Jennifer Garner Gets In The Face Of The Paps
The chances of the law being successful even if it is passed is in doubt so Jennifer is trying to get a little publicity for herself and if you combine that with having a bad day, you get the photo above. Most of the time Jennifer doesn't say anything to anyone and just lets them take photos. The problem with this law is that every single photographer in California would be subject to prosecution if a kid is in their photograph without the permission of the parents.
Lets say you are in California and throw your child a birthday party and invite all the kids from your child's class to the party. You have the party to end all parties but don't have any photos. Why? If you take a photo of the other kids at the party and don't have the parents' permission to do so you just committed a crime. Going to Disneyland? Don't bring a camera because you might get another kid in a photo that is not your kid and you can go to jail. Kindergarten graduation? I hope you have a good memory or can afford a courtroom sketch artist.
Celebrities only think about themselves. They don't think about how it will affect everyone else in the world. The other thing it would do which I think is great will show which celebrities are on the payroll of paps because they will be the celebrities who always have photos with their kids.
61 comments:
Well, at least she's reminding us that she still exists. I wouldn't think the paps gave two shits about her beige, boring ass.
The kids should be off limits ....and the pap should not get close.
You're getting carried away in your reasoning, and your bias is showing. It's the paparazzi who only think about themselves. Jennifer is thinking about her kids. I believe the the proposed law specifies paparazzi, which means normal photos would still be fine, and if not, it's a few assh*le paparazzi ruining things for the rest of us, not the other way around.
First Amendment, bitches!
Affleck and Garner use their kids for staged pap photos all the time. She's full of shit.
I dont blame her. Its very unpleasant for the kids.
This is the life she chose for herself and her children. If she hates it so much, she can always do what Demi Moore did, and move to the middle of nowhere until her kids are older.
Yeah, I would think pictures being published by the paps would fall under a different category than private photos taken by individuals to share with friends and family. With the internet, though, it's a slippery slope because even putting photos up on a "private" Facebook page can be considered publishing. Lots of issues here that our "enty lawyer" failed to consider. Good luck to her, though.
I thought there was already a law that if you use a photo of a child for commercial purposes, then you have to have a release from the parents. That would apply to the paps selling photos but not people posting to FB.
If a celeb don't want paparazzi around to photo their kids, then raise your kids in Nebraska or Montana. Maybe Texas, I think it is legal there to shoot someone with a vowel at the end of their name.
I agree with Jennifer about the kids being off-limits, but I don't know that we need a freakin' law passed about it.
P.S. I think she is really just mad about the plumber's crack pix (SFW), which are actually the only pics I've ever seen of her that turned me on. Kinda like side boob, naughty peeks are cooler than intended nudity.
@AKM, I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be, but I wouldn't expect the paps to have an honor in this matter.
That bitch should stfu. You're paid millions to have your face put on shampoo bottles, and you're complaining about being recognized and taken I'm pictures? Go work retail if you don't like it, wasting everyone's time with worthless laws.
Nicole Ritchie already tried this.
There is a law about selling photos of children without the permission of the parents.
I also know I've signed a waiver upon entering amusement parks stating that my image might be used for commercial purposes. So that blows the non-issue of photos at Disneyland.
Private snapshots are are owned by the photographer can be distributed freely anyway the photographer wants to. That blows the non-issue of birthday parties and graduations.
Whoever is writing this is definitely not a lawyer, nor has this person ever worked anywhere that had to clear photo rights for publication. I smell intern.
@JC: interesting idea
In France,the private life is protected by the law and kids's face are hidden on the paps pics
@Topper Madison: great points
Enty's argument is invalid. There is a big difference between TAKING photos and PUBLISHING photos.
The example of taking pictures of your friends birthday party isn't relevant, because the average mom or dad doesn't send those photos off to a magazine for publication. They are for private use.
A pap doesn't take photos for private use, they take them solely for the purpose of selling them for publication.
Noone should be able to publish pictures of a child without their parent's permission. Your local newspaper makes sure they have permission before they publish photos of a child. Why should tabloids be any different?
well I kind of wish they would stay clear of the kiddies as much as possible
the little ones didn't ask for the attention and should have their own private child lives......
Yes Topper, excellent points. thank you.
Not....a...lawyer.
I can see celebrities dragging kids around with them everywhere they go, just to avoid being photographed, if this law were to take effect.
Agree, Rajahcat. The kiddos didn't sign up for that. I bet it is some scary shit when some old man runs up to them with a camera all up in their faces.
Sorry Jennifer. If you or your child are in a public space, you're fair game. Any law passed by the government not allowing such photos is just extremely straight and clear government infringement of the First Amendment.
She's full of shit.
Why can't they just set a distance up to stay back? They are in the public, so fair game for pics, but do the photogs have to get right in their grill? I can see how this would be very scary, especially to young children. Not to mention all the derogatory comments some of them make to get a reaction.
Again, Enty completely misunderstands the law. It is in regards to people who publish photos for commercial gain, not people who take a photo and put in on facebook. If you notice photos taken in Europe of celebrity children have their faces blurred, as this is the law in many European countries already and is strictly enforced by the publications.
CA should just pass a law whereby all paps have to be identified while on the job by wearing a t-shirt that says, "I'm an asshole."
We can decide out what the celebs have to wear later, but the pap shirt should be the priority.
The sick part is that there is a huge market for photos of celebrity children. This whole celebrity obsession in our culture is sick to begin with and totally over the top. I really am starting to feel dirty for indulging in my guilty pleasure, which is reading this blog.
The constant porn in the comments doesn't help. Definitely was more justifiable when the positive energy of Dia Papaya and Frufra was around.
