A new law in California attempts to crack down on paparazzi whose aggressive tactics might endanger their subjects, stoking a debate over whether individual privacy should take precedence over freedom of the press.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who himself has been the subject of paparazzi stake-outs, signed a measure into law two weeks ago allowing civil lawsuits against media outlets that commission or publish photos snapped illegally. Publications could be fined as much as $50,000 for violating the law.
The California measure states that the rights of a free press "to report details of an individual's private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy." The measure amends an existing California state law that makes photographers subject to legal action if they trespass on private property or photograph someone who has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Supporters of the new law say it will prevent media outlets as well as photographers from justifying illegal invasions of privacy by citing First Amendment protections of the press.
"The organizations that publish celebrity photos have always been shielded from liability if the paparazzo broke any laws in the act of getting the photo," says Sean Burke, a former bodyguard who has become an advocate for tougher laws against paparazzi tactics.
Mr. Burke and other critics of paparazzi cite tragedies such as the death of Princess Diana, whose fatal car crash came as she was being chased by photographers, as well as more recent incidents such as when photographers crashed into Hollywood star Lindsay Lohan's car while trying to snap a shot. They also point out that as mainstream news organizations solicit photos and videos from viewers and readers, amateur photographers have incentive to push limits to get the best shots.
Yet some free-speech advocates argue that the new law impinges on First Amendment rights and could hamper legitimate photojournalism if it spooks photographers and publications from pursuing important news events. They say laws already on the books, such as trespassing, assault and anti-stalking measures, offer sufficient privacy protection.
"The initiation of even meritless lawsuits has a chilling effect on legitimate news gatherers," says Tom Newton, general counsel at the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
While the law on its face appears to be targeting tabloid media who pay high fees for photos of the rich and famous, the measure could have implications for anyone who posts to the Internet. As people become their own publishers on blogs and social-media sites, they could find themselves vulnerable to lawsuits if they unwittingly publish photos that were taken illegally.
Some legal experts also question whether the California law is enforceable. In general, it remains legal for individuals to take photographs of other people, as long as the photo is snapped in a public place. In many cases, they add, it can be difficult to determine where a photo was taken after the fact.
While European law enacted in the wake of Princess Diana's death attempts to distinguish public and private situations more clearly than in the U.S., legal experts say the new law is the only one of its kind of the books in the U.S.
There has been no shortage of action -- boycotts, fistfights and a handful of lawsuits -- that celebrities have engaged in to push back against overly aggressive paparazzi. Lawyers expect California's new measure to spur more lawsuits and also could prompt other states to beef up privacy laws aimed at individuals who are worried about their images being transmitted.
So far, though, courts have tended to give wide latitude to the use of published images of unwilling subjects, says Patrick Alach, a recent graduate of Loyola Law School who wrote a widely cited article on the issue in the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review.
Last year, a western Pennsylvania couple filed a suit against Google Inc., saying pictures of their home that appear on Google's Street View feature are an invasion of privacy. Aaron and Christine Boring contended the photographs of their home were taken from their private driveway.
A federal judge dismissed the case in February, saying the imagery on Google didn't cause the Borings to "suffer shame or humiliation." The judge also pointed out that though the couple made privacy claims, they didn't ask Google to remove the images from Google Street View nor did they file their suit under seal. An attorney for the couple said they have filed an appeal.
A Google spokeswoman said the company was pleased with the ruling and added that it was "unfortunate" that the couple never sought to have their home removed from Street View.
