So a papar…a papparr…one of those idiot photographers keeps trying to take photographs of Woody Harrelson and his daughter, coming home through an airport, after Harrelson tells him to back off. The idiot photographer than chases Harrelson into the parking lot, whereupon Harrelson–fed up–comes after the guy and smashes his camera as the guy…who pursued Harrelson after being warned off, mind you…yells that Harrelson is chasing HIM. He bleated that Harrelson has “anger management issues” because he has a history of lashing out at obnoxious photographers. No. Photographers have Woody Harrelson management issues. If they could just manage not to get in his face taking photographs, he wouldn’t be smashing their cameras.
But that’s not the best part.
The best part is that Harrelson, in a statement, declared that because he’d just wrapped a film called “Zombieland” in which he was being pursued by the animated dead, he therefore had zombies on the brain and “understandably” mistook the photographer for a zombie.
That is hilarious. That is bloody brilliant. Celeb stalkers characterized as the undead seeking brains. I think celebrities, every time they have photographers bearing down on them, should start screaming, “Run! They want to eat our brains!” Why not? The publications they service rot your brains well enough.
Trust Woody Harrelson to produce an actual statement that would have made a perfect headline for “The Onion.” Read it in full here:
PAD
• 
I read about that last night or this morning. While I certainly understand your enthusiasm, I’ve got to agree with the comment I saw elsewhere:
“In related news, Woody Harrelson still really really likes to smoke a lot of weed.”
TWL
Was the paparazzo in question really in Harrelson’s face? Or was he at least keeping a comfortable distance?
Luigi, who’s to say what a comfortable distance IS?
As an aside, when I first heard of the movie, I got this image of an amusement park with lines of kids waiting to ride a zombie. But then, I’m weird.
Ultimately even distance doesn’t matter as in the USA we are free to take pictures of almost anything without worry about legal problems. It is how tv news works.
That said, even professional photographers with major organizations need to learn to have some respect for people. One of the last “news events” I covered was a guy who had been out mowing his lawn when a thunderstorm came through. A tree in his yard got struck by lightning. The guy got off his lawnmower to investigate and got electrocuted by the lightning in the ground.
Lucky me, I got there first when it was just reported as someone getting struck by lightning. A neighbor was there and told me was was going on as I realized to my horror that the guy’s dead body was laying on the other side of the lawnmower where I couldn’t see it.
I called my assignment desk folks and told them no one was talking here and what had happened. With a little finagling, I was all clear to leave until the other tv people showed up. Then I had to go back out there, but I didn’t shoot any more video.
Then family members showed up. They were rightly upset with the tv people being there. A daughter shouted at us to leave. I was moving away when one of the people from the ABC station (and the market leader) was telling the lady in a not very polite manner that he had every right to be there.
As I walked off, I thought, yes, you have the right to be there but lack the decency not to be there.
I don’t work in tv news anymore.
I was moving away when one of the people from the ABC station (and the market leader) was telling the lady in a not very polite manner that he had every right to be there.
.
He had a right to be on the sidewalk. That’s public property. If he was standing so much as a foot inside the property lines and he was explicitly told to leave, then he’s trespassing and has zero right to be there.
.
Smart move, getting out of TV news.
.
PAD
He may or may not be trespassing – but he still has the right to take pictures, whether he is or isn’t traspassing.
The law on such things is very interesting. I’ll see if i can dig up the references.
I think they were both jerks.
.
That said, i hope Harrelson has at least been charged with assault.
Personal rights cease at the moment of death. The living dead have no rights, and cannot sue. No case.
I don’t think US law recognizes cameras as victims.
Grabbing the camera is assault. If the camera is damaged – given that the guy’s a prophotographer – that’s likely some pretty big material damages, too.
I had a Hancock moment there… Breaking cameras and the rest of it is “not cool”. On t’other hand, if that poops going to happen to anyone, a paparapperwhosis seems like a fairly ideal candidate.
–
The “zombie defence” is, as they say, priceless…
–
Cheers
I’m amazed that celebs who’ve had problems with obnoxious photographers don’t carry squirt guns filled with non-toxic paint while they’re just walking around town (I know that they couldn’t get away with carrying them on airplanes). Not paintball guns…that could injure someone. Someone takes a photo of you after you’ve asked them to stop… *sploot!*
Just a thought…
I think that’s a great idea.
.
Here’s the thing: If Harrelson is at, say, a movie premiere, then snapping away is one thing. But he was simply coming through an airport with his daughter and heading to his car. THAT IS NOT NEWS. THAT DOESN’T DESERVE COVERAGE. Simply existing isn’t news. Going through the normal paces of your life isn’t news. Just because you’re an actor with a recognizable face doesn’t mean you’ve sacrificed your right to at least some modicum of privacy.
