On Twitter

About this page and the author

The author of this blog, David T.S. Fraser, is a Canadian privacy lawyer who practices with the firm of McInnes Cooper. He is the author of the Physicians' Privacy Manual. He has a national and international practice advising corporations and individuals on matters related to Canadian privacy laws.

For full contact information and a brief bio, please see David's profile.

Please note that I am only able to provide legal advice to clients. I am not able to provide free legal advice. Any unsolicited information sent to David Fraser cannot be considered to be solicitor-client privileged.

Privacy Calendar

Links

RSS FEED for this site

Blogs I Follow

Small Print

The views expressed herein are solely the author's and should not be attributed to his employer or clients. Any postings on legal issues are provided as a public service, and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. The author makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained herein or linked to. Nothing herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.

This web site is presented for informational purposes only. These materials do not constitute legal advice and do not create a solicitor-client relationship between you and David T.S. Fraser. If you are seeking specific advice related to Canadian privacy law or PIPEDA, contact the author, David T.S. Fraser.

Sunday, January 01, 2006

California celebs now have greater privacy against paparazzi

Among the laws that came into force today is one in California aimed at paparazzi photographers. The law includes treble damages for incidents of "stalkerazzi" antics and the possibility of having the publication of resulting photos prohibited. The constitutionality of the law is under question and hasn't yet been challenged. See:

CNN.com - New law hits�paparazzi in the pocketbook - Dec 30, 2005
...The new legislation amends a bill passed in 1998 that established the concept of "constructive trespass" for photojournalists. It said that using a long lens to capture an image of a person who had "a reasonable expectation of privacy" was tantamount to trespassing.
Ewert, counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, questioned the constitutionality of that law, but it has not been challenged in court, he said. Laws are presumed valid until challenged.
The new legislation, which expands what constitutes invasion of privacy, "is probably even more unconstitutional, if that's possible," Ewert said.
"We don't apologize for the behavior of the paparazzi," he said. "But this law attempts to stop that conduct with a very broad brush."

Labels: information breaches