Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
Ridley Scott Commits To Next Direct McCarthy’s … 
Marvel Studio’s Tim Connors Defects To Legendary As … 
UPDATE: Warner Bros Lawyers Dig In Garbage Over ‘The … 
UPDATE: LAPD Skips Today’s Confab On Paparazzi: Chief Blames Britney, Paris And Lindsay
I consider this public obsession with celebrities in our culture to be a sickness. So I see the photographers who cover them just a manifestation of the underlying disease. Now officials from celebrity enclaves like Beverly Hills and Malibu are meeting for the first time today to discuss tougher regulations against the stalkarazzi or wreckarazzi. News reports say the goal is for each city to adopt its own ordinances to punish aggressive paparazzi, while keeping the rules uniform in the places where celebrities live, work and play. But the already over-burdened police forces would have a hell of a time enforcing any new codes and can’t even enforce the already existing regs like loitering used against the pic-takers. True, the incidents keep mounting of A-list celebs trying to protect their privacy. Meanwhile, the photographers themselves are encouraging the idea of certification program to separate the “legit” paparazzi from the non-legit. But I believe the only way to stop outrageous behavior by the photogs is to hold responsible the editors of those magazines and websites willing to pay outrageous prices for celebrity pictures. None of this would be happening if the photos weren’t worth millions of dollars in newsstand sales. Of course, the public is at fault for wanting to see the snaps in the first place. But I say that if a stalkarazzi is getting too rough and tumble, then the mag or web editor who assigns or publishes those photos is as much morally and legally at fault as the picture taker. That’ll end this crap once and for all.
Loading ...
Could there be criminal penalties against the celebutard who called them first, to ensure the stalking?
I guess it doesn’t matter, because they would only spend 28 minutes in jail.
Yeah, I agree. Make those who purchase these pictures “recipients of illegal goods”. Haul the editors and the photogs off to jail. Real jail. For Real time. The craziness will end soon enough. And if we find out the celebs were the ones who “tipped off” the photogs, which then caused a frenzy and endangered the public, haul them off to jail too. Co-conspiritors. What was the law they used against crack dealers to put them all in jail? RICO? There ya go.
Oh please. The stars being “pursued” are in cahoots with the paps. If you don’t want to be photographed, don’t phone ahead to a photo agency to let them know where you are going. Don’t go out for coffee ten times a day, and feign outrage as you push your way through the throng. Don’t have ten bodyguards and a police escort as you disembark from a plane. Don’t walk the red carpet and don’t court the editors of the mags. If a star wants privacy, they will figure out how to get it. It’s no surprise that the same sorry cast of characters are always showing up in print.
As for paps who trespass onto private property (see incidents against Halle Berry and the Jolie-Pitts), those can be tackled with existing laws.
Plus, no new law constraining the paps that has any teeth will pass constitutional muster.
“wreckarazzi”?
Nice try, but that’s the lamest attempt to coin a new word I’ve heard in a LONG time.
And I don’t know how you’d hold the publications responsible. First, many of them are freelancers anyway. And second, if the photographers are actually getting “rough and tumble” you can go after them for that. Problem is, most of the time they’re not actually breaking a law or getting physical with the celebrities, they’re just near enough to annoy them and increasingly, causing them to snap.
This article doesn’t propose a solution at all. If someone wants to fix this, they need to come up with specific proposed rules that would be enforceable, would fix the problem, and not infringe on people’s rights. After all, on public property, it’s not illegal to take pictures, including pictures of other people on that public property, right?
Maybe the Gov will pass legislation that’ll make it open season on the paparazzi–make it a misdemeanor with a small fine to shoot a photographer doing his/her job or no penalty if you promise to not only kill them, but eat them too.
Pretty soon it’ll be the AMPTP, et al to request that something be done about reporters who are not friendly to the cause. First up: Nikki Fincke’s head mounted on a plaque. It sure would look great on some exec’s wall, wouldn’t you say?
My feeling on this is, if you can’t stand the heat–quite calling your PR guy and telling everybody your personal business. Pretty soon people won’t give a damn about how many times you went to the bathroom or why you hang your kid out to dry like laundry on a clothes line. And then won’t all the “stars” be bored?