.
Attacking a news photographer at a news event is unreasonable. When you’re simply living your life and someone won’t leave you alone, that’s harassment and stopping that person by means short of beating him up is self-defense. Plus maybe Harrelson doesn’t feel like having pictures of his daughter sprayed across the newspapers. What did SHE do to deserve losing her right to privacy?
.
I remember last year when some guy at an airport was being aggressive and rude to Kathleen, and I got in between them and told the guy in no uncertain terms to back off. It almost devolved into a fist fight before the guy did, in fact, back off. It’s just me, and I write about it on my blog and you guys talk about how rude the world is. And that’s where it ends. If I’m Woody Harrelson and the exact same chain of events occurs, it becomes an item in “Entertainment Weekly,” total strangers talk about what a pugnacious dìçk I am, and the guy who was being abusive and rude files a lawsuit, claiming he was just minding his own business and he’s the injured party.
.
PAD
And many years ago, when i was still married to my forst wife, we were in one of the “Mobiule Gate” vehicles at the old Atlanta air terminal, and, despite several signs saying “No Smoking”, the guy across the aisle from us was puffing away.
.
Susan’s stomach was a tad delicate at the best of times, and after the flight home from Louisville, she was already queasy, and the smoke wasn’t helping.
.
I asked him to put it out – he said (in mildly abusive language) that he wouldn’t.
.
I complained to the driver – whose seat was directly under the biggest “No Smoking” sign of all, and he said to just put up with it, it’s pnly be anohter five minutes or so.
.
I went back to my seat, and the guy laughed and blew smoke our way.
.
When Susan gagged, i walked over and knocked the cigarette out of his mouth with a paperback book. (I didn’t hit him – i just hit the cigarette.)
.
Most of the other people who’d been watching this were on my side.
.
But if he’d pushed it, i’d still have had no defense against an assault charge.
.
And, legally, the paparrazzo is minding his own business, no matter how much you and i may thinke he’s being a dìçk.
.
Danhy Escobedo and Juan Miranda were people neither one of us would want to have anything to do with, from what i’ve read, but their rights were just as important as yours or mine. I support the right of paparazzi to do their thing in safety, because anything that curtails their right to take photos will, eventually, inevitably, affect mine. (There have already been a number of cases in the Bush years when homeland Security – or other Federal, State or local police types – have violated the rights of photographers, up to and including one Civil Engineering student who came close to deportation because he was taking pictures of a power plant from a public road for a class project.)
The scum photographer was stalking him. He has a right to protect his own and his daughter’s safety.
With the telephoto lenses of today, there is no reason a scum photographer needs to be with 20 feet of his victim.
Still assault – no matter how much i might sympathise with the motive. And if the camera is damaged – paint on the lens, say, i lose most of my sympathy
.
What’s your opinion on PETA and other such organisations splashing paint on people’s fur coats?
.
(I forget which stand-up said it, but i suspect there’s an element of truth in it, is that the reason PETA don’t go after people in leather jackets like they do people in fur coats is because very few outlaw bikers wear fur wraps…)
Danhy Escobedo and Juan Miranda were people neither one of us would want to have anything to do with, from what i’ve read, but their rights were just as important as yours or mine.
That’s true. They, just as we, have the right to protect themselves from people who are harassing them.
.
I think PETA’s actions are despicable. If they object to people buying or wearing fur, then stage a safe and legal demonstration outside stores that sell fur. But there’s no excuse for defacing the private property of people wearing clothing they have purchased just because you object to the material it’s made of.
.
PAD
And there is no excuse for destroying the private property of someone who’s exercixe of his rights is annoying you, even if he is in your face about it.
I agree that PETA’s actions are not correct.
There’s a difference between a PETA rep splashing paint on a person wearing a fur coat and a hypothetical celeb splashing paint on a photojournalist’s camera (after the celeb has asked the photog to back off). The person wearing fur is, presumably, just walking around, minding their own business and not bothering anyone.
The photographer has (in the case I postulated) been asked to go away. The photographer is being an active nuisance.
There’s no law against wearing fur. There is no current argument going on as to its legality. It’s settled. Anyone can wear fur.
There are laws governing rights to privacy, and the line is a lot more of a gray area. How close is the photographer? Are they using a flash attachment if it’s a night shot (if so, how many shots in a row are they taking)? Are they interfering with their subject’s ability to move forward (blocking their path, in other words)? It can vary from case to case.
Let me add a wrinkle to the hypothetical scenario I posited: let’s say that the paint the celeb uses is water-based. It’s annoying, but doesn’t necessarily ruin the camera or the lenses. If there’s no permanent damage to the property of the photographer, would that make a difference?
