By David Walker
California’s celebrity residents have just won another round in
their long war against the paparazzi.
A new state law will soon enable California residents to sue media
outlets that are first to publish photographs that are taken
aggressively and violate a subject’s “reasonable expectation of
privacy.” The law also makes the media outlets liable for civil
fines up to $50,000.
Since 2005, only the photographers creating such images were
subject to civil claims and fines. Magazines, newspapers, TV
stations and Web sites that distributed the images were exempt from
prosecution until now. The new law, which Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed October 11, goes into effect in
January.
By amending the law to include publishers, the California
legislature meant to further curtail the paparazzi by chilling the
demand for their images. In the text of the bill, the legislators
assert that individuals and their families have been “harassed and
endangered” and have had their “legitimate privacy interests”
violated by photographers.
Certain celebrities have lobbied for years for restrictions against
the paparazzi. The death of Princess Di in a 1997 car accident gave
momentum to those efforts. Schwarzenegger himself has had run-ins
with photographers, including a 1998 incident in which two
photographers boxed in his car. They were eventually convicted on
criminal charges of false imprisonment.
The 2005 law made photographers subject to legal action not only
when they physically violated privacy by trespassing on private
property, but wherever they photographed someone who had “a
reasonable expectation o privacy” and did so someone “in a
manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”
The new law is actually an amendment of that 2005 law, extending
liability to anyone who solicits or directs a photographer to take
images in violation of the original law, and anyone who first
publishes or distributes an image created in violation of the
law.
Publishers who subsequently publish the images in question are
exempt from prosecution. First publishers are also exempt if they
didn’t know prior to publication that an image was created in
violation of the law.
Some publishing trade groups have expressed alarm, saying the
threat of claims under the new law could have a chilling effect on
news gathering and reporting.
Related link
Read the text of the bill
California Law Subjects Publishers to Anti-Paparazzi Claims
Oct 15, 2009
By David Walker
California’s celebrity residents have just won another round in their long war against the paparazzi.
A new state law will soon enable California residents to sue media outlets that are first to publish photographs that are taken aggressively and violate a subject’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The law also makes the media outlets liable for civil fines up to $50,000.
Since 2005, only the photographers creating such images were subject to civil claims and fines. Magazines, newspapers, TV stations and Web sites that distributed the images were exempt from prosecution until now. The new law, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed October 11, goes into effect in January.
By amending the law to include publishers, the California legislature meant to further curtail the paparazzi by chilling the demand for their images. In the text of the bill, the legislators assert that individuals and their families have been “harassed and endangered” and have had their “legitimate privacy interests” violated by photographers.
Certain celebrities have lobbied for years for restrictions against the paparazzi. The death of Princess Di in a 1997 car accident gave momentum to those efforts. Schwarzenegger himself has had run-ins with photographers, including a 1998 incident in which two photographers boxed in his car. They were eventually convicted on criminal charges of false imprisonment.
The 2005 law made photographers subject to legal action not only when they physically violated privacy by trespassing on private property, but wherever they photographed someone who had “a reasonable expectation o privacy” and did so someone “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”
The new law is actually an amendment of that 2005 law, extending liability to anyone who solicits or directs a photographer to take images in violation of the original law, and anyone who first publishes or distributes an image created in violation of the law.
Publishers who subsequently publish the images in question are exempt from prosecution. First publishers are also exempt if they didn’t know prior to publication that an image was created in violation of the law.
Some publishing trade groups have expressed alarm, saying the threat of claims under the new law could have a chilling effect on news gathering and reporting.
Related link
Read the text of the bill
