The new amendments to California’s anti-paparazzi legislation offer celebrities more protection from pushy photographers. That’s great for Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, but what about small business and the public? Average citizens – those without bodyguards or convoys – have the most to fear from aggressive and dangerous paparazzi.
The new law, which went into effect Jan. 1, imposes greater liability for actual or constructive trespass in capturing an image or sound recording of celebrities. The enhancements include the possible imposition of civil monetary penalties. These modifications were designed to keep aggressive photographers from jumping over the hedges onto someone’s lawn to take revealing images, and to discourage the use of such things as high-powered lenses and microphones.
The amendments impose liability not only on those who take the offending image, but also on those who knowingly sell, transmit, broadcast or use any such illegally obtained image. This was done to discourage media from buying illegally captured images by imposing liability on the publishers if they pay for content knowing that there was a violation of the law in capturing the image. But does this statute really protect those who need it the most?
The occasional celebrity chases and paparazzi trespasses fail to illuminate a deeper truth: For the most part, celebrities and the paparazzi are engaged in a symbiotic relationship. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sold the first photographs of their daughter, Shiloh, to People magazine; Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore received millions for exclusive photos of their wedding. Arguably, Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton don’t exist but for the paparazzi.
Despite these examples of privacy for sale, there are myriad examples of celebrities who seek to maintain their privacy and have limited their access to the media. They do not deserve to have their privacy violated with strangers on their lawns taking snapshots of them in private moments.
No one can fault the Legislature for seeking to rein in out-of-control paparazzi. But many laws in California already cover this type of intrusion. In reality, this is nothing more than the well-recognized tort of invasion of privacy, for which compensatory and punitive damages already exist. Also, the celebrities who are typically of most interest to the paparazzi can afford such things as gated properties, high hedges, lawyers, bodyguards and other measures to protect against intrusions.
The main flaw in the statute is lack of protection for the real victims – you and me. Nothing in this law addresses the risk to the public from convoys of cars chasing celebrities, streets blocked in front of homes and businesses while aggressive photographers wait for a celebrity get the mail, and street closures when the paparazzi flood becomes too much to handle.
Invasion of privacy
The neighbors of Michael Jackson’s last rental home in Los Angeles and those who live near Tiger Woods in Orlando, Fla., suffered undeserved inconvenience and invasion of privacy through no fault of their own. Where are the laws to prevent “stalking” outside a residence for more than a few minutes for no other reason than to snap a photo? Where are the laws to prevent visitors from parking outside a residence or a business for several hours for the same reason? What about statutes to seek redress when paparazzi block our driveways, cut us off in traffic and make our lives more dangerous?
Although the amended law seeks to protect the privacy of celebrities, it does nothing to protect the public and businesses that need to pay for the police necessary to direct traffic and keep the peace while the paparazzi seek their shots that might bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars to them. If the state really wanted to pass legislation with the teeth to discourage celebrity news hounds from their often rude and intrusive behavior, it would also provide redress to the innocent public whose streets are blocked, lawns are trashed and sleep is disturbed.
Most of us can’t afford to sue photographers in lengthy court cases, and we can’t fight back on “Entertainment Tonight” or “Larry King.” Maybe the California Legislature should have spent less time thinking about Hollywood and more time about the rest of us. Yes, Britney Spears deserves privacy, but she can afford protection. If a street in front of your small business is blocked due to a celebrity chase, you are out of luck.
The Legislature must act to provide average citizens and businesses with quick and economical redress that recognizes their rights. Stricter loitering and nuisance laws need to be passed and enforced to provide a strong financial disincentive to the paparazzi for staking out a celebrity. Otherwise, the law becomes much like a reality TV star – great at attracting attention but in the end, meaningless and vapid.
Daniel A. Rozansky is a partner with the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in Los Angeles. He concentrates on entertainment law.
