John Mayer speaks out at LA City Hall

I am one of the most media-friendly celebrities around, and my being here this morning is not in contrast with that; rather, it’s in keeping with it. There is no doubt that the new frontier of entertainment is taking place informally on the street. Sound bites that used to be given on red carpets and in arranged interviews now take place beside a restaurant’s valet stand, and there’s no changing that. I don’t want to beg the city of Los Angeles to give me 1987 back. I love being a famous musician in 2008. I embrace technology, but I also believe in thoughtfully adapting it to fit within a societal framework. And in the specific areas of both tracking and close-quarter engagement by the paparazzi, there are changes that must be made.

I’d like to define the scope of my argument by first defining what lies outside of it. I’m not here this morning to talk to you about the media at large, blogs, tabloid magazines, or entertainment news shows. I’m not even here to talk to you about photography itself. You don’t have to ultimately be photographed to have been dangerously pursued in the attempt of getting a shot. The danger exists in methods and tactics having absolutely nothing to do with picture taking. In fact, removing the camera from the equation is a very effective way of looking at this situation candidly.

A scenario:

It’s two o’clock in the morning and you’re driving home from a friend’s house. You notice there is a vehicle behind you that has no license plate and that has been following you for the last 15 minutes. The driver is so brazen that he or she has even taken to ignoring red lights just to stay behind you. As you begin to turn onto a small neighborhood street just blocks from where you live, you now realize this person has definite intentions of engaging you at your house.

The question I ask you is: Are you in danger?

The answer is YES. Not “depends if you’re on TV.”

It doesn’t matter what you do for a living, and it doesn’t matter that there might turn out to be a digital camera on the passenger seat. You are IN danger. Danger is defined as the possibility of suffering harm or injury.ﾠ And without knowing who is following you, you do not know why you are being followed, which brings about a very real possibility for suffering harm or injury.

So what about that camera on the passenger seat? Recently, it’s come to serve as all but an official license to encroach on someone’s right to protect themselves from threats of danger, along with every traffic law ever devised. It’s also the most socially acceptable way to come within inches from someone who you do not know and who does not know you.ﾠ Sadly, if I were someone who wanted to do harm to a celebrity – of which there are many – my best bet in succeeding today would be to hold a camera.

Here’s a true story.

Last month at Los Angeles International Airport, forty men, holding no tickets to fly and with nobody to pick up, swarmed an arriving female passenger inside the terminal, shouting at her, disorienting her and denying her a safe exit. Does that sound like something that should be allowed? Should the fact that the forty men were holding cameras change that answer?

Sadly, the very real and present risk associated with being pursued as a celebrity pales in comparison to the daily, imminent danger to the public at large.ﾠ If you’ve ever raised an eyebrow at an especially bullish driver declaring him or herself the third in a line of cars making a left turn on a light that had just turned red, I ask you to imagine what your reaction would be to watching eight cars do it.ﾠ And it happens not just daily, but turn-for-turn. I don’t need to look in my rear view mirror to know it’s happening behind me. All I have to do is listen; listen to the dissonant array of car horns as unsuspecting drivers are taken by surprise while a pack of reckless paparazzi muscle through an aging red light.

The person being followed knows there is wanton carelessness behind them. The pedestrian crossing the street, or the car expecting to have the right of way does not. A severe accident occurring from this kind of vehicular pursuit is not a theoretical possibility, but a situational certainty.

What does any of this have to do with photography? Or with celebrity?

The answer is simply, nothing.

This is about safety. Defined as “being protected from danger, risk, or injury.”

I don’t sit before you today to ask that you ban the paparazzi. I’m asking you to regulate it. Officialize it. Tax it. Legitimize it. A big white P on a yellow license plate says the driver works for an accredited photo agency. Press credentials worn in plain sight do the same. A law governing an acceptable filming distance from an unwilling subject keeps everybody safe and misbehavior becomes accountable. Regulating the paparazzi won’t bring an end to modern day media coverage, just as the newly enforced hands-free law hasn’t stopped people from talking on cell phones while they drive.ﾠ It’s only an adaptive measure put in place to respond to some of the ways that living in a technological free-market can compromise personal safety.

