Court may be a Walk In The Clouds for Keanu Reeves!
A Los Angeles judge today denied a paparazzo’s request for punitive damages arising out of an alleged March 2007 car accident involving Keanu and the pap. Alison Silva (a man) claimed he was hit by The Matrix star’s Porsche while photographing him, causing serious injuries. Keanu’s reps argued in court documents that Silva placed his hand on Keanu’s car and tripped over his own feet. (LOL!)
The judge ruled that the pap’s case was bogus, stating there “was no evidence of the slightest contact or the slightest touching.” Nonetheless, Silva will continue with a negligence claim against Keanu, which is on calendar for trial in October.
Popsquire’s perspective…
Dismissal of claims for punitive damages represents a huge victory for any case. Lawsuits are always about money, so if a defendant can reduce the plaintiff’s potential monetary recovery, that’s a victory. Now, the pap can only recover, if at all, for his actual damages (i.e., medical bills), which likely are minimal in this case.
In response to allegations that LAX police used a decoy to permit Jamie Lynn Spears and her baby, Maddie, to exit LAX without paparazzi mayhem last week, LAX spokesman Albert Rodriguez confirmed today that “Airport Police has opened an internal investigation and will take appropriate administrative action if warranted.”
He explains that “policy prohibits special courtesies to be provided to celebrities, unless extenuating circumstances such as threat of danger to the individual or the safety of the general public are involved.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
The exception for “extenuating circumstances” is vague and permits broad interpretation. Given that Jamie Lynn and Maddie likely would have been bombarded by paparazzi, the baby’s safety and health certainly might have been at risk.
Of course, if LAX makes this kind of exception for Jamie Lynn, other celebs might start asking for similar treatment. There’s always a slippery slope!
Kanye West may be Stronger than a photographer, but not the police! TMZ reports that Kanye and his bodyguard were arrested earlier today at LAX for allegedly smashing a photog’s camera, held on $20,000 bail, and now has been released. Click here for video and more details.
Popsquire’s perspective…
California’s anti-paparazzi laws generally do not prohibit photographers from snapping shots of celebrities in public, regardless of how frustrated celebrities may get. California law, however, does prohibit destruction of property, even when the property belongs to paparazzi!
With sympathy for Kanye’s frustration, Popsquire dedicates this Ice Cube hit, “Check Yo Self!”
Surf’s up for two men who allegedly popped the paps!
Skylar Peak (24) and Philip Hildebrand (30) have been charged with misdemeanor battery for reportedly throwing a photographer into the water as he tried to shoot pictures of Matthew McConaughey surfing in late June.
Popsquire’s perspective…
If convicted, these surfers likely will get less than a year in jail or only be required to pay monetary fines of up to $1 000. Although considered a less serious crime than a felony, a misdemeanor still should be taken seriously. If convicted, these guys will have criminal records, assuming they already don’t!
Below is video footage of the incident at issue. It’s not great, but it will give you some insight into what happened…
Given the anticipated madness to snap pics of Gwen Stefani’s newborn boy, Matt Damon’s newborn girl, and Jennifer Garner’s new baby bump, it’s time to review California’s anti-paparazzi laws. In short, these laws generally prevent photogs both from physically entering a celeb’s private property to snap a picture and from using visual enhancing devices to get pics of celebs on their private property.
Please pass on to your paparazzi friends! And, feel free to study up on paparazzi pop culture/law collisions with these prior Popsquire Posts…
Following concerns about proper zoning for her guest house and complaints from neighbors about film crews and paparazzi, Lauren Conrad now tells E! News that “we’re going to have to move after we’re done filming.” Explaining that the accessibility of the house from the street has caused it to become an attraction for paparazzi and tour buses, she adds: “You can hear the tour guides like, ‘Just yesterday, we saw Lauren Conrad pulling into her driveway and she stopped to get the mail….’ ”
Popsquire Proposes…
Britney Spears is selling her Studio City home, which is inside a gated community. L.C. can buy Britney’s house! That way, L.C. can throw Britney a bone, make her neighbors happy, and get some privacy all in one deal. Popsquire is nothing, if not a problem solver and a helper.