Julia Roberts (I’m pretty sure she’s still a star) was in my Starbucks last week, nobody payed attention to her. Why? Nobody knew her itinerary, so no photographers were around. Brad and Angelina were in my local Big 5 store a few months back. Nobody knew they were there, nobody cared. I guess they got a new publicist since then.
People want to be famous, to be seen and recognized everyplace they go. Then they discover they don’t like it. Tough. You reap what you sew. Don’t like people following you around? Stay off the cell phone and quit calling you publicist to tell the paparazzi your every move. Now shut up.
This whole thing is childish.
The celebrities are like a bunch of children screaming “He won’t stop touching me” followed by paparazzi holding their cameras milimeters away from the celebrity’s face “I’m not touching you”.
Very mature… not!
The paparazzi can be intrusive, pushy, and downright annoying. If they were professional in the pursuit of their craft, they would willingly not trespass, they would keep their distance, and they would not impede the mobility of the stars they seek to photograph.
If the paparazzi act like hooligans, they ought to be prosecuted with existing statutes (for assault, battery, trespass, etc.).
Is there really a need for a law specific to cover paparazzi and stars? Will it only cover the insular communities surrounding the studios? What will happen on location in Toronto, Chicago, or New Orleans?
I welcome a reasoned discussion on the topic.
However, the photographers are not alone in the blame for this nonsense.
Celebrities have lost sight of the following:
* Having your picture taken while you and your loved ones are in public is not an invasion of privacy.
* There is no legitimate reason to behave like a maniac to avoid someone taking a picture of you or your loved ones in public. Assault and battery to confiscate camera equipment is just that… Assault and battery. Exceeding the speed limit, and ignoring traffic lights, stop signs, and the general rules of the road so that someone won’t take your picture puts yourself and the public in unnecessary danger (Just ask Princess Diana). But I guess a low speed chase isn’t very dramatic.
“Make those who purchase these pictures “recipients of illegal goods”.”
On what grounds would those pictures be illegal?
You can’t just make a law that says taking pictures of celebrities is illegal.
If photographers are causing traffic problems, or blocking pedestrians, then bust them for that, it’s already illegal. But when a celebrity is out in public, as long as someone isn’t breaking some other law, it’s not illegal to take their picture, is it? And if someone wanted to make such a law, you need to figure out what it would say that would accomplish what you want but not go so far that it criminalizes taking public photos at all. So does someone want to propose an actual solution instead of just vague posturing?
Who said we want to see these pictures? The only time I want to see pictures is when I’m checking out at the store.
Plain and simple, anywhere outside of Los Angeles they would be ticketed for j-walking and arrested for stalking. Unfortunately we live in LA and there is a different set of laws/rules for the rich while everyone else has to be held to the book.
Plus, if “stars” like Britney Spears pay the paparazi to give them publicity, how and when will it ever stop?
Lies and slander!
Nikki was on the scene years ago, and pumped Princess Di’s heart with one hand as she deftly fenced with the rabid star-crazed undead zombierazzi that were pursuing the gurney with the other.
With her last breath Di uttered a single word; a word that only Nikki Finke’s superhuman auditory senses could pick up over the panicked din in the hospital corridor:
“wreckarazzi”
Just use the second amendment and the 10th to eliminate these nutballs. If they are following you shoot them.
Nikki’s suggestion – to hold the magazine editors “responsible” – makes no sense. Responsible for what – for taking pictures? When was that made illegal? Are the magazine editors telling the reporters to tresspass, etc? If not, then they are not criminally responsible. If these photo goons trespass or do something illegal, then there are criminal laws which can be used to prosecute them. Creating special laws for the paparazzi is just stupid (and creating special laws for each municipality within LA County) borders on the insane. If all they are doing is annoying the Britneys of the world, who cares? All these proposed regulations – including certifying legitimate paprazzi as opposed to illegitimate paprazzi – are a waste of time and almost assuredly unconstitutional. (Councilman Zines’ proposal of a “zone of privacy” for celebrities is the zaniest of them all).
tim makes a good point
look at Brendan Fraser who is opening the mummy 3 this weekend, between films does anyone ever see him
the other osbourne kid i don’t even know her name she has done a job hiding from the public
it can be done
1. A number of the paps are supposedly illegal aliens, so have the feds check that out & deport them if they are.
2. Having seen some of the video of a dozen or more of the paps trailing the celebutards & breaking dozens of traffic laws in doing so, get them on those traffic charges. They are endangering the public in the insane traffic caravan & circus they create.
