paparazzi – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the so-any-time-someone-doesn't-want-to-be-filmed? dept

This is definitely more “for the children” thinking. That is, the kind of thinking that figures anything is ok, so long as it can be portrayed as making children safer. This bill making its way through the New York state legislature probably won’t make many (or any!) kids safer, but it’s already gathered the sort of attention politicians truly crave: the endorsement of a celebrity.

Media law experts and public defenders are concerned about a proposed state law that would criminalize annoying people under 18 or photographing them without their consent. They say that the proposed legislation, sponsored by state Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal and backed by actress Emma Stone, will violate journalists’ First Amendment rights and could involve more youth in the justice system.

Winning the support of constituents is for losers. Securing the support of celebrities is what really matters. It’s no surprise an actor would support a bill like this, since it’s pretty much paparazzi-bane, at least for celebrities (1) residing in New York, and (2) who have children.

For the regular people, it probably won’t mean much. For residents curious about how local law enforcement and prosecutors will define “intent,” it might mean a bit more.

The proposal was always a bit problematic. It criminalizes the photography of children without their consent. It is tied to intent, at least, but only very loosely:

The current version of the bill defines “harassment of a child” broadly, stating that “a person is guilty of harassment of a child when he or she intentionally or knowingly harasses, annoys or alarms a child or a child’s parent or guardian by” shoving them, following them, recording their image or voice or committing other acts that “seriously annoy” a child.

And it’s slightly better than it was before people raised the most obvious question: what about kids participating in public or newsworthy events? Something that should have always been in the proposed legislation was only added after non-lawmakers starting poking holes in the bill [PDF].

After City & State initially asked Hoylman-Sigal for comment on these critics’ concerns, his office released an amended version of the bill, which includes language clarifying that it is not a violation of the law if someone “acts in a reasonable manner and the recording is of the child: (a) engaging in public speech or demonstration; or (b) attending or participating in a newsworthy public event.”

That’s better, but why the stipulation to “act in a reasonable manner?” Wouldn’t any documentation of these scenes be considered “reasonable,” especially when it involves public and/or newsworthy events?

Senator Hoylman-Sigal says everything is “reasonable.” Well, not the acts of theoretical lawbreakers, I guess, but his bill, which he says is nothing more than a competent mimeograph of a decade-old law in California. But there are significant differences, and they’re the sort of differences that matter, as has been pointed out by the president of the New York News Publishers Association, Diane Kennedy.

“The California law has a lot of provisions in it that require that a person who wants to file a complaint show that they felt threatened, their children felt threatened. There’s a lot of intentionality language in there that is missing in Sen. Hoylman’s bill. Just photographing someone in public doesn’t rise to (the level) of harassment or something like that. … You have to show that you fear for your safety or you fear for your children’s safety. It’s not just someone taking a photograph of you,” she said.

That’s the problem with this bill. It would appear to allow the people who are photographed without consent to imply intent, even if the intent to harass doesn’t exist.

Worse, the determination of intent — which Holyman-Sigal says makes the bill constitutional — doesn’t appear to actually exist in the bill. “Harassment of a child” is defined as nothing more than recording a child without their consent. There are no “ands” in this list of harassment definitions. They’re all treated equally, with the last one being:

recording or attempting to record a child’s image or voice, without the express consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child, or, if the child is fourteen years old or older, the express consent of the child, unless the person acts in a reasonable manner and the recording is of the child

If that’s the legal standard for “harassment of a child,” anyone photographing anyone else’s children for whatever reason (other than the newsworthy/public activity carveout) could be considered to be in violation of the law. That it’s tied to a paragraph about intent to harass or annoy doesn’t matter much, because literally anyone could claim to be harassed simply because someone was recording them and they didn’t like it.

Aiming your home security cameras at kids you think might be vandalizing your property? Harassment. Recording teens doing stupid shit in public places in hopes of documenting criminal violations or simply shaming them into stopping? Harassment. Accidentally capture other kids in a recording of your own children? Might be harassment if the other kids (or their parents) decide to make an issue of it. The law allows victims to set the parameters for lawbreaking. There’s nothing in the proposal that even suggests some sort of objective standard will be applied by prosecutors or police officers.

