Rights: ACLU

View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com.

The District of Columbia is facing a lawsuit that could have national implications.

Several D.C. police officers violated a young man's constitutional rights when he tried to photograph them last summer, according to the ACLU. Officers lied when they told a photography student he needed permission to take their pictures.

The ACLU believes that with cell phone technology getting better, some police are getting worried that their actions will be preserved and used against them in ways that weren't possible just a few years ago.

Jerome Vorus, 20, was a photography student walking through Georgetown in July 2010 when he saw a traffic stop and decided to snap some picture for his portfolio. After taking a few minutes of taking pictures from the sidewalk on both sides of the street, he was asked to stop shooting and to show identification.

"They told me to put the camera away, to stop audio recording and that I am being detained ... and that it is unlawful within the District to photograph and audio record police officers without prior consent," Vorus said.

"That's part of our right of free speech, and the police ought to know that citizens can do that just as the police can take pictures of citizens out on the street," said Arthur Spitzer, of the ACLU.

The ACLU filed suit in U.S. District Court Thursday morning saying that since Vorus wasn’t interfering with police work, the officers violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights.

By holding Vorus for about an hour, police violated D.C. law, Spitzer said.

"As long as she was holding on to his ID, he was not free to just walk away," he said.

"They're nuts to detain someone simply on the basis that they're taking photos and the police doesn't like it,” Vorus said. “It’s outrageous."

Vorus said when he began recording audio of his exchange with police, he was told that also was against the law in D.C. Under D.C. law, only one person needs to consent to a recording, Spitzer said.

The lawsuit seeks compensation and punitive damages.

"I want to see police around the country know that photography is not a basis for detainment -- it is not unlawful -- and to stop harassing and abusing their authority," Vorus said.

Attorney General Irvin Nathan has 20 days to respond to the lawsuit. He said he has not seen the complaint and couldn’t comment.

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?

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.

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:

http://www.talenthouse.com/brett-ratner-assist-on-a-treats-magazine-photoshoot

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...

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

'Masked men' attack paparazzi outside Ryan Giggs' home

A van of masked men have reportedly attacked the cars of photographers camped outside the house of Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer who finds himself caught up in a super-injunction storm.

Police were called to Chatsworth Road in the village of Worsley this afternoon, according to Sky News.

A statement issued by Greater Manchester Police said: "Officers attended and discovered at least six cars had been vandalised after a group of offenders arrived in a Ford Transit van and attacked the vehicles.

'Inquiries are continuing.'

Reporters said cars belonging to them were kicked and covered in flour and eggs and car tyres were slashed.

Several men wearing balaclavas burst out of a Ford Transit van and attacked the vehicles before fleeing the scene.


The media has descended on the Giggs household after it was revealed in Parliament yesterday that the Welsh legend was behind a gagging order which prohibited details of an alleged affair with reality star Imogen Thomas from emerging.

 

White House: No more photo re-enactments

The White House said it is ending its long-running practice of having presidents re-enact televised speeches for news photographers following major addresses to the country, a little-known arrangement that fed suggestions of fakery when Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden.


After Obama's live, late-evening address from the East Room of the White House on May 1, five photographers were ushered in to shoot pictures as the president stood at the podium and re-read a few lines of his speech — a practice that news organizations have protested for years.

Even though The Associated Press and other news outlets said in captions to the photos that they were taken after the president delivered his address, many people who saw them may have assumed they depicted the speech itself. That raised questions of whether news organizations were staging an event.

The issue also drew attention when Jason Reed of Reuters, one of the photographers who took part, blogged about the assignment, saying the president "re-enacted the walkout and first 30 seconds of the statement for us."

This week, the White House stepped in.

"We have concluded that this arrangement is a bad idea," Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said late Wednesday. He said the administration is open to working out some new arrangement with photographers.
The practice of re-enactments has a long history. Washington veterans say President Harry Truman would deliver speeches over radio and then repeat them for newsreel cameras. Doug Mills, a photographer for The New York Times who was on duty May 1, said he has seen every president from Ronald Reagan to Obama take time after a speech so still photographers could get their shots.

Photographers know that for these major televised addresses, delivered from the White House without an audience, newspapers and websites expect to illustrate their stories with a picture of the president speaking. News organizations disdain White House handout photos, preferring to take the pictures themselves. They consider "screen grabs" from television to be of poor quality.

Yet the presence of still photographers with cameras that make noise can be a distraction to a president, particularly in cramped settings such as the Oval Office, and perhaps to viewers of the speech.

"All it takes is for some photographer to drop something and the president react to it, and it looks terrible on television," Mills said.

The AP, in the photo captions transmitted with pictures shot by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, said: "President Barack Obama reads his statement to photographers after making a televised statement" on bin Laden's death. Despite that, a survey by the journalism think tank Poynter Institute found that 30 of 50 newspaper front pages that used an Obama photo from the speech "implied or strongly suggested it was an image of the live address."