There is such a thing as harrassment. Did it happen in the Harrelson case? I don’t know. It sounds as though it did. Given what was in Peter’s original post (the photog chased Harrelson into the parking lot after being repeatedly warned off), I suspect that a judge or a jury might decide in Harrelson’s favor. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Bsed on the “Photographer’s Rights” guide i linked to, that last is about the only one that – in most cases- would make what the pap was doing illegal. (Taking flash shots in a manner that could cause a danger to anyone – say someon driving a car, or bystanders thereunto – is another matter entirely.)
Even water-based paint – even plain water – is likely to damage modern multi-coated lenses … and cleaning it off certainly will.
And assault is assault.
That’s the real grey area, but there’s no doubt that Harrelson commited assault – and i see, looking back, that PAD says he smashed the camera.
Depending on the specific camera involved, we’re talking upward of a thousand dollars damages there.
I seem to recall that most of the cases i can remember (note qualification; i don’t want to make a refutable claim that would appear to damage my main thrust of comment) in which celebrities were accused of assaulting photographers ended with convictions/pleas. It doesn’t matter how much someone annoys you, you’re not allowed to assault them.
(There are times, i must admit, when i wish we lived in the world of Brooke McEldowney’s “TRON”-type story of the computer game “Suzerain”: http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/pib/2008/pib080814.gif)
Or even better, if the public would quit treating these celebs like living gods and buying these stupid effing photos and the mags that support the scumarazzi, they’d be out of business…
Maybe a few of these stars need to start “stalking” the paparazzi in their off duty hours and photograph them and their families incessantly for a while, turn the tables on them…
Why are they allowed to publish photos without a photo release?
The school where my son goes is not allowed to publish photos of him without a signed release. The gym where I work out takes photos of its patrons all the time for publicity brochures, but they’re not allowed to use them unless they obtain a release.
Why shouldn’t celebrities be allowed the same protections? There should be more-specific rules governing what is a media event where photos are allowed and what isn’t a media event where photo release authorizations are required.
So, if a publication publishes unauthorized photos that are not part of an authorized media event, then they are liable for invasion of privacy. Issues like that mentioned in the article would disappear.
Nope. No releases required if the person in question has no “reasonable expectation of privacy” and the use of the phot has an arguable news aspect. (We can argue whether articles in the gossip mags are or are not “news” in any way – but that’s for the courts to decide, and so far they’ve tended to side with the press.)
.
And “resonable expactation of privacy” does not necessarily mean “on private property” or even that the photographer had to treapass to take the picture.
years ago ally sheedy was being interviewed by arsenio hall (i’m dating myself) and he asked her about a then-recent run-in sean penn had with a photographer back when he was punching people in the face every other day.
sheedy said it’s sad and penn has anger issues but at the same time, everybody knows that. you’re kind of an idiot for putting a camera in his face. it’s poking the bear.
Why would you date yourself?
(stolen from the Supergirl/YJ crossover by none other than PAD)
To put it in comic book context, it’s like the days when the Hulk would say, “Hulk just wants to be left alone!” So what did people do? They attacked him. And he smashed stuff, and people declared him to be a monster, and if they’d just left him alone the way he asked, everything would have been fine.
PAD
This is all just a cover story!!!
.
There really was a zombie outbreak at the airport! The government goons have swept it under the rug and planted the disinformation and you’re all falling for it!!!
.
You all laughed at Bill Mulligan’s warnings (hëll, I laughed at his warnings) but the truth is coming out now! Run, you fools, run!!!
.
😉
“Chased”?? I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means.
Nuff said.
“They’re coming right for me!”
In other words, South Park references aside, the chasing line was probably just trying to establish a legal argument for later. He made a point of calling someone and telling them something of extremely dubious truthfulness so when later called to the stand he could say, “I honestly thought he was chasing me, just ask my friend and he’ll tell you how worried I sounded!”
Ha ha! That’s the sound of me laughing!
(Bill, currently in an undisclosed location at his parent’s house in Saugerties NY for Spring break, checking the buried cache of dried beans and rice, reading up on how to turn urine into a viable fertilizer and/or high nitrate explosive with which we will dynamite Route 87 at the appropriate junctions to slow down the undead advance from the City.)
Some of you are still going to be surprised when Zombieland turns out to be a documentary. Can’t say Jerry, Bill, Sean, Micha and I didn’t warn you!
I hope the association with Woody Harrelson and/or paparazee won’t cause people to treat the zombie issue less seriously.
You’re suggesting that the general population could treat the zombie issue less seriously?
–
Cheers.
Has any celebeity ever had the idea to hire an PI for a few days to get exclusive photos of a really obnoxious paparazzi, his family, following him or the family around all day? Posting it on a low-key news site (may even be created for that single reason)?
I mean, turnabout is fair play, isn’t it?