3. Just how do they get away with hanging around the gates of someone’s property without being charged with loitering, trespassing or some similar crime? There’s also littering, noise complaints, blocking or impeding traffic, criminal damage to private or public property & undoubtedly illegal parking. Tow their cars away!
No new laws are needed, just calm, reasoned, lawful enforcement of all current laws & fully videotaped by the cops so to protect the cops & the public treasury from the inevitable lawsuits from the paps will do the job.
“Not them” and “Tim” said it best
“Celebs” know what they’re getting into when they get into their career. For many, fame is the end in itself.
We don’t see any celeb rejecting the gross wealth and VIP treatment that comes along with being famous, the fixation on celebrity is the engine that produces that wealth and favorable treatment.
If celebs don’t want their photo taken, there are many reasonable measures they can take. Move out of LA, don’t go to restaurants/clubs where the paps hang out, don’t tip off the paps, hire security, sue trespassers, etc.
Many celebs enjoy inflated salaries because of the tabloid attention (studio chiefs still confuse tabloid/blog interest with ticket-paying interest.)
There is a downside to any career. It’s not like these people are working in a coal mine. If they can’t take the paps, they can retire in comfort and retreat into obscurity whereupon they will be instantly eclipsed by the next sensation. The truth is celebs crave the attention and would die if no one cared, but they want to control it and it doesn’t work that way.
Meanwhile, there’s some serious crap going on in our country and our city right now, far far more important than giving a handful of useless actors separate justice.
It is outrageous that at a time when our elected officials should be putting their heads together on solving the budget crisis they created, and keeping people employed, and improving law enforcement, and helping real crime victims, and much more, instead they have been pow-wowing on how to protect Halle Berry from a photograph.
Today alone, LA shelled out over 3 million dollars to settle negligence lawsuits, and Schwarzenegger laid off workers – don’t you think the LA City Council should be putting our precious tax dollars to better use than coming up with a ridiculous pap law that will never pass anyway? (Although that lousy commissioner shamelessly granted separate justice for that WH nightclub today, waiving the 2 am closing law for celebs.)
LA is dangerously becoming a 2-class city: celebs and non-celebs. Celebs get separate justice and preferential treatment for everything. This is not good for anyone in the long run.
The answer to this problem is outrageously simple—the celebrities privacy is quite obviously invaded–so leave LA and leave California—ultimately it is one more nail in the coffin for the town. How many more hits can LA take and survive?
I was driving along La Brea today and saw 4 or 5 paps taking pictures of two girls walking down the street. “walking down the street” What? Who the fu** cares. They can’t shop? Oh, what am I saying, they brought in on themselves by leaving the house… Hey, I walk down the street. how come they dont’ take pics of me. Oh yeah, my pictures don’t bring in any bucks. They are not Paparazzi, they are thugs with a camera, and if they didn’t have a camera, they would be arrested for getting in my face and intruding in on my personal space. Those who say they are not breaking any laws. Last I checked, lying in wait, (stalking) and harrasment is a crime.
How about giving AFTRA or SAG jurisdiction over the celebrity images and charge the paps and rags royalties for using them? It might be argued that, if photos are the result of paparazi provocation, they are no longer a news event but a performance by a union member, and thus would no longer fall under the press freedoms of the First Amendment — the same as if a director were to say “action.” Failing that, Papsfriend has a good idea, and it would help the pollution, too.
good one, “second amendment.” how sad that is takes until the 18th comment for anyone to note another amendment upon whose corpse such an ordinance would dance: the first.
the level of irony that nikki finke, OFALLPEOPLEONTHEGODDAMNPLANET, seriously, nikki, a great and fearless writer who has lived by surfing the big waves with only the first amendment as a surf-board…that she would write this without noting that there are constitutional issues…it shocks me. really.
the lawsuit what would result from any such statutes being imposed would cost malibu or beverly hills a ton of money, and they would inevitably lose. the money spent on the lawsuit would not be spent on public schools, or light rail, or anything useful.
oy.
