<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is All Publicity Good Publicity?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724</link>
	<description>Fordham Intellectual Property, Media &#38; Entertainment Law Journal Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2012 02:46:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: abenatar</title>
		<link>http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724/comment-page-1#comment-58254</link>
		<dc:creator>abenatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iplj.net/blog/?p=724#comment-58254</guid>
		<description>I think that this is an interesting posting about a sub-genre of the general impact of internet media development.  The mass following of celebrity gossip websites certainly satiates many people’s interest in tabloid news.  Coincidentally, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (the “celebrity”) signed a bill in 2005 that strengthened the state’s anti-paparazzi laws, specifically adding liability for “physical invasion of privacy or constructive invasion of privacy, or both”. CA CIVIL §?1708.8.

The bill generally imposes liability on those who trespass, attempt to trespass, or assault with the intent to record images of someone that correspondingly invades their “privacy”.  However, the use of the “reasonableness” standard for assessing whether or not someone’s privacy was invaded exposes the conundrum of inconsistent application of the statutory language.  What is reasonable privacy to general Perez Hilton Blog readers is likely objectionable conduct to some others.  But this seems similar to supermarket checkout lines in the pre-internet age: where some people read the national enquirer while others picked out candy-bars. Thus, since historically the standard had likely always been equally divergent, I’m not convinced that the advent of information availability via the internet is the root of the “problem”.

But is paparazzi really a social issue that we want our legislators to focus on?  Princess Diana’s death was a terrible tragedy, but I can’t recall another instance where a celebrity has died as a result of photographers. Last year, the town of Malibu, California entertained the notion of strengthening their anti-paparazzi laws, and the mayor asked Ken Starr (former President Clinton investigator and present Dean of Pepperdine Law School) to lead the drafting committee. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/ .   But the controversial experimental legislation was never enacted, as the mayor followed the position of the Los Angeles County Sheriff&#039;s Department, and decided to use traffic and public disturbance laws as the primary technique to deal with paparazzi dangers. http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/10/30/news/news7.txt . 

I believe that the laws should not to further amended to restrict first amendment rights.  The ends do not justify the means.  If celebrities do not want the burden of constant media attention, they should choose a different profession.  This whole situation seem to be the equivalent of becoming a doctor, but then complaining when your patients call you during non-business hours – it all comes with the territory of just meeting all of your expectations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that this is an interesting posting about a sub-genre of the general impact of internet media development.  The mass following of celebrity gossip websites certainly satiates many people’s interest in tabloid news.  Coincidentally, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (the “celebrity”) signed a bill in 2005 that strengthened the state’s anti-paparazzi laws, specifically adding liability for “physical invasion of privacy or constructive invasion of privacy, or both”. CA CIVIL §?1708.8.</p>
<p>The bill generally imposes liability on those who trespass, attempt to trespass, or assault with the intent to record images of someone that correspondingly invades their “privacy”.  However, the use of the “reasonableness” standard for assessing whether or not someone’s privacy was invaded exposes the conundrum of inconsistent application of the statutory language.  What is reasonable privacy to general Perez Hilton Blog readers is likely objectionable conduct to some others.  But this seems similar to supermarket checkout lines in the pre-internet age: where some people read the national enquirer while others picked out candy-bars. Thus, since historically the standard had likely always been equally divergent, I’m not convinced that the advent of information availability via the internet is the root of the “problem”.</p>
<p>But is paparazzi really a social issue that we want our legislators to focus on?  Princess Diana’s death was a terrible tragedy, but I can’t recall another instance where a celebrity has died as a result of photographers. Last year, the town of Malibu, California entertained the notion of strengthening their anti-paparazzi laws, and the mayor asked Ken Starr (former President Clinton investigator and present Dean of Pepperdine Law School) to lead the drafting committee. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/starr.paparazzi/</a> .   But the controversial experimental legislation was never enacted, as the mayor followed the position of the Los Angeles County Sheriff&#8217;s Department, and decided to use traffic and public disturbance laws as the primary technique to deal with paparazzi dangers. <a href="http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/10/30/news/news7.txt" rel="nofollow">http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/10/30/news/news7.txt</a> . </p>
<p>I believe that the laws should not to further amended to restrict first amendment rights.  The ends do not justify the means.  If celebrities do not want the burden of constant media attention, they should choose a different profession.  This whole situation seem to be the equivalent of becoming a doctor, but then complaining when your patients call you during non-business hours – it all comes with the territory of just meeting all of your expectations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FredJouldd</title>
		<link>http://iplj.net/blog/archives/724/comment-page-1#comment-58247</link>
		<dc:creator>FredJouldd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 19:32:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://iplj.net/blog/?p=724#comment-58247</guid>
		<description>Thanks, good article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, good article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