It’s not law yet. But it’s headed in that direction. And objections to the law, while being given some attention by those pushing the bill, don’t appear to be persuading legislators to drop the legislation entirely. It’s not that opponents want to be able to harass children without fear of repercussion. It’s that they want to be able to do the sorts of things normal people do all the time without fear of being fined or jailed. That’s not a lot to ask. This bill can possibly be salvaged. But it’s going to take far more than a common sense concession to newsgathering to save it.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, brad hoylman-sigal, emma stone, harassment of a child, new york, paparazzi, protect the children, recording children

Prince Harry Uses GDPR To Obtain Payout From Photographer Who Shot Photos Of His Rental Home

from the something-about-pictures-of-a-house-on-a-beach... dept

The repeated answer to the question, “How does the GDPR work?” is: “Not well.” The privacy law enacted by the European Union is a regulatory omnishambles that was first greeted by non-European websites telling Europeans their business was no longer welcome.

From there, the convoluted law the EU Commission itself can’t even comply with properly has been used to vanish everything from documents on US court dockets to trash cans inside an Ireland post office. When it’s not providing new attack vectors to cybercriminals, it’s being co-opted by the powerful to control what the public gets to see and hear about them.

The latest repurposing of the GDPR into an offensive weapon occurred in the pre-Brexit UK, which may give the royal family a reason for remaining united with the rest of Europe. Britain’s literal ruling class has never shied away from dragging publications and paparazzi into court, but this latest case — involving photos of house being rented by Prince Harry — has a new GDPR twist.

Prince Harry this week notched another victory in the royal family’s long-running battle with paparazzi photographers, securing a “substantial payout” from an agency which used a helicopter to take pictures inside a house he was renting.

Potentially even more interesting than that is the way in which he won his battle — basing a legal case partly on a sweeping new European data law that is less than a year old.

According to a statement delivered to London’s High Court on Thursday, in which the paparazzi agency Splash News apologized to Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex (emphasis ours):

“This matter concerns a claim for misuse of private information, breaches of The Duke’s right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR and breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”).”

This settlement has the potential to deter journalists from taking pictures of anyone or anything. While this case involved photos of the inside of Prince Harry’s rental property, it wouldn’t take much to stretch the definition of unlawful data-handling to cover any photos taken without the subject’s permission.

Although the details of the settlement still remain mostly under wraps, there’s speculation that the privacy violation wasn’t just the photos of the interior of the house — an interior only visible by air. (The photos were taken by a paparazzo in a helicopter.) It may also have something to with information not revealed publicly by Prince Harry: namely, the address of the photographed residence.

Given that the law allows subjects to revoke consent at any time following publication, this makes reporting on the lives of public figures that much more risky. It appears the GDPR can be abused much more easily than the UK’s routinely-abused defamation laws. The GDPR has an exemption for journalists, but it’s not clear-cut and requires a case-by-case examination by an EU comptroller who will make the final determination on the issue of public interest.

There’s no presumed exemption to the law that protects reporting. The EU Commission comptroller decides whether or not the published info was in the public interest when it’s challenged, which puts even less-sensational efforts on shaky ground. Given its retroactive reach, the GDPR can act as yet another “right to be forgotten,” allowing subjects of reporting to revoke consent (implied or otherwise) months or years after publication to force removal of content from the web. This case may deal with the unsavory actions of paparazzi but the side effects will be felt by journalism as a whole. Any public figure who wants to keep their private dealings out of the news — for whatever reason — will have the GDPR available to do their dirty work.

Filed Under: censorship, eu, gdpr, media, paparazzi, prince harry

Celebrity Photographer's Archivist Connects With Fans On Reddit Instead Of Freaking Out

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

When a person’s whole job revolves around managing and licensing a catalogue of copyrights, it’s hardly surprising (if still disappointing) when they freak out about unauthorized sharing. So it’s really nice to see someone in that exact position taking the opposite tack, as recently happened when a comparative Then & Now photo of Meryl Streep (which demonstrates that she may be some kind of magical ageless faerie) shot up the Reddit charts (thanks to Andy for sending this in):

The 1979 photo is by famous pioneer-paparazzo Ron Gelella. The archive director for the company that manages his copyrights saw the image and showed up in the Reddit comments… with additional info and a link to related photos. This garnered a very positive reaction from the community:

As you can see, this prompted an AMA, which is interesting in itself, featuring lots of conversation about how the internet has changed the paparazzi business and the differences between modern paparazzi and early ones like Gelella.

I wouldn’t be surprised if all this exposure led to some print sales for the company—though what would be really cool is if they started working on some additional interesting offerings. There is apparently a huge amount of interest in Gelella’s photography and perhaps even more in his anecdotes, not to mention a lot of people who want to jump into the moral debate surrounding the paparazzi. The archivist is clearly skilled at connecting with fans, and I bet they can come up with some great reasons to buy, too.

Filed Under: archives, connect with fans, licensing, meryl streep, paparazzi, reddit, ron gelella