Law seeks protection of celebs

The hunted find a new ally in the battle with over-zealous photographers.
By MICHAEL MARTINEZ
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
LOS ANGELES -- Steve Brodersen is the most feared hunter in all of show biz.
He's a paparazzo.
But, he contends, he's also a gatherer. A news gatherer. And that sets the stage for an increasingly ugly drama between celebrities and paparazzi, replete with car chases, accidents and plenty of finger-pointing.
As he cruises Hollywood and Beverly Hills with camera always within reach, Brodersen doesn't fear a new state law that goes into effect Jan. 1 and will especially target the most outrageous of his ilk -- the "stalkerazzi," whose hounding tactics border on assault.
Brodersen says his methods always are within the law. But the methods of others have been questionable. Consider:
UA paparazzo allegedly rammed actress Lindsay Lohan's Mercedes-Benz in May, an incident that, according to a state legislator, inspired the new California law.
UIn August, Scarlett Johansson accidentally drove into a car near Disneyland, reportedly while being chased by paparazzi.
UReese Witherspoon and her 6-year-old daughter were the focus of a paparazzo at the girl's birthday outing at a Disney theme park in September. In that incident, the photographer allegedly struck a 5-year-old child, shoved another out of the way and pushed the 5-year-old's mother and two Disney employees in his bid to get a photo.
The extreme cat-and-mouse games aren't new, as evidenced by the 1997 death of Princess Diana in Paris when her driver sought to outrun paparazzi. But the rough-and-tumble behind the pictures seemingly has spun out of control as photographers use coordinated tactics such as "boxing in" a celebrity with cars.
Events culminated this fall when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who in 1998 was stalked by two paparazzi later convicted of false imprisonment of Schwarzenegger and his wife -- signed the law that, according to one journalists' group, makes California the most restrictive state when it comes to controlling photographers.
Controlling the frenzy
The law expands the state's invasion of privacy torts to include photographers who commit assault, or threaten bodily harm, in taking a picture. It will give celebrities and other subjects a specific civil code to be better able to sue photographers for their profits on the photo, plus triple damages.
That can amount to a considerable sum. For example, a photograph of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in a provocative embrace -- an image that Brodersen said has yet to be captured -- could fetch $100,000 to $1 million, depending on how sexy it was, he said.
What constitutes a threat under the new law is already being hotly debated on both sides of the lens.
To an outsider, frenzied photographers jostling for position around a superstar can seem threatening.
Tom Newton, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, described the new law as "a radical expansion of right to privacy for celebrities."
"Anyone who doesn't want to be in the paper is going to use this law to stop news gathering. So if you're an accused child molester or a corporate executive accused in Enron and if you have a crowd of photographers around you, who knows, you can threaten to sue them," Newton said.
"They amended that law to say that you also have a right to privacy when you're walking down the street and someone tries to take a picture of you."
But aides to State Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez, a Democrat from Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley who wrote the legislation with backing from the Screen Actors Guild, said the new law is narrowly written to address the excesses of stalkerazzi, such as when they try to scare celebrities in order to capture "reaction photos."
Montanez said her law isn't intended to interfere with other news gatherers. She took up the celebrities' cause because many struggling actors and other guild members live in her district, she said.
"We've got to put an end to the outrageous and overly dangerous behavior of the paparazzi," Montanez said.
Ilyanne Morden Kichaven, spokeswoman for the actors guild, said the group is not contesting paparazzi taking pictures of entertainers outside a nightclub or restaurant.
"What they don't have a right to do is stand in front of their face (and not permit them to walk by), touch them, to use their families as a ploy to harass them, or have direct contact with children. That's in excess," she said.