Surfers to Paps: Peace, Man!

46. Paps have no rights in my neighborhood. At a minimum their tires will be slashed, and if they are rude they'll leave minus some skin. We all have the right to stand up against this kind of abuse from the coyote mobs of the paps.

Posted at 8:35AM on Jun 29th 2008 by chonkers

47. Paparazzi rights? Don't you have to be an American citizen to have "American Rights"?

Posted at 8:41AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Sally G

48. I think that the celeb's bodyguards should start just walking over the paps who try to get in their way. Who would complain?

Posted at 8:54AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Pocket Jack

49. When's the next Pap-Slap ho-down?

Posted at 8:54AM on Jun 29th 2008 by BC

50. Well that proves my point from the other day. This is a gay outing. What men walk around handing out flowers unless they are gay. I guess that wouldn't have looked good for Matthew to show up again at the gay party.

Posted at 9:03AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Jessica

51. Jeez. The article and comments are about the paparazzi's behavior and now we have a poster trying to bring a celebrity backed welfare system.

Barnum was right, - one EVERY damn minute.

Posted at 9:00AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Heffe

52. Pap's rights come way after anyone else's right for anything. In fact, you can scrape "paparazzi rights" of the bottom of my shoe.

Posted at 9:05AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Converse

53. According to the California Coastal Commission, "the state of
California owns... the land seaward... of what is called the mean
high tide line."

In short, this means that the public has access to the wet sand, not
the dry sand above the tide line. So one can walk along the beach, as
long as the sand is wet beneath your toes.

If you look at the videos the paps were shooting photos from the dry sand NOT at the waters edge, therefore on private property. You can't argue with the facts.

Posted at 9:09AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Informed Californian

54. The only technicality that really matters is that the public doesn't want them there, and that's all it takes.

Posted at 9:18AM on Jun 29th 2008 by EOS

55. George, you're the dumb one.

Even in public, you're allowed the right to your privacy. Your image is your own. If someone accidentally catches you in a picture they're trying to take whether it's a landscape scene or a pic of a star, if they are going to sell that photo they need you to sign off on the rights to use your image if your face can be seen.

Again retard, as the sister of 2 cops I should know the law a bit better than a moron like you. Public does not mean you lose your personal rights.

You can NOT cause a scene in public or you can be fined for disorderly conduct. Paps cause a scene.
Voyerism is still illegal, and taking someone's photo who is not a willing participant is voyerism.
you do NOT have the right to be drunk in public or you could be arrested.
you do NOT have the right to pull down your pants in public or you could be arrested for indecent exposure.
People can NOT take photos of you against your wishes.

Why the hell do you think they blur out faces on TV? Those people are in public places, yet they are allowed their right to privacy when they sign a waiver saying their image is not allowed to be used on TV.

You're telling me if a child is in public, a pedophile has the right to take as many pictures of that kid as he wants against the parent's wishes?

You're telling me a stalker has the right to take as many pictures of his intended victim as he wants against her wishes because she's in public?

You're a freakin retard!

There are rules and laws when it comes to being in public. You do NOT lose your rights to privacy you freakin moron.

You're telling me to think before I speak, yet you go babbling off at the mouth like a retard whose IQ is lower than a zoo animal.

Posted at 10:36AM on Jun 29th 2008 by Mayu

56. Mayu, Let me see if understand you b/c your related to 2 people in law enforcement you somehow have an understanding of the law. Thats dumb. The covering of faces on t.v. why then do they show the defendant face on t.v. according to you he should have the right to prevent the public from showing their face.
Taking pictures of kids in public . Yes a person can take pictures of kids who are in public , look at disneyland photos those kids didn't sign releases.
causing a scene in public , it appears that it was the dumb surfers who attacked the paps . they caused the scene . both days . just b/c you don't like me d/n mean you can attack me then complain that my presence is the issue.
your logic that b/c you c/n pulldown your pants in =c/n take a photo is baffling . And incredibly ignorant

Posted at 11:39AM on Jun 29th 2008 by george

57. THAT is no surfer, well maybe web surfer or channel surfer.

Posted at 12:42PM on Jun 29th 2008 by kwm

58. Hey, Georgie. Your rights won't count for much when they run up against my fist.

Posted at 2:35PM on Jun 29th 2008 by Carlos

59. For the most part, photography in public places is considered a
protected activity. A private property might ban photography, even
if it is open to the public. Taking pictures there knowing they are
banned could be considered trespassing.

****According to the California Coastal Commission, "the state of
California owns... the land seaward... of what is called the mean
high tide line."
In short, this means that the public has access to the wet sand, not
the dry sand above the tide line. So one can walk along the beach, as
long as the sand is wet beneath your toes.The photographers (paps)
were shooting photos from the dry sand NOT at the waters edge,
therefore on private property.****

It's legal if there is no specific ban, and you are just taking
normal pictures of publicly available images for non-commercial
pictures. If the act of picture taking is particluarly intrusive,
you might be charged under a vague law of "disturbing the peace" or
harassment, but there are not normally any specific laws prohibiting it. The law simply states you do
not require consent unless the pictures are being used for a
commercial purpose.

The last time I checked TMZ and X17 were commercial ventures. As soon
as the photographers (paps) sell their photos to an agency/company it
is no longer considered a "non-commercial" image and consent is
needed.

Again,you can't argue with the facts.

Posted at 3:45PM on Jun 29th 2008 by Informed Californian

60. "Malibu Sheriffs did end up asking several paps to leave the area"

This is a funny way you put it. They TOLD you to GET THE F OUT or ELSE!!!!

Hahahaha....way to put a spin on it paps.

Posted at 4:18PM on Jun 29th 2008 by jFp