The Soldier Girl wrote:N4L, In response to what you just posted, I say it's a dirty egotistic cycle for some "Stars". They want it all, but only when they pick and choose. "Adore me, but do not look at me". Not saying that about Nico, just that some chase the spotlight like a starving dog chases its tail to eat, but then do not want to give back to the fans once in awhile. But I do agree that just because you are a very real public figure, does NOT make you public property. Everyone deserves privacy, especially when it comes to spending down time with friends and family.
You are sooooo right on it Soldier Girl!!! It truly is a dirty game for some celebs!
N4L, In response to what you just posted, I say it's a dirty egotistic cycle for some "Stars". They want it all, but only when they pick and choose. "Adore me, but do not look at me". Not saying that about Nico, just that some chase the spotlight like a starving dog chases its tail to eat, but then do not want to give back to the fans once in awhile. But I do agree that just because you are a very real public figure, does NOT make you public property. Everyone deserves privacy, especially when it comes to spending down time with friends and family.
__________________
"My heart beat thrice, twice, once...and then no more the moment a passing comet bespoke of your fall from grace".
Corelli wrote:Good idea but I doubt it would work...Papps will just go ahead taking pics as usual
and celebs will be suing 24/7!
Here's the law...
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new bill into law Sunday that will fine paparazzi for taking photos that invade a celebritys right to privacy. The law also targets media outlets who purchase the photos. The new California law makes it a crime to take and sell unauthorized photos of celebrities in personal or familial activity. Violators face fines up to $50,000. The anti-paparazzi amendment takes effect in January.
As a person in the entertainment business, here's the problem as another publication so eloquently said:
Still, there is another aspect as well to the entire paparazzi-celebrities situation, one that is not known to the general public. Many stars have people on their staff whose only job is to call the paps and let them know about their whereabouts for the next couple of hours, so that they can come to take pictures.
The real problem is, many media outlets have no problem in paying a $50,000 fine if the photo(s) in question are worth $500,000! $50,000, in California is a small price to pay for an exclusive shot of Nic Cage, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Tom Hanks, etc.
Celebrities want it both ways though. They only want the paps at their beck and call when THEY want, i.e. movie premieres, promoting new product, promote new business venture, etc.
But when they don't have their make-up on, have on the proper attire, hanging out with folks they ought not be be hanging with, a bad hair day, etc., they want nothing to do with paps. It's a bit hypocritical.
There are those paps out there who will stop it nothing to catch celebs in compromising positions, and I think those paps should be reined in.
As this might relate to Nic, us Vixens know, Nic does not want ANY type of publicity during his off time so I can see how this might be extremely bothersome to him. The problem is, he rarely spends time in California any more and this law only extends itself to the state. However, maybe by this law passing, it might encourage other places like New York and Florida to pay attention. Though really, its not that bad anywhere else except for California!
-- Edited by Nick 4 Life on Sunday 3rd of January 2010 11:22:23 PM
I just read that a new law in California is that celebs can sue papparazzi or anyone if they snap a photo of them when they are just living in their private life and doing things that are their own business and its a new privacy law. If its true that they will abide by this, that is really good- so that celebs can have more privacy and not be bothered.