Hey, “summer”
You are living in a fantasy world if you believe some guy taking your picture on a street would be arrested. Perhaps the letter of the law says they could be, and perhaps he should be, but he wouldn’t be. Please protect yourself in life and don’t depend on the cops to be there for you. Seriously.
The LAPD barely does anything about far more serious crimes. They wouldn’t even show up for that complaint. My life has been in serious jeopardy, I have been the victim of genuine stalking and believe me, the LAPD and the court commissioner were first-class assholes. The city council didn’t run and set up a task force for me. These people are actors, most of them not even good ones. They are not gods, they are not curing cancer.
“Robert Green” is right and that’s why, amongst other reasons, Dennis Zine is a schmuck wasting more tax dollars and labor on this useless enterprise.
Is Zine getting paid off by entertainment attorneys? Or does he just want to be on tv? Or is he just a schmuck?
This phenomenon is the result of a healthy free market, supply and demand. The solution is simple. Celebrities must acknowledge the reality and use it to their advantage. One day each week a celebrity hires a photographer, travels to various sites in various wardrobes to stage a variety of scenes, snaps 1,000 “live” shots, and floods the market with images. Paparazzi images would be worth less, and the celebrity would have a reliable, weekly income.
“Last I checked, lying in wait, (stalking) and harrasment is a crime.”
Last I checked, taking pix isn’t in and of itself any of those three.
You describe it as “getting in their face” (which along with “invading my personal space” also isn’t illegal), how close were they? While some photographers are obnoxious, they can still take pictures from a few feet away.
There is nothing you can do. IT is upto the famerattis to file charges against assualting Dreckarazzis, photogs, and /or to file civil suits against them and th paper that prints a photograph that was taken at that session.
Address other concerns. I have my list.
This one is for “the star making machinery” to handle through existing means, laws and processes.
In general, I think that the paps have every right to do what they do and most of the “stars” they snap pics of tend to be in on it anyway. However, there are specific moments this past year that come to mind where I think the paps simply went overboard and faced no consequences.
The first one that comes to mind is the “Live from the gate of Britney’s gated community” cam by our friends at TMZ. I mean really? It may not be illegal but christ if it isn’t tasteless.
Then there’s the absolute lowest of the the low, X17. I don’t know how they get their pics of Britney in her backyard pool with her kids, on her balcony and other shots of her in her home but I think that crosses a line. Snap all the shots you want in public but I think there’s got to be some kind of peeping Tom law that applies when they are taking pics of her on her own property.
I hate it when those who try to rationalize lump everything you say into one pot of soup. Yes, I know a actor who is being stalked as we speak, she not a Paris, she doesn’t go to the Ivy, shop on Robertson, she is a hard working actor who views acting as a career. a career she chose, one she loves. She shouldn’t have to by into, “so I chose acting, my whole life is an open book, and I no long have any rights as a human being….. . I am talking about the crazy photographers, and you know that. No one is saying you can’t take a picture, but, sometimes, a lot of the times, they seem to have a mob mentality and that can get scary. If you feel your life is in danger, than, yeah, something should be done. I get a ticket if I leave my trash cans out to long, surely there can be a law, that if Photographers cross the line they get one too. Don’t put Actors on some kind of different level, if every time you came out of your house, your neighbor threatened you or harassed you, would you be a prisoner in your own home or would you do something about it .It is time we get those paps who will do anything for a picture off the streets before someone gets killed and maybe it will be an innocent bystander minding their own business. Yes, some of the blame should be on those who would purchase a picture of an Actor walking down the street. Most of the buyers are not even from this country.
And, I agree the police have other things to do and that getting something done will be almost impossible, (probably because of the argument, there is no crime.) but that wasn’t the point or topic was it?