MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New anti paparazzi law ?  (Read 2315 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 28, 2013, 02:40 »
0
Halle Berry backed anti-paparazzi bill becomes law
New legislation which will limit the paparazzi's ability to photograph stars' children has become law in the state of California.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24294901



so now nobody in California will be legally allowed to sell images of anybody with children without a model release even for Editorial ?

how can this new law be enforceable ?


Ron

« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2013, 03:48 »
0
Well, publishing will become a problem, and I guess thats the whole purpose of the law.

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2013, 05:36 »
0
Indoubt this will pass the constitutional test, if th photographer is in a public space and so is the subject these stars are fair game. As long as the photographer is not physically impeding the subject i cannot see any crime. Would I do such a job that is a big no.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2013, 05:50 »
0
(I offer no legal opinion)

A few years back, I read of photographers being wrongly told by policemen not to photograph in Trafalgar Square in London, on the grounds that 'there will be children in the photoraph'.
However, I'd think the danger to unidentified children, not photographed near their own home is very slight compared to pap photos of Suzi Celebrity's kids Sacramento and Sedona, being clearly identifiable to any person who might do them harm. I'd have thought that they might have had more of a case that identified or easily identifiable photographs of children should not be published without permission. But even then, maybe it's too much restriction.

I've noticeed on BBC Scotland's news that they sometimes blur out certain pupils when they run a generic item on education or specific items on a particular school. That must be a pain when the editor has to go over the footage with the head teacher identifying the kids whose parents didn't consent.

« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2013, 10:56 »
0
unfortunately this article doesn't give many details.

it seems it's still legal to shoot images wherever and however you want, what will be punished is the publishing of those images and they will target the photographer, but how can this be possible if the person legally responsible for the publishing is the publisher ?

besides, what if i shoot a photo outside of california and it gets published in california or viceversa ?


« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2013, 12:19 »
0
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB606

SECTION 1.
 Section 11414 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

11414.
 (a) Any person who intentionally harasses the child or ward of any other person because of that persons employment shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Child and ward mean a person under 16 years of age.
(2) Harasses means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the childs or wards image or voice, or both, without the express consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the childs or wards activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress.
(3) Employment means the job, vocation, occupation, or profession of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward.

« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2013, 12:25 »
-1
Looks like a lot of misinformation in this thread already.  There is nothing about publishing at all except to say: "(e) The act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute a violation of this section.".  This is about the conduct of photographers in getting the photos. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 12:30 by tickstock »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2013, 18:15 »
-1
Someone will appeal it to the Supreme court and it will be reversed just a matter of time.

« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2013, 18:35 »
0
Someone will appeal it to the Supreme court and it will be reversed just a matter of time.
It's already been a law, this bill just increases the penalties.  I'd quote where it says that but the whole thing is only one page long.

« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2013, 08:38 »
0
These celebs should not be complaining. They knew what they were signing up for from the beginning. However I have seen the way the paparazzi behaves, Let me just say very unprofessional at the least.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2456 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 04:50
by fintastique
1 Replies
1416 Views
Last post February 05, 2012, 14:10
by Karimala
2 Replies
2161 Views
Last post September 27, 2012, 16:39
by EmberMike
1 Replies
2746 Views
Last post April 25, 2019, 10:54
by StanRohrer
4 Replies
2533 Views
Last post December 14, 2019, 14:02
by Stu49

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle