Why isnt paparazzi illegal

By David L. Hudson Jr.

Paparazzi are freelance photographers known for their relentless pursuit of photographs of famous persons. ”The intrusive newsgathering activities of paparazzi have led to cries of invasion of privacy by celebrities, and legislation has been designed to control their activities. Such legislation represents a collision between individual privacy rights and First Amendment free press rights.In this mid-1960s photo, the "king" of Italian paparazzis, Rino Barillari, at center, scuffles with Jayne Mansfield's husband, American actor Mickey Hargitay, as top-model Vatussa Vitta attacks him with her handbag, after Barillari had taken pictures of the couple downtown Rome's historic Via Veneto. (AP Photo/HO, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Paparazzi are freelance photographers known for their relentless pursuit of photographs of famous persons. In Galella v. Onassis (2d Cir. 1973) a federal appeals court defined paparazzo as “literally a kind of annoying insect, perhaps roughly equivalent to the English ‘gadfly.’ ”The intrusive newsgathering activities of paparazzi have led to cries of invasion of privacy by celebrities, and legislation has been designed to control their activities. Such legislation represents a collision between individual privacy rights and First Amendment free press rights.

Galella was most famous paparazzo

Perhaps the most famous paparazzo was Ronald Galella, best known for his pursuit of Jackie Onassis and her children. In 1973, the Second Circuit modified but upheld an injunction against Galella, who went to ridiculous lengths to obtain close photographs of the former first lady. The appeals court in Galella reasoned that “Galella’s action went far beyond the reasonable bounds of news gathering.”

Princess Diana's death made paparazzi regulation efforts intensify

In 1997 international outrage followed the death of England’s Princess Diana from a car crash in which paparazzi allegedly followed the car driven by her chauffeur.

In the United States, calls to regulate the paparazzi through legislation intensified at both the federal and state level, and several bills were introduced in Congress. Two such measures were the Protection from Personal Intrusion Act and the Privacy Protection Act of 1998. These laws stipulated criminal penalties for paparazzi if their conduct caused physical harm. For example, the Personal Intrusion Act, which was introduced by the late Sonny Bono, included a prison term of up to twenty years if the conduct of the paparazzi led to death. Both measures were referred to the House Judiciary Committee but never made it out of committee.

California passed a law to protect public persons from paparazzi

California passed a law in 1998 designed to protect public persons from intrusive conduct by paparazzi. California Civil Code section 1708.8 prohibits constructive invasions of privacy, defined as follows:

“A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.”

In 2006 the California legislature amended the law to provide that those who face such invasions of privacy can sue the paparazzi for “three times the amount of any general or special damages” caused by their conduct. Given the astronomically high-dollar demand for photos of celebrities, it is likely that the legislation will be tested in the courts in the near future with cases involving a charged paparazzo.

Page 2

Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) stands as the first U.S. Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom though some earlier cases mention it.

Most constitutional academic freedom issues today revolve around professors’ speech, students’ speech, faculty’s relations to government speech, and using affirmative action in student admissions. 

Although academic freedom is regularly invoked as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, the Court has never specifically enumerated it as one, and judicial opinions have not developed a consistent interpretation of constitutional academic freedom or pronounced a consistent framework to analyze such claims.

They should all be professionals, understanding, and ethical. They should be required to have permits and licenses to photograph or shoot. The permits should have to, in advance, specify who the picture is being taken of, where it will be taken, if they have the person who the picture is being taken of 's consent and approval, when it will be taken, etc. Like how a contractor needs a permit, a driver needs a license/permit, or a police officer needs a warrant, photographers should need these kind of things. If these rules are broken, there should be consequences. They should not be able to get away with indirectly killing anyone, for example Princess Diana. The driver in the Princess Diana case shouldn 't be a scapegoat. The corrupt Paparazzi should be held responsible. They people getting there picture taken should have full control over what can go public, as long as they aren 't covering up any illegal actions. America, please, let us to something great again! Thank you.

In addition, if someone was fallowing you, taking pictures and bullying you every day single day, you would instantly report them to the police and they would without a doubt get the stalkers arrested, and they would get a restraining order. But if a celebrity calls the cops saying that there is someone following them and harassing them, no one is willing to protect them, because they are not able to stop the paparazzi for good. It 's like all celebrities are being punished for being rich and successful. Nobody deserves

Princess Diana’s 1997 fatal car crash during a high-speed paparazzi chase instigated a string of photography-related legislation. Consequently, any photographer who pursues Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (formerly known as Kate Middleton), in the same manner risks litigation in the event of an accident [source: Harman]. In fact, by the time she wed Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge had already won settlements in court for paparazzi privacy breaches [source: Harman].