John Mayer

Comments from a Political Scientist

From Showbizspy.com message board

Photographers can’t be banned.

by Iamthenextgovernor, June 24, 2008 – 10:35

A couple of things, as a political scientist who dabs in candid photography as a hobby.
1. Malibu can’t ban the photographers from the beach because it is public property. They do have every right to be there and they do have a constitutional right to take the candid pictures.
2. Unless the photographer’s business is located in Malibu, you can’t tax them either. Because to tax them you have to tax income.
3. On the other side of the equation, it is always disturbing when you have some one camp outside your home or follow you around whether or not it is the paparazzi. It can be the same as stalking and if the paparazzi is doing that then you should be able to hit them with antistalking laws already in existence.
4. Celebrities do not have any extra rights or previleges that are not applicable to anyone else. As the beach is public everyone has the right to use for any purpose that is legal. Clearly, what the surfers did was illegal.
5. There is a reason why we do not have european style laws, unlike europe, the US is a true constitutional republic where people have the right to do things even if the majority don’t agree.

In short, candid photography is a constitutionally protected right, but following people around and making cell phone calls or text messaging other photographers to join in, is tantamount to stalking.
Photographers and the public should be aware that there is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, california’s stalking laws exclude the papparazzi. That’s something that needs to be fixed with a new constitution which I am working on.

Malibu Mayor Asks For Paparazzi Laws

By WENN, June 24, 2008

The man who oversaw the investigation into PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON’s headline-grabbing sex scandal has been asked to help draw up new city laws that would keep the paparazzi from Malibu, California.

The coastal city’s Mayor Pamela Ulich has asked local Pepperdine University law school dean Ken Starr for the benefit of his legal counsel as she plans to prevent Malibu becoming a paparazzi mecca.

Ulich has suggested creating “buffer zones” for cameramen and photographers who follow celebrities to the beach, and taxing the snappers.

She wants the paparazzi to “think twice before shoving a camera in your face”.

The summer has already started badly for Malibu-bound photographers – several were chased off a public beach on Sunday (22Jun08) as they attempted to snap Matthew McConaughey.

A gang of angry surfers ordered the paparazzi to stop taking photos of the star. The confrontation led to violence when some of the surfers allegedly dragged a photographer into the sea while beating him up.

Another snapper reportedly had camera equipment thrown into the sea. Police reports were filed and the local authorities are investigating the matter.

Malibu working on changing paparazzi laws

So things are heating up in Malibu.  Would love to hear anyones thoughts on this.  Do you feel it violates the Paparazzi’s First Amendment rights?  Check out this excerpt from the Malibu Times.

Angie Lee Cobbs

Legislation in the works

Regarding the effort to draft legislation to protect Malibu residents, City Council member Jefferson Wagner said the idea of instituting some sort of business licensing requirement for paparazzi to photograph in Malibu has been discussed.

“The paparazzi sell photos, that is commerce,” he said. “What they are doing is commerce on the beach.”

State law requires that anyone photographing for commercial purposes on state or public land, whether for compensation or not, must file for a permit, as well as provide a certificate of insurance. However, “breaking news” coverage is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and does not require a permit.

Wagner suggested if legislation is rephrased so that paparazzi are required to file for a permit to shoot, then they “will all line up … [and] at least we’ll know who they are, so we will have legal recourse if they violate laws.”

Monday morning Malibu Mayor Pamela Conley-Ulich issued an official press release on the subject: “Any new ordinance must be in harmony with the First Amendment free speech rights, which are so important. I am hopeful we can develop and implement an effective strategy that will address outstanding public safety concerns and balance those concerns against protected First Amendment activities and commercial activities.”

Colin Farrell’s Malibu fun filled weekend!

Once again, the stalkerazzi never disappoints.  From IMDB.com

Latest: Extra sheriff’s deputies have been assigned to patrol the beaches of Malibu, California after two celebrity-related incidents at the weekend (21-22Jun08).

On Saturday, Colin Farrell challenged a paparazzi after the Irishman spotted the snapper trying to take beach shots of him, his son and pregnant pal Minnie Driver.

Farrell ran up the beach and confronted the videographer, asking, “Are you f**king taking a picture of me and my boy? Turn that off.”

And on Sunday, snappers trying to get photos of Matthew McConaughey at Paradise Cove beach brawled with angry surfers, who took offence when their playground became a paparazzi target.

In video footage released to news networks, the surfers can be seen beating up the photographers and dragging one of them into the ocean.

Local officials in Malibu are fighting to change city laws to prevent the paparazzi from invading beaches. In the meantime, police have agreed to patrol target areas in a bid to halt further clashes between photographers and sunbathers.

One local tells WENN, “It’s getting out of hand. Suddenly you spot a celebrity and then there’s a swarm of photographers. Malibu people are sick of it.”