Italian film director Federico Fellini’s La Dolce Vita gave way to the celebrity photos seen in tabloid, magazines and newspapers. Fellini was inspired by a pack of press photographers he saw in Italy trying to snap a photo of a passing celebrity; in Italian, paparazzo means buzzing insect.According to John Ingledew, author of “Photography,” the paparazzi objective is to appease the public with photos of celebrities in their private lives without any regards to personal boundaries. They in-turn sell the photos to newspapers and magazines willing to offer the photographer a comfortable paycheck. X17, the most popular paparazzi agency, is said that a few of the photographers made over 100 thousand dollars from Britney Spears photos in one year, according to timminspress.com. Because the pay has been getting higher in the past few years, the competition for celebrity photos is getting more aggressive.
The Independent Institute’s Web site explains that the paparazzi cannot invade private property to obtain a story or to take a photographer. The line gets blurred with this law because everyone has the right to freedom of speech, which means paparazzi are protected by the First Amendment.
"...66 thousand dollars worth of security..."
However, they have free reign over public property. As an example of what the paparazzi can do on public property, The Independent Institute uses the illustration, “as when they chase relatives of the victims of a plane crash to ask, ‘How do you feel about losing your children in this tragic accident?’”
There is a legislation said to in consideration called "Britney's Law," according to the LA Times Online. The legislation will help protect celebrities from chasing photographers and passersby getting stuck in the middle of the swarm.
William Hodgman, chief of the target crimes division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, explained on firstamendmentcenter.org that it would be impossible to charge photographers on trespassing. "Prosecutors wouldn't have to overcome the kind of First Amendment defenses photojournalists have when they are sued for taking photos in public because crimes like trespassing aren't protected by the Constitution."
California is trying to enforce a new anti-paparazzi laws to protect the privacy of celebrities and civilians. Any person can sue a member of the media if they have entered private property without permission explains Kelli Sager, a writer for Davis Wright Tremaine practicing law office. She also explains that constructive invasion of privacy is when a member of the media tries to get a hold of private videos, sound recording or undisclosed photographs of a celebrity, or a civilian. However, if the items were achieved without a trespass, it will not be considered against the law. This normally happens when a friend or family member of the celebrity sells photos to the media.
Despite the efforts, Los Angeles' city police believe the law is difficult too enforce because it would mean that every celebrity would need a buffer of a few feet between them and the photographers. Los Angeles' Police Chief William Bratton explained to fox28.com that he is more concerned about equal protection. "Are all celebrities, A list, B list, C list, entitled to the same protection?"
However, they have free reign over public property. As an example of what the paparazzi can do on public property, The Independent Institute uses the illustration, “as when they chase relatives of the victims of a plane crash to ask, ‘How do you feel about losing your children in this tragic accident?’”
There is a legislation said to in consideration called "Britney's Law," according to the LA Times Online. The legislation will help protect celebrities from chasing photographers and passersby getting stuck in the middle of the swarm.
William Hodgman, chief of the target crimes division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, explained on firstamendmentcenter.org that it would be impossible to charge photographers on trespassing. "Prosecutors wouldn't have to overcome the kind of First Amendment defenses photojournalists have when they are sued for taking photos in public because crimes like trespassing aren't protected by the Constitution."
California is trying to enforce a new anti-paparazzi laws to protect the privacy of celebrities and civilians. Any person can sue a member of the media if they have entered private property without permission explains Kelli Sager, a writer for Davis Wright Tremaine practicing law office. She also explains that constructive invasion of privacy is when a member of the media tries to get a hold of private videos, sound recording or undisclosed photographs of a celebrity, or a civilian. However, if the items were achieved without a trespass, it will not be considered against the law. This normally happens when a friend or family member of the celebrity sells photos to the media.
Despite the efforts, Los Angeles' city police believe the law is difficult too enforce because it would mean that every celebrity would need a buffer of a few feet between them and the photographers. Los Angeles' Police Chief William Bratton explained to fox28.com that he is more concerned about equal protection. "Are all celebrities, A list, B list, C list, entitled to the same protection?"
During the legal battle between both sides, the conclusion was brought to that the law is flawed. It violates the First Amendment. On bnet.com, attorney Douglas Mirell says that there is a problem with the wording of the law. "Does persistently] mean [following someone] for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?
Photographs and videos aren't the only things the media is trying to obtain from the famous. According to latimes.com, 13 workers are in the process of being fired from UCLA Medical Center for looking through the medical record of Britney Spears, and in 2007 Palisades Medical Center in New Jersey suspended 27 workers for a month for looking through George Clooney's records after his motorcycle accident caused by a paparazzi chase. In both cases, the information was leaked to the media. But because the paparazzi did not trespass to obtain this information, they could not be charged for invading privacy.
Celebrities have taken the situation into their own hands when having to deal with the paparazzi. Heidi Klum and Russel Crowe have hired their own photographers to release their wedding and children’s photos under contracts with publications and networks. Klum told USA Today about her child’s photos, "That's why I released the photos of her, instead of having photographers hunt for them.”
In 2003, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas took legal action against a paparazzo named Rupert Thorpe for invading their wedding and selling photos to Hello! Magazine. Zeta-Jones and Douglas had hired a photographer and 66 thousand dollars worth of security, and had an exclusive contract with OK! magazine for the rights to use their wedding photos. Also, Nicole Kidman testified in 2007 against an Australian newspaper because a photographer forcefully pursued her. "I was frightened and I was worried there was going to be an accident," Kidman said in court according to cbsnews.com.
Unlike the United States, France has strict privacy laws. According to the International Herald Tribune’s Web site, the laws are so strict “that editors usually print a black band across the faces of subjects who have not given permission for their pictures to be published.” However, French photographers get around this rule by taking the photos then selling the prints to Britain, Spain, and Germany’s tabloid magazines.
According to the nytimes.com, People magazine's weekly circulation is 3.63 million, and US Weekly has raised its circulation of 10 percent from 2006 with 19 million. Washingtonpost.com says that there are over 50,000 celebrity photos submitted a week to each magazine. Obviously, the demand for these stories and photos are still high, and despite efforts to protect celebrity privacy the laws and legislations are not going to be enforced soon.
Laura Delarato, Playgirl Intern & Contributing Writer
photo from here.
No comments:
Post a Comment