In California, paparazzi are legally prohibited from trespassing on private property, using telephoto lenses to survey private property or pursuing targets in cars [source: LaPorte]. However, the frequency of paparazzi-celebrity run-ins since January 2010, when the law was last amended, have indicated that the legislation’s bark might tougher than its bite.

Laws regarding public photography have always been a gray area. In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech. There are exceptions, however. Here are just a few of the gray areas:

• Police crime scenes, disasters, fires or riots are considered secured emergency areas. Photography isn’t legal in these situations without permission.
• Even editorial photographs can come under scrutiny when a caption is added. If photo captions imply something false or libelous about the person in the photo, then they aren't legally protected free speech.
• Photos of a person in a public place can’t be used to promote any goods or services without permission.

The controversy surrounding anti-paparazzi legislation comes down to the question of where to draw the line between legitimate news gathering and invasions of privacy. If laws are left as they are, a celebrity's privacy -- and, in some cases, his or her life -- may continue to be endangered by the ruthlessness of some photographers [source: LaPorte]. On the other hand, if the laws become too restrictive, then the freedom of the press could be jeopardized, and for that reason, a judicial tension remains between the two.

With the cultural appetite for celebrity voyeurism, it’s questionable whether the public is even concerned about anti-paparazzi legislation. As long as images of the rich and famous committing foibles both minor and monstrous continue to arrest our attention -- and sway our online traffic and magazine purchases -- the paparazzi mobs will continue to swarm and snap. After all, they’re only giving us what we want: proof that celebrities are imperfect, just like us.

Related Articles

• Dowell, Ben and Robinson, James. “Amy Winehouse wins court ban on paparazzi at her home.” The Guardian. May 1, 2009. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/may/01/amy-winehouse-big-pictures-paparazzi-privacy
• Harman, Danna. “How Princess Diana changed the way paparazzi pursue Kate Middleton.” The Christian Science Monitor. April 29, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0429/How-Princess-Diana-changed-the-way-paparazzi-pursue-Kate-Middleton
• Hirsch, Afua. “Sienna Miller sues paparazzi for harassment.” The Guardian. Oct. 30, 2008. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/31/sienna-miller-big-pictures-darryn-lyons
• Independent. “Sienna Miller: Hacking’s heroine.” Sept. 23, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/sienna-miller-hackings-heroine-2359415.html
• LaPorte, Nicole. “The Do-Nothing Paparazzi Law.” The Daily Beast. Feb. 25, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/25/the-do-nothing-paparazzi-law.html
• Loomis, Nicole Zsuzsanna. “Paparazzi.” University of Southern California. May 2009. (Oct. 28, 2011) //digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Loomis-2851.pdf
• Nordhaus, Jamie E. “Celebrities’ Rights to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi Be Allowed to Go?” The Review of Litigation. Vol. 18. Issue 2. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/c734%20resources/celebrities%20rights%20-%20nordhaus.pdf
• NPR. “Brad Pitt: ‘Moneyball, Life and ‘The Stalkerazzi’.” Sept. 22, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140629778/brad-pitt-moneyball-life-and-the-stalkerazzi
• Rose, Lacey. “The Most Expensive Celebrity Photos.” Forbes. July 18, 2007. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.forbes.com/2007/07/17/celebrities-photojournalism-magazines-biz-media-cx_lr_0718celebphotos.html
• Samuels, David. “Shooting Britney.” The Atlantic. April 2008. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/04/shooting-britney/6735/
• Telegraph. “Ron Galella and Jackie Onassis in pictures.” Nov. 25, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) //fashion.telegraph.co.uk/galleries/TMG8129874/Ron-Galella-and-Jackie-Onassis-in-pictures.html
• TIME. “The Press: Paparazzi on the Prowl.” April 14, 1961. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,872287,00.html
• Wood, Gaby. “Camera, movie star, Vespa…it all began on the Via Veneto.” The Guardian. Sept. 23, 2006. (Oct. 28, 2011) //www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/sep/24/pressandpublishing1
• Yancy, Kitty Bean. “Tour L.A. with a real-life paparazzo.” USA Today. Dec. 23, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) //travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/12/las-new-paparazzi-tour/135493/1