I honsestly don't know how the obvious criminal nature of the paparazzi have NOT led ot legislation.
Hey, Wet - how do these people skirt around the stalking laws or the fact that they are taking pictures of people who do not want their pictures taken and then selling those pictures? I assumed that the laws were pretty black and white for stalking and photographing "strangers", so how do these people get away with it on such a large scale?
I'm sure the answer is: because there is a lot of money involved in this as an "industry".
I would love to see these people en masse seriously fined or jailed.
It depends upon the jurisdiction.
In the US past laws can run afoul of the First Amendment. In Canada any such law would have to survive scrutiny under the Charter. The courts generally are wary of laws that may impact freedom of press.
(Following the death of Princess Diana the Caliifornia) state legislature passed its first anti-paparazzi measure a year later. It created hefty civil penalties that could be paid to stars whose privacy was invaded.
Six months ago, a paparazzo was charged with reckless driving in a high-speed pursuit of Bieber and with violating a separate, 2010 state law that toughened punishment for those who drive dangerously in pursuit of photos for commercial gain.
However, a judge last month dismissed the paparazzi law charges, saying the law was overly broad.
The judge cited problems with the statute, saying it was aimed at newsgathering activities protected by the First Amendment, and lawmakers should have increased penalties for reckless driving rather than target those who photograph celebrities.
City prosecutors said they would appeal the judge's ruling.
The law was prompted by the experiences of Jennifer Aniston, who provided details to a lawmaker about being unable to drive away after she was surrounded by paparazzi on Pacific Coast Highway.http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ed.html?cmp=rss
Other laws may come into play depending upon how aggressive the pursuit may be. In 1998 two paparazzi were convicted of misdemeanour false imprisonment and sentenced to jail for boxing in Arnold Schwarzenegger and his family as they sat in their Hummer.
In BC we have an act (The Privacy Act) that may cover such situations but it has yet to be tested against the Charter - note that it contains this restriction: The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others
.: PRIVACY ACT
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 373 Violation of privacy actionable
1 (1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.
(2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.
(3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.
(4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass. Exceptions
2 (1) In this section:
"court" includes a person authorized by law to administer an oath for taking evidence when acting for the purpose for which the person is authorized to take evidence;
"crime" includes an offence against a law of British Columbia.
(2) An act or conduct is not a violation of privacy if any of the following applies:
(a) it is consented to by some person entitled to consent;
(b) the act or conduct was incidental to the exercise of a lawful right of defence of person or property;
(c ) the act or conduct was authorized or required under a law in force in British Columbia, by a court or by any process of a court;
(d) the act or conduct was that of
(i) a peace officer acting in the course of his or her duty to prevent, discover or investigate crime or to discover or apprehend the perpetrators of a crime, or
(ii) a public officer engaged in an investigation in the course of his or her duty under a law in force in British Columbia,
and was neither disproportionate to the gravity of the crime or matter subject to investigation nor committed in the course of a trespass.
(3) A publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if
(a) the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest, or
(b) the publication was privileged in accordance with the rules of law relating to defamation.
(4) Subsection (3) does not extend to any other act or conduct by which the matter published was obtained if that other act or conduct was itself a violation of privacy. Unauthorized use of name or portrait of another
3 (1) In this section, "portrait" means a likeness, still or moving, and includes
(a) a likeness of another deliberately disguised to resemble the plaintiff, and
(b) a caricature.
(2) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person to use the name or portrait of another for the purpose of advertising or promoting the sale of, or other trading in, property or services, unless that other, or a person entitled to consent on his or her behalf, consents to the use for that purpose.
(3) A person is not liable to another for the use for the purposes stated in subsection (2) of a name identical with, or so similar as to be capable of being mistaken for, that of the other, unless the court is satisfied that
(a) the defendant specifically intended to refer to the plaintiff or to exploit his or her name or reputation, or
(b) either on the same occasion or on some other occasion in the course of a program of advertisement or promotion, the name was connected, expressly or impliedly, with other material or details sufficient to distinguish the plaintiff, to the public at large or to the members of the community in which he or she lives or works, from others of the same name.
(4) A person is not liable to another for the use, for the purposes stated in subsection (2), of his or her portrait in a picture of a group or gathering, unless the plaintiff is
(a) identified by name or description, or his or her presence is emphasized, whether by the composition of the picture or otherwise, or
(b) recognizable, and the defendant, by using the picture, intended to exploit the plaintiff's name or reputation.
(5) Without prejudice to the requirements of any other case, in order to render another liable for using his or her name or portrait for the purposes of advertising or promoting the sale of
(a) a newspaper or other publication, or the services of a broadcasting undertaking, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the readership, circulation or other qualities of the newspaper or other publication, or to the audience, services or other qualities of the broadcasting undertaking, as the case may be, and
(b) goods or services on account of the use of the name or portrait of the other in a radio or television program relating to current or historical events or affairs, or other matters of public interest, that is sponsored or promoted by or on behalf of the makers, distributors, vendors or suppliers of the goods or services, the plaintiff must establish that his or her name or portrait was used specifically in connection with material relating to the goods or services, or to their manufacturers, distributors, vendors or suppliers. Action to be determined in Supreme Court
4 Despite anything contained in another Act, an action under this Act must be heard and determined by the Supreme Court. Action does not survive death
5 An action or right of action for a violation of privacy or for the unauthorized use of the name or portrait of another for the purposes stated in this Act is extinguished by the death of the person whose privacy is alleged to have been violated or whose name or portrait is alleged to have been used without authority.
And federally there are provisions under the Criminal Code but again the Charter would come into play - note the qualifier "without lawful authority". CRIMINAL HARASSMENT
264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
© besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.
(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of Factors to be Considered
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating factor that, at the time the offence was committed, the person contravened
(a) the terms or conditions of an order made pursuant to section 161 or a recognizance entered into pursuant to section 810, 810.1 or 810.2; or
(b) the terms or conditions of any other order or recognizance made or entered into under the common law or a provision of this or any other Act of Parliament or of a province that is similar in effect to an order or recognizance referred to in paragraph (a).
(5) Where the court is satisfied of the existence of an aggravating factor referred to in subsection (4), but decides not to give effect to it for sentencing purposes, the court shall give reasons for its decision.