STOP THE PRESS!!!!
‘Justice for Michael’ is the rally call resounding around the Forums. I have already ordered my Sweatshirt & T shirt and have sent letters and signed petitions and like others are so desperate to “make that change” and get the charges on ‘Dr Death’ (aka Dr Conrad Murray) bumped up to Murder2. However, much as it would be wonderful if the fans could somehow interfere in the legal system, I do feel that in this respect there is precious little we can do. I am forever optimistic, though!
At this difficult and tragic time, a lot of the fans, especially those of us who reside millions of miles away from the action, feel pretty useless. A lot of us are still finding it hard coming to terms with Michael’s passing, to be able to do something positive would, I believe help us find some sort of ‘closure’. But what??
There is one thing which was a constant thorn in Michael’s side, which we can, if not change at least ‘challenge’. The Tabloid Press, aka The Paparazzi, and the culture of cheque-book journalism. In this day and age the art of writing an informative (and TRUTHFUL) story has gone out the window, being replaced by the sensationalistic story. We are in the era of ‘publish and be dammed’. How many more lives need to be ruined, by the need to make ‘a quick buck’ at somebody else’ s expense? Is it really okay to invade the privacy of others so you can get that ‘million dollar picture’?
In 1997 the death of Princess Diana, started questions regarding paparazzi and the right of publicity for celebrities. Many magazines are in the business of exploiting the personal lives of celebrities, publishing photos and stories about them in every walk of life. Tabloid magazines make millions of dollars each year from magazine sales fueled by images of big name celebrities on their covers.
The right of publicity arose out of the case Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., where two chewing gum companies went to court over exclusive contracts to use baseball players’ likenesses to sell their gum. The court struck down the idea that a celebrity only has a right of privacy interest in their own images and decided that celebrities have a property interest in their images since they have a “pecuniary worth.” In this manner, courts recognized that celebrity images are a commodity that can be bought and sold in order to make money.
Paparazzi has been able to capitalize upon this worth by selling photographs of celebrities to tabloid magazines. Magazines offer high sums of money for photos of celebrities in order to help their sales. It has been claimed that $500, (330.660 pounds) has been offered for photos of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the past. Paparazzi try to get the most exclusive photos of celebrities in order to make the most money off of their photos. With an estimated 150 paparazzi in Los Angeles alone, this is difficult and leads them to take extreme measures to get a photo.
Over ten years ago paparazzi followed Princess Diana in Paris as she was on a date with Dodi Fayed. In a high speed chase her car crashed, killing Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed and the driver, Henri Paul. In 2005 Lindsay Lohan crashed her car into a van after being chased by paparazzi in West Hollywood, causing injury to Lohan, her passenger and the driver of the van. Last year, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie required security to surround their rickshaw as they traveled through India ast year. All of these are just a few examples of the impact paparazzi have on the lives and safety of celebrities. When paparazzi is in pursuit of a valuable photo, they are likely to create dangerous situations for celebrities and bystanders. Sometimes, as in the case with Princess Diana, the consequences are fatal.
There is a need to enact a new law to protect celebrities from the paparazzi because the current laws are inadequate. The right of publicity protects a celebrity’s interest in their own image while the right to privacy protects any individual’s personal interest in privacy. The right of privacy for a celebrity is somewhat more limited than it is for the average person. A celebrity has put themselves in the limelight and therefore is guaranteed a lesser protection of their privacy. Rights of publicity are based on common law and state statutes since there is no federal law concerning this area.
Currently the only federal laws that come close to offering a right of publicity are the Lanham Act and the Copyright Act. Neither act, however, fully helps celebrities curb the unwanted attention from the paparazzi. State laws against trespass, stalking and harassment, while offering minor protection, do not protect celebrities from paparazzi when out in public spaces.
Some states, like California, have tried to enact legislation to disincentive the press from paying paparazzi large sums of money for photos in order to curb invasion upon celebrities. It is unclear, however, that the Supreme Court would determine this sort of legislation to be constitutional under the First Amendment. The First Amendment right to freedom of the press makes it difficult to put any sort of limitation on only the press. As a result, it is likely that state legislation that only affects the press’ ability to pay for photographs of celebrities would be struck down.
In Galella v. Onassis, the court found that an injunction could stop paparazzi from following Jackie Onassis as long as it did not infringe on the ability of other press to cover Onassis. While the court was willing to offer an injunction, it is not clear that they would be willing to make such blanket rulings, especially if such a ruling might infringe on the press’ ability to cover celebrities.