Santiago Lyon, director of photography for the AP, said the news service "would welcome real-time access to these sort of addresses in a way that maintains our journalistic independence."

The White House usually has an official photographer on duty, and the administration's Pete Souza took pictures of the president's real speech that night. But news organizations generally resist using handouts unless necessary — as was the case with the official photos of the White House Situation Room during the mission that killed bin Laden.

Also, the role of the official White House photographer is to show presidents in a good light. For example, if a president were to shed a tear or get visibly angry during a speech, it might make a great news photo, but probably not one the White House staff would want to circulate.
Don Winslow, editor of News Photographer magazine for the National Press Photographers Association, said the White House offered a pool arrangement for national addresses, where one photographer would be chosen and would agree to distribute a photo to colleagues, but news organizations rejected it.

David Ake, assistant AP bureau chief for photography in Washington, said the White House has not approached the AP with the idea. But he said single-photographer pools allow only one point of view.

"There are examples every day of the variety of pictures made when several photographers are present for a news event," Ake said. "Single-photographer pools stifle the creativity created by competition among several photographers to make the best storytelling image."

There are conflicting accounts on whether technology exists to take photographs without distracting the president. One idea could be using mirrors so photographers could do their jobs out of the president's sight line, the White House's Earnest said.

"We're optimistic that we can work out another arrangement with the still photographers," he said.

Paparazzi debate flares over royal bridesmaid pics

LONDON (AP) — As Prince William and Kate Middleton honeymoon in a secluded spot, the paparazzi who stalk them are back in the spotlight.

There's a brewing legal battle over publication of 5-year-old photographs of bridesmaid Pippa Middleton sunbathing topless, and anger about gruesome photographs of the late Princess Diana in the moments after her 1997 car crash appearing in a documentary about her death.

The publication of the Pippa pictures — showing the 27-year-old on a powerboat with older sister Kate (in a revealing bikini) and William (in a red and white bathing suit) — prompted the Middleton family to file a formal petition to Britain's independent Press Complaints Commission.

That complaint is seen as the first salvo in what is expected to be a conflict between the monarchy and the press as both sides try to establish boundaries in a new royal era defined by William and Middleton, now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and their determination to live a normal life.

The prince and his bride jetted off this week to a secret honeymoon spot that royal watchers believe was chosen specifically to keep them out of the lenses of the paparazzi.

"That and security would have been of primary importance," said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine. "We've known for a long time William would not stand for any nonsense regarding his new wife and her family."

Many Britons — mindful of how Princess Diana was tracked by the paparazzi in the moments leading to her fatal car crash — want the new royal couple, and the rest of the Middleton clan, to be able to move about without facing a constant barrage of flashing cameras.
"I think they should be left alone to be honest, after what happened to Lady Diana," said Marla Quinn, a 43 year-old receptionist from Surrey.
The nation has been astir with news that "death photos" of Diana moments after her high-speed crash in a Paris tunnel will be shown in a new film about her death, "Unlawful Killing," premiering at the Cannes Film Festival.

The Middleton family's complaint cites four British tabloids — the News of the World, Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mirror — for publishing photos that violated family privacy, including those of the sisters and William on the luxury boat off the coast off the Mediterranean island of Ibiza.

Other pictures of Pippa Middleton have also received wide exposure on the Internet and in various publications, including one of her dancing suggestively in a lavender bra and a flimsy white skirt with an unidentified man wearing boxer shorts. Sensitive pictures of younger brother James Middleton have also circulated on the Internet.

The independent press commission will determine whether the newspapers have violated the Middletons' privacy and whether there are any "public right to know" issues that might justify publication of the photos.

While freedom of speech is protected in the United States by the First Amendment, European law protects privacy as well as free expression, often leaving it to judges to balance the two competing concerns.
A key European Court of Human Rights judgment in 2004 bolstered privacy protection by ruling that three German magazines infringed on Princess Caroline of Monaco's privacy by publishing photos of her and her children at a Monaco beach club.

The recent British newspaper coverage, including front-page photos of Pippa Middleton in a bikini, reflects her status as a surprise star of the royal wedding.

Her appearance in a figure-flattering Alexander McQueen gown at the wedding has sparked a flurry of interest, including the establishment of a Pippa Middleton appreciation page on Facebook.

Experts believe her newfound fame offers a raft of commercial opportunities — but could be undone if more embarrassing photos surface.

Katrina Kutchinsky, managing director of KK Communications, which represents luxury restaurants and bars, said Pippa Middleton is in high demand on the London nightlife scene.

"She's definitely the hot ticket at the moment, my venues are trying to reach her, but she's very well protected," Kutchinsky said. "Everyone is talking about her."