Let’s see how paparrazi react to be in the spotlight. With their photographs appearing on frontpages, surely they themselves are celebrities, which brings the same limitations the celebrities they follow?
My cynic sense says that most paparazzi would love to be celebrities, particularly if they get the perks that go with the job. If all else fails, they can always photograph themselves in outrageous or embarrassing situations and sell the photos…
–
(Don’t mock that idea, it worked for Peter Parker…! One of the interesting threads in the wind before OMD/BND (hack, spit) was JJJ taking Peter to court for fraud because he’d done that. My solution would have been to have had Peter & MJ sign exclusive rights to the Bugle for their autobiographies, forcing them into the limelight as the Posh and Becks of the hero set…)
–
Cheers.
Thing is, the whole legal structure by which famous people can’t refuse to be photographed doesn’t apply to non-famous paparazzi. Celebrities have put themselves on stage, and forfeit a reasonable expectation of privacy. Photographers, by and large, have not done so. Hiring a PI (or even another photog) to follow one around would be legally actionable.
Not so. So long as they have no “reasonable expectation of privacy”, it’s perfectly legal.
.
What “reasonable expectation of privacy” means is: If you’re on the street, anyone can take your picture. If you’re in your front yard, anyone can take your picture. If you’re in your *back* yard, anyone can take your picture. If you’re in your back yard, with a high, opaque fence … anyone can climb a tree and take your picture.
.
If you are in your living room, with no curtains on the big picture window … anyone can *still* take your picture.
.
If you’re in your bedroom and the curtains are open, anyone can *probably* still take your picture … even if they’re trespassing while they do it.
.
If you are in your bedroom with opaque curtains drawn, *then* it’s illegal to sneak up and take your picture through the gap in the drapes.
.
(This is in the US – in other countries, things are anywhere from a tad more restrictive to absolutely draconianly-repressive).
.
Follow up on the links i have a couple of posts down.
Bill Mulligan,
Given the post itself was about zombies, I expected to hear from you a little earlier. Also Zombieland is not going to be a documentary anymore that This is Spinal Tap was. It may have a lot of truth in it, but it’s not going to be at all accurate.
You mean “This is Spinal Tap” is NOT a documentary?
Shìŧ … all those years spent looking for the Electric Banana…
As to photographers’ rights – i did a little googling, and here’s The Photographer’s Right Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography by Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law, a printabe PDF of the guide that i mentioned, and here’s a plain text version.
.
A couple of articles from USAToday (here and here) on the subject present it in simple terms.
.As i said, just because you have a legal right to do something doesn’t mean you have a moral right to, or should, do it – but you also have a right to expect to not be assaulted – or harassed by cops – for it.
This was once discussed on Larry King Live, and the discussion showed what poor moderator guest host Kathy Griffin is. During the first half of the show the guest was Brooke Hogan, and Griffin was completely sympathetic, talking about how horrible it was that she was being stalked and how her privacy was stolen. During the second half they had some paparazzi on, and Griffin was completely sympathetic to *them*, talking about how celebrities whine about a few pictures and how many celebrities actually enjoy all the publicity.
And speaking as someone who works in retail, arguing that you can hit someone because they acted so mindless you thought they were a zombie wouldn’t work: My store would be filled with the dead, both customers and supervisors.
Rock on because that is friggin’ awesome
Sean: Luigi, who’s to say what a comfortable distance IS?
Luigi Novi: Anyone. Everyone. Me. You. Harrelson. The paparazzo. My cat.
It’s not that people can’t. It’s that they don’t.
Personally, I freaking love Mel Gibson’s wife. It’s not that I would generally cheer a guy who’s wife is divorcing him, but for the virulently anti-Semite creator of The Passion of the Christ to have his wife file for divorce On Good Friday is just too ironic for me to suppress a snigger.
http://www.tmz.com/2009/04/13/mel-gibson-divorce/
Make that the day before Good Friday.
That would be Holy Thursday – the commemoration of the Last Supper, which has its own bit of ironic significance here, I think 🙂
(heh…sorry this comment is a wee late, but my aggregator stopped getting the feed and I only just realized it 🙂 )
In a possibly related story:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2009/04/obama_meets_privately_with_the.html
.
Obama Meets Privately With the Dead
.
Things are progressing much faster than I’d thought they would. Mom! Where are the water purifying filters?
Ah! ow it becomes clear: How Barack Obama resurrected The Dead
.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_en_mu/the_dead_return;_ylt=AtfaP44o6hF0KGUji0Agv48DW7oF
.
memo to self: idea for movie. Corrupt Chicago politician, in trouble for using the votes of names taken off gravestones, uses (method to be determined later) to actually raise the dead, arguing that if they are walking around and moaning they are at least as capable of making good voting choices as the average person in Chicago. Things go badly. As usual.