The paparazzi offers a threat to the safety of the lives of celebrities. Paparazzi are often motivated by large sums being offered by tabloid and special interest magazines for photographs of celebrities. While many magazines offer larger sums for exclusive photo shoots, many more will still pay a large amount for a photograph of a celebrity in public. In order to get these photographs, paparazzi often to go extreme lengths, chasing celebrities in cars and hounding them on the street. As a result, celebrities often try to leave the area in order to get someplace where they can go about their business in peace. In some instances, like that with Lindsay Lohan and Princess Diana, this will lead to a car chase with ends in a collision.
Celebrities’ right of privacy is limited as a result of their line of work. Because they choose to enter a career that puts them in the limelight, celebrities face the consequences of giving up a large portion of their privacy. They still are able to protect themselves somewhat from paparazzi as a result of right to publicity statutes passed by states across the country. However these statutes do not protect a celebrity from the ever prying eyes of the paparazzi and the photographs that are taken of them. Some states, like California, have tried to enact legislation to prevent magazines from offering cash incentives to paparazzi to go to extreme measures to get photographs, however it is unclear that these laws will be able to pass constitutional muster. Federal legislation is needed to ensure a uniform law that protects public figures from the extreme measures that paparazzi often take to get a photograph. The right of the paparazzi to take photographs falls within a fundamental First Amendment freedom, the freedom of the press, and therefore should not be cut off altogether. However, for the safety of those concerned, it is important that limits be placed on the methods that may be used to photograph celebrities.
The Paparazzi are the lowest of the low and they know that. The live only for the next good picture and subsequent payoff. However, they are only part of the supply and demand chain, which is controlled by higher up. The Media and Entertainment moguls, are manipulating us constantly by manipulating our idols. Build them up and then knock them down if they don’t play the game they want them to play, we just need to look at what the put Michael through for evidence of this. Don’t you think it is about time we reminded them that without ‘Joe Public’ buying their papers/magazines and watching their movies, they wouldn’t be where they are today?
Just think ‘Bashir’ and the two lives he subsequently ruined by his ‘reporting of the facts’. Both Michael and Diana suffered badly at the hands of the press, and for what??? Both are now dead!! What does that tell you?? Bashir also hid behind ‘The Shield Law’ during Michael’s 2005 trial, to avoid having to answer awkward questions. Think Brittany and how she flipped when being constantly hounded day and night by the ‘paps’. She thankfully made it through to the otherside.
Yes, I know that the Entertainment Industry needs the Press and the two go hand in hand but there is a big difference in publishing informative interviews with Movie stars and Pop Idols to publishing sensationalistic articles, which frankly I am sure we could get used to living without.
Over here in the UK we have no specific privacy laws but increasingly the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is creating an effective Privacy Law. The courts take a very dim view of celebrities who ‘court’ press attention by ensuring they appear in the pages of magazines such as ‘OK’, ‘Heat’ and ‘Closer’.
This trend for ‘cheque book journalism’ also has to stop. If Editors could just start becoming ‘human beings’ again instead of ‘slimeballs’ and rediscover their ethics. If they could only start thinking about the ‘human cost’ of that story and not about how many copies that story will shift! If there isn’t that ‘carrot’ being dangled of massive payouts for sensationalistic stories/photo’s, then this culture will stop.
There needs to be some code of ethics imposed on these groups of people. Journalists and photographers should, ideally, be licensed, and newspaper editors will only be allowed to accept stories/photo’s from licensed journalists and photographers. To get licensed you will have to prove that you can adhere to a code of ethics and not have any ‘black marks’ against your name.
Potentially any one of us could be thrust into the spotlight at any particular time, whether it is through something we have done or someone we know or something we have become involved in. So I subsequently feel that attempting to reign in the ‘paps’ could impinge on all of us.
This is something we can change if we want it badly enough. If we all, for instance, just on one particular day (maybe 25th June??), not buy a particular paper (over here it could be ‘The Sun’). That initially would be enough to let them know that we are here and ready to start ‘raining on their parade’, should they not start reporting ‘facts’ not ‘fiction’.
We could then ‘up the anti’ and do the same but for a week!!!
These are all just my ideas….if you guys know of anything else would be welcome to hear it. This is something we can change….something which needs to change and something which I am sure Michael would approve of us changing, for the sake of his children.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment