In Style Magazine Jennifer Aniston Calypso Dress
November 30, 2009 | Filed Under Dress, Female, TV Star, movie set | Comments Off
In Touch Weekly Jennifer Aniston Calypso Dress
November 30, 2009 | Filed Under Dress, Female, TV Star, movie set | Comments Off
In Touch Weekly 1 Morton Square Building
November 30, 2009 | Filed Under Real Estate | Comments Off
In Touch Weekly Suri Cruise Crazy 8 Top Boston
November 24, 2009 | Filed Under Kids | Comments Off
In Touch Weekly Pirate Jon Stewart on Halloween Daughter
November 24, 2009 | Filed Under Halloween, Kids, Published, TV Star | Comments Off
US Weekly Michelle Williams Matilda Ledger Umbrella in the Rain
November 24, 2009 | Filed Under Kids, Movie Star | Comments Off
New York City Mayor’s Film Office Revokes Right to View Film Permits
November 10, 2009 | Filed Under Legal Issues | Comments Off
The following letter arrived via email from the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting. The key part of the letter states:
Effective December 1, 2009, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting is discontinuing its weekly permit viewing sessions. Due to increasing constraints on space and staff time and numerous reported thefts of documents, the agency will no longer provide courtesy copies for perusal by members of the public.
This is ridiculous. The permits could easily be scanned and sent out as a pdf via email, just like the letter below, which would completely eliminate all the issues put forth in the letter. Since the Mayor’s Office is unwilling to do this, you realize the logic of their decision is political: they want to ensure that FOR PROFIT film companies that use PUBLIC RESOURCES, including the Mayor’s Office, will be subject to minimum intrusions from the general public, including those who function under the Freedom of Press, namely journalists.
What’s the Mission of the Mayor’s Office:
As the first film commission in the country, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting is the one-stop shop for all production needs in New York City, including free permits, free public locations and free police assistance. The agency markets NYC as a prime location, provides premiere customer service to production companies and facilitates production throughout the five boroughs. Whether production companies are shooting a feature film, a commercial, a television show or a music video, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting serves as an invaluable resource to the New York City entertainment production industry.
“free permits, free public locations and free police assistance” Pardon me, but none of these are free. Taxpayers pay for the Mayor’s Office employees who issue these “free permits.” Taxpayers pay for the maintenance and approval of all “free public locations.” And taxpayers pay for the police force which provides “free police assistance.”
Since when do FOR PROFIT film companies get to usurp the rights of citizens, especially when it involves public domain spaces or public domain information? Filing a freedom of information letter to get information that, by the time the letter is addressed, becomes obsolete, is not a satisfactory balance of interests.
Shame on you Mayor’s Office!
============================
9 November 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
This Wednesday, November 11, 2009, please note that the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) will be closed for the Veteran’s Day holiday. As a result, permit documents for dates ranging 11/4/09 through 11/17/09 will be available for public viewing the following Wednesday, November 18, 2009.
Effective December 1, 2009, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting is discontinuing its weekly permit viewing sessions. Due to increasing constraints on space and staff time and numerous reported thefts of documents, the agency will no longer provide courtesy copies for perusal by members of the public.
New York State’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) provides a process for the review and copying of an agency’s records. Under FOIL, all requests for access to MOFTB records must be submitted in writing, either by letter or e-mail, to the agency Records Access Officer. In your request, please describe the records you are seeking as specifically as possible, including as much of the following as possible: types of documents, date, time, location, production title, and any other information that will enable the Records Access Officer to identify the record(s) you are seeking. Include how you would like to receive the requested information if your request is approved, or partially approved. Include a daytime phone number, in case the Records Access Officer has any questions about your request. Copies are available at the statutorily permitted duplication fee of $0.25 per page, by certified check or money order made payable to the NYC Department of Finance.
If you wish to view or photocopy MOFTB permits in the future, please submit your written request by:
Mail:
Records Access Officer
Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting
1697 Broadway, Suite 602
New York, NY 10019
Email:
FOIL@film.nyc.gov
Thank you for your cooperation.
Kelly Killoren Bensimon Dishes On Her Inspirations
November 10, 2009 | Filed Under Supermodel, TV Star | Comments Off
Kelly Killoren Bensimon, one of “The Real Housewives of New York City,” sent out a twitter to check out her website, so I did. I clicked on the Press Gallery link and started watching her Stylecaster video…and suddenly saw a photograph of her ex-husband, Gilles Bensimon, appear on screen. Hmmm, I thought, that looks familiar…and sure enough, it was the photograph I snapped of Gilles at Fashion Week a couple years ago and uploaded to Wikipedia for public domain use. It’s a little hard to believe, though, that Kelly didn’t offer a snapshot of her own for her video.