Lauren Conrad’s ratings are not good with her neighbors!
According to the LA Times, LC’s neighbors are “in an uproar” over the ongoing filming of The Hills in their previously quiet neighborhood. Although neighbors say that LC has been courteous, they complain that:
Since she moved in, the neighborhood has been plagued by paparazzi and fans.
Sightseeing vans and tour buses travel through the neighborhood and stop so tourists can snap pictures and peer over LC’s fence!
Logs kept by homeowners indicate that “a drunken brawl broke out during a party” at the house May 4 and continued as the combatants stumbled down the street.
On June 14 “several paparazzi began fighting and one pulled a knife on the other one.”
A spokeswoman for MTV said that all of the show’s filming was done “in accordance with all required production permits.” For example, “The Hills” filming permit allows shooting to occur 16 days a month and prohibits filming that is visible to neighbors before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
Popsquire would never live next to a reality tv home/set! Here is a reminder why…
The LA City Council held hearings yesterday to address potential paparazzi regulations. In case you were not in attendance (it was the place to be, of course), here are the highlights…
John Mayer urged the City Council to regulate the paparazzi. He proposed the requirement of photographer credentials, marked cars for photographers and a “law governing an acceptable filming distance from an unwilling subject [to keep] everybody safe and misbehavior accountable.”
LAPD Chief William J. Bratton did not share Mayer’s enthusiasm for regulation, implying that celebrities may be responsible for some of the madness: “If you notice, since Britney started wearing clothes and behaving; Paris is out of town not bothering anybody, thank God; and, evidently, Lindsay Lohanhas gone gay, we don’t seem to have much of an issue….”
When asked later about the propriety of the “gone gay” comment, Bratton revealed that his sister is a lesbian, that he supports gay rights and told reporters to move on.
City Councilman Dennis Zine, who called for the hearings months ago, believes Bratton “disrespected elected officials and celebrities that were involved…Celebrities should have the freedom to do as they wish and the paparazzi are infringing upon their right to live.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
The controversy surrounding anti-paparazzi legislation is the question of where to draw the line between legitimate news gathering and invasions of privacy. While Popsquire is mindful and worried about safety and privacy issues, there already are several traffic and other anti-paparazzi laws to address those issues.
If we allow government to say who can take pictures and who can’t, somebody may make that decision based on the content of the photos. To the extent further regulations are proposed, we must be careful of the slippery slope!
Halle Berry wants to pop the paps who took pictures of her four-month-old-daughter, Nahla Ariela Aubry.
Responding to the publication of recent photographs depicting Nahla in what appears to be a backyard, Halle says that photographers trespassed onto her private property to snap the pics. Evan Spiegel, an attorney representing Halle (and Popsquire’s former law school classmate!), confirms that a criminal complaint has been filed and an investigation is under way. Evan also claims that witnesses saw the photographers in the middle of a “very blatant and invasive trespass.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
California’s anti-paparazzi laws prevent photogs both from physically entering a celeb’s private property to snap a picture and from using visual enhancing devices to get pics of celebs on their private property. If these photogs did either of these things, they may be enduring the wrath of Catwoman!
For other Popsquire posts about paparazzi, click here.
Dressed in camouflage, two paparazzi got into a physical altercation with Brangelina’s bodyguards last night outside the couple’s French chateau, according to MSNBC.
The paps somehow got onto the property and, along with the bodyguards, were taken in for questioning by French police after the scuffle. The police captain said both sides filed legal complaints accusing the other of battery and causing injury. She said she believed the injuries were bruises and scratches and “nothing nasty.”
Popsquire says…Brad and Angie better do everything they can to prevent the paps from getting the first pics. Those millions must go to charity!
Sienna Miller is suing to two British newspapers and a photo agency for publishing semi-nude pics of her hanging with married actor, Balthazar Getty. In London’s High Court, Sienna seeks recourse for invasion of privacy, according to People. Since the photos emerged, Balthazar has announced that his marriage is ending. Um, duh!