I know no one will care that I leave, but it truly used to be a fun part of my day to catch up on the juicy blinds. Now I can do without.
+1 @ Tish
@ Amy: to add to your point, celebrities/ public figures are held to different standards legally than private citizens.
I.e. they have somewhat fewer rights
@hag - I miss them, too! What has happened here?! I barely check in my self these days, so I hear ya.
Just pathetic that it took 75 minutes for the first comment to mention the 1st Amendment which would instantly render this proposed law unconstitutional!
Plus any photo taken on public property can be sold without the permission of the people in the photo.
If you don't like your pic taken, move somewhere where there aren't any paps.
Sorry, I believe J. Garner is one of those, along with J. Alba, that calls the paps whenever she leaves the house. She, along with Alba, appear on this site almost daily. One doesn't see that many celebrities with their kids unless they want it.
@Becca Parker, what would be pathetic is rigid enforcement with no room for common sense implementation regarding something that's supposed to liberate us rather than restrict normal living, emphasis on NORMAL living.
I've never understood why a minimally talented rarely in anything person like alba is always on this site. Paps may take her pic but WHY is enty so fascinated by her? I seriously cringe every time I see her "frolicking" on the beach or "flaunting her toned legs" blah blah blah. Enlighten me!
Exception: celebs who have kids to increase photo opps or prolong relevancy.
So it's cool for Jen to drag her kids all over the place for photo ops when her hubby's up for an Oscar and she wants to present evidence of the "perfect family", but when random paps take their pictures it's wrong and there should be a law against it. Got it, Jen.
Regarding the first amendment, even the crazy Westboro Baptist Church peeps have to stay 1000 feet away when they protest military funerals. It's not much, but regulations can be placed on amendments without violating their spirit.
There are laws protecting PRIVATE citizens and their children but not public ones because the photos become 'newsworthy'. Personally I get creeped out by pap shots of kids without their parents. There should be laws against that.
Garner probably calls paps but even if she doesn't she chooses to be so public to project a Betty Sue image rather than taking the steps to insure her kids privacy. She has always been papped at the celebrity Pumpkin Patch or that one Whole Foods.
That's dumb. If photogs need to wear that shirt, then lawyers should have it tattooed on their foreheads in neon colors. There are so many worse things with modern society then people photographing the entitled overpaid 1%.
Entertainment Lawyer has left the building.
There's an even bigger difference between "Publishing Photos" and "Publishing photos for financial gain".
You'll be allowed to take pictures in Disneyland and even to publish them on your facebook - But you won't be able to take pictures of someone elses child and sell it to make money without the child or parent's permission.
Jennifer Garner will not get this passed into law because frankly, half the other celebrities are against it. Kim Kardashian and Posh would wither and die without paps taking pictures of their kids.
Enty is not a lawyer. He is someone who pulls all of his information from other sites, ie: the daily mail. Everything posted now seems like long uneducated ramblings that are most often very hate filled. It's sad when you can only finish reading a few sentences only to scroll down to the comments, at least that's what I do. You guys are the reason I still visit this site.
When i worked in the family law court, any kids on custody to the secretary orders, or in foster care, were not allowed to be photographed for school photos, at parties etc without prior signed parental/custodian consent and state government paperwork. it sucked for the kids who had to dodge cameras at birthday parties and school sport days.
Count - nice vertical smile pic, but no G-banger. does this mean Jen goes comando?
I thought the law was to prevent them from scaring children, not from taking any pictures at all? Isn't it just to prevent the paps from jumping at them, or getting way too close?
"The bill would specify that harassment means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice without the written consent of the child’s or ward’s parent or legal guardian, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait... The bill would additionally provide that the act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute commission of the offense."
Before the Academy Awards, she didn't seem to mind.
Thanks AKM- I'm def not as into it as I used to be
Puh-leeze! She is one of the major mommy players that drag their kids to "paparazzi park," and other known pap venues, just for the purpose of photo ops. Sorry, you just can't have it both ways. Kudos to whomever above that said, "move like Demi and Bruce did." Yes, because even moving 100 miles away, would negate the daily pics, and would just entail random fan pics. They hate the host they feed upon.
I thought she was pregnant?!
I feel pap laws need to be curbed,something fair for both sides, x amount of feet away, no screaming at them, or its causing a disturbance of the peace. No chasing in vehicles. In my mind there is an issue, sadly revealed when Diana passed; that deserves to be supported and looked into if only for the reason that so many famous talented people who are often introverted sensitive types,have said clearly that its frightening disturbing invasive threateningthey feel hunted caged and targeted by stalkers,weirdos making threats all the time,when you have family to protect? I think they should start using some of their money to bend the ear of their representatives, God knows theyve got enough of it,
I don't think paps should be taking invasive photos of children if taking their photos at all. Heck, I think most of the pap photos lately have been creepily invasive on adults.
That said, there are celebs out there who know they look better when photographed with their kids. I would say Jen Garnier is one of the biggest offenders. She and Ben are so rich they could afford to live anywhere they wanted, there is no reason we all know what all 3 of the Affleck kids look like other than the fact that they have been especially paraded out by their parents. People complain about Anne with an E hathaways's Oscar campaign, but Ben and Jen's campaign using their kids was waaaay worse.
Too bad it didn't help Demi's kids very much though Tish :(
Exactly. The birthday party example was particularly silly.
Adults can choose a life in the spotlight, but their kids don't have a choice. I've also seen how aggressive the paps can be, so I can understand wanting stricter laws about the kids.
So you don't think that a regular person would be more affected by this than a celeb? The point was that they will no longer have their children photographed and normal people will not be able to take photos at all (technically). Seems pretty celeb-centric to me.
Post a Comment