Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law


(CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new bill into law Sunday that will fine paparazzi for taking photos that invade a celebrity's right to privacy. The law also targets media outlets who purchase the photos.

Throngs of photographers often jockey to get the perfect shot of a celebrity, but that doesn't mean it's welcomed. Britney Spears famously had enough one night, taking an umbrella to a photographer's SUV.

In 1998, Schwarzenegger himself had his car swarmed by paparazzi while he was picking up his child from school.

Jennifer Aniston received $550,000 and an apology from a photographer who used a high-powered telephoto lens to shoot her in the backyard wearing only panties.

While paparazzi may get a bad rap for their methods, celebrity columnist Ben Widdicombe said things are not always what they seem.

"A lot of times the shot you see in the magazine is actually orchestrated by the celebrity themselves," said celebrity columnist Ben Widdicombe. "Celebrities like Britney Spears, for example, are infamous in the industry for letting their assistants tell the paparazzi when they'll be leaving the gates."

Celebrity photos can be big business, especially when it comes to major milestones. Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher reportedly pocketed $3 million from OK for their 2005 union. Eva Longoria and Tony Parker received $2 million from OK for photos of their lavish Paris, France, wedding.

Expectant celebrities can also rake in big bucks. People magazine reportedly paid $14 million for the first pictures of the Brad Pitt-Angelina Jolie twins.

The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in "personal or familial activity." Violators face fines up to $50,000. The anti-paparazzi amendment takes effect in January.

As much as I like this law, I don't think it's constitutional.

How so? your right to pricacy shouldn't be compromised because you're on tv or in movies. Someone taking photos of you or your family, and selling them? as well as ostructing you while your trying to walk down the street? surely that's unconstitutional as well as just being wrong.

If the bolded is true, then there's already harassment laws that can cover that. And yes, there is a clear right to privacy on private property, such as at home or in a private business. But walking in public places, I'm afraid not. I don't like it, but that's the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.

I know you have it too in the US but we're bombarded with so called 'celebrity' culture from the UK and these are people who are like, ex boyband members or reality tv stars who've made the transition to tv and they completely depend on papparazzi to keep them in the public eye, it's just so brain deadeningly awful. I've got friends and these magazines are their bibles. it's disgusting. Hopefully this goes some way to stopping this shit and it catches on elsewhere.

Well, I think you pointed out why it wouldn't. Those kind of celebs might actually want the paparazzi around them.

They do completely. Did you ever hear about the 'kidnap attempt' on Victoria Beckham's kids?? it was a complete setup and designed by her to keep her on the front page. It's ridiculous over here, beyond belief. She(and lots of other celebrities) have their agents&press people ringing the papps to let them know where their gonna be at what time etc. It's fuckin disgusting..and what's really baffling is why anyone cares? she's like a style icon here & women all follow her diet n shit. It's hopeless but it'll never go while there's a market for it. I just don't understand why the public aren't given better writing and issues to read about. baffles me.

No one likes to jerk off with the curtains closed.

His state is approaching total bankruptcy and his worry about stupid populist laws. Quite Chavez of him.

yes.... a law that protects a couple hundred of the most wealthy people in the state..... very populist

So is the law only broken if the photos are sold for profit (or used in a magazine/newspaper/web site with ads/etc)?

Populist in the sense of getting media attention and being rather useless.

ok, so for future reference, populist is just a synonym for "bad".

gotcha.

I haven't seen the actual text of the law, but the story says you can't take photos of them in "personal or familial activity." meaning? Is walking down Rodeo Drive personal activity?