For some reason, Popsquire just can’t stop singing Justin Timberlake’s “What Comes Around…”
The Pitt-Jolie family are protecting their privacy!
According the Smoking Gun, lawyers for Brad Pitt are threatening legal action against news outlets if photos taken of Brad and the fam at their French mans are published.
The lawyers contend that the pics were taken with “highly powerful telephoto lenses,” and, if published, would violate privacy rights. Notably, Pitt’s lawyers claim that the photo agency that originally took the pics has agreed not to sell or disseminate any more rights to them.
Popsquire’s perspective…
Although it seems like laws do not protect celebs from the paparazzi, there are legal limits!
In California, for example, the anti-paparazzi laws apply when, among other things (1) a person “attempts to capture … any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression” of another person engaging in a “personal or familial activity”; (2) the attempt is made “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person”; (3) the person photographed, videotaped, or recorded “had a reasonable expectation of privacy”; and (4) “a visual or auditory enhancing device” is used.
In short, the paps can’t use highly powerful telephoto lenses to snap shots of celebs in their homes!
Edwin Merino, a paparazzo, was arrested earlier this week for allegedly stalking Jamie Lynn Spears and Casey Aldridge near their Louisiana home. After posting bond, Merino denied the accusations in a phone interview yesterday with the AP. In his defense, Merino claims that he was about 200 feet away from the couple using a long lens when he was arrested at a gas station.
Not so fast!
According to Louisiana’s state stalking statute, Merino may be guilty of stalking if he repeatedly followed Jamie Lynn and such behavior would cause a “reasonable person to feel alarmed.”
This is a much lower standard than California’s anti-stalking laws, which require that an alleged stalker make a “credible threat with the intent to place [Jamie] in reasonable fear for [her] safety.”
Bottom line: Because Jamie Lynn is under 18 years old, Merino may be facing up to one year in prison and up to $2,000 in fines!
According to CNN, LAPD is cracking down on the paparazzi:
On Tuesday evening, the police arrested two photogs for misdemeanor violations of obstructing a public walkway outside of a West Hollywood hair salon, while Britney Spears was inside.
On Wednesday morning (around 1:30 am), police arrested two TMZ photogs for obstructing sidewalks outside of Villa nightclub, while Lindsay Lohan allegedly was inside.
TMZ founder Harvey Levin criticized LAPD, stating: “We’ve been saying for a long time that law enforcement needs to crack down, that they’ve closed their eyes to a lot of dangerous things happening…The danger is blowing lights, running people off the road. … This was not one of those situations.”
He also said it was “kind of bizarre that for a while now they’ve been watching these chases, and this is their first stand.”
Popsquire’s perspective…
Contrary to Harvey’s contention, this is hardly the LAPD’s “first stand.” Perhaps Senor Levin should brush up on Popsquire because then he’d know that the LAPD arrested four paparazzi on Jan. 16, as described in this previous post.
Popsquire supports efforts to provide for public safety, so long as traffic and sidewalk obstruction laws are enforced fairly and not targeted only towards the media (including the paparazzi).
Popsquire is a helper, so he is reminding everyone that California has anti-paparazzi laws in place, as described here.
If Popsquire were a celeb, he’d feel that the tide was turning against the paparazzi. And, more importantly, he’d drive by the photogs while blasting Tina Turner’s hit, “Better Be Good To Me.”
PS: Popsquire predicts that TMZ and/or the TMZ-related photogs will take legal action against LAPD for their arrest and/or detainment. Stay tuned!
According to KNBC4, Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, a former LAPD motor officer, is expected to introduce a motion today requiring paparazzi to maintain a “zone of clear space” around the people they are photographing as well as their vehicles.
If passed — and if Constitutional — the restrictions could join current California “anti-paparazzi” legislation that generally prohibits paparazzi from trespassing on celebs’ property to obtain pictures or from using technology to get pictures without physically entering the property.
Is Popsquire the only one singing and dancing to Kenny Loggins’ hit, “Danger Zone?”
Court may be a Walk In The Clouds for Keanu Reeves!
No Comments » | 
car crash, paparazzi | 
Permalink
Posted by russell wetanson