Watch Kelly’s Stylecaster Video
Rino Barillari The King of Paparazzi
November 7, 2009 | Filed Under History, Photographer | Comments Off
Just discovered Rino Barillari who calls himself “The King of Paparazzi.” Peter Howe wrote a book called “Paparazzi and Our Obsession with Celebrity” in which he states, the best photos of paparazzi have “an element of confrontation.” I agree. Check out this crazy photo of Rino Barillari scuffing with Jayne Mansfield’s husband, actor Mickey Hargitay, as model Vatussa Vitta struck him with her purse.
Rino Barillari being hit by model Vatussa Vitta
California Civil Code Section 1708.8 Privacy Vs. Free Press
November 7, 2009 | Filed Under Kids, Legal Issues | Comments Off
California recently passed an amendment to Civil Code Section 1708.8 that modifies that nature of privacy versus the rights enjoyed under Freedom of the Press. The modification redraws the line that separates where an individual’s privacy rights begin and end. This bill was influenced by a paper written Patrick Alach, a recent graduate of Loyola Law School.
Paparazzi and Privacy by Patrick Alach
A New California Law Places Paparazzi Under the Spotlight by Dionne Searcey, Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2009.
Privacy rights in general are under assault from many directions according to A. Michael Froomkin:
“The right to privacy and respect for private lives of individuals and their families must be balanced against the right of the media to gather and report the news. The right of a free press to report details of an individual’s private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy.”
California Civil Code Section 1708.8 Modifications:
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.
So let’s get this straight: If I am standing on a public street and a celebrity is visible from that public street but the celebrity is on private property, then I am no longer allowed to shoot them with a telephoto lens. So merely being on private property, even though the celebrity is still visible from a public domain space, is now off limits because the image was captured using a long lens? Uh, since when does any person have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in or seen from from public domain spaces? Am I really breaking the law if I’m standing on a public sidewalk and can see two celebrities sitting by their pool making out and decide to photograph them with a long lens? According to this law I am. So if I witness a Senator making about with his mistress by the same pool I am not allowed to document that image either.
Uh, sorry, but a person “engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances” that is clearly visible from a public domain space surely isn’t entitled to a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
(c) An assault committed with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff is subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (h). (d) A person who commits any act described in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for up to three times the amount of any general
and special damages that are proximately caused by the violation of this section. This person may also be liable for punitive damages, subject to proof according to Section 3294. If the plaintiff proves that the invasion of privacy was committed for a commercial purpose, the defendant shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the violation of this section.
(e) A person who directs, solicits, actually induces, or actually causes another person, regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship, to violate any provision of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for any general, special, and consequential damages resulting from each said violation. In addition, the person that directs, solicits, instigates, induces, or otherwise causes another person, regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship, to violate this section shall be liable for punitive damages to the extent that an employer would be subject to punitive damages pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
3294.
(f) Sale, transmission, publication, broadcast, or use of any image or recording of the type, or under the circumstances, described in this section shall not itself constitute a violation of this section, nor shall this section be construed to limit all other rights or remedies of plaintiff in law or equity, including, but not
limited to, the publication of private facts.
(g) This section shall not be construed to impair or limit any otherwise lawful activities of law enforcement personnel or employees of governmental agencies or other entities, either public or private who, in the course and scope of their employment, and supported by an articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of any conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity, the suspected
violation of any administrative rule or regulation, a suspected fraudulent insurance claim, or any other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity involving a violation of law or pattern of business practices adversely affecting the public health or safety.
(h) In any action pursuant to this section, the court may grant equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction and restraining order against further violations of subdivision (a) or (b).
(i) The rights and remedies provided in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
(j) It is not a defense to a violation of this section that no image, recording, or physical impression was captured or sold.
(k) For the purposes of this section, “for a commercial purpose” means any act done with the expectation of a sale, financial gain, or other consideration. A visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression shall not be found to have been, or intended to have been captured for a commercial purpose unless it is intended to be, or was in fact, sold, published, or transmitted.
(l) For the purposes of this section, “personal and familial activity” includes, but is not limited to, intimate details of the plaintiff’s personal life, interactions with the plaintiff’s family or significant others, or other aspects of plaintiff’s private affairs or concerns. Personal and familial activity does not include illegal or otherwise criminal activity as delineated in subdivision (f). However, “personal and familial activity” shall include the activities of victims of crime in circumstances where either subdivision (a) or (b), or both, would apply.
(m) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.