Comments on: New California anti-paparazzi law

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:15:59 +0000

Interesting. One of the things my company does is build/develop/acquire wearable cameras (I’m a photography consultant), and I’m almost always recording something when I go outside. (For example, here’s a test I did the other day with a camera I picked up in China last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al4uo9IbxTU )

I always assumed there was no expectation of privacy while in public….I think I’ll get my lawyer to clarify wrt the new law.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:05:51 +0000

” … will have a chilling effect on news gathering”

Because the public has a right to know what sort of underwear celebrities are or are not wearing.

One thing (among many) that gets me concerning the infamous “up-skirt” photos of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and others: it would of course be illegal for you or I to take a sneak photograph up the skirt of a woman in public. As ‘Peeping Tom laws’ advise, just because you can see it doesn’t mean you can look at it.

By: Soronel Haetir

Soronel Haetir — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:19:15 +0000

If the activity is taking place in public will this actually survive court review? Publications that are willing to pay millions for legit baby photos seem like their business model would at least allow them to put it to the test.

By: Bruce H.

Bruce H. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:47:04 +0000

>> … will have a chilling effect on news gathering.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.