The price tag on Malibu real estate is already pretty steep, but it often pales in comparison to the value of those residing within those hillside homes or beach front bungalows. Photographs alone of A-list celebrities around town are often sold from anywhere between $6,000 to $100,000 each, which has inevitably turned Malibu into a celebrity gossip hub teeming with paparazzi.
Getting that golden photograph, however, has become a greater issue in recent years as some paparazzi will stop at nothing to get the perfect shot. Whether it’s trespassing, speeding through stop signs or using a telephoto lens to take a photo of Jennifer Aniston sunbathing topless in her backyard, paparazzi have broken laws and in some cases explicitly violated some celebrities’ fleeting rights to privacy. On the other hand, some argue that celebrities have positioned themselves in the public’s eye and the first amendment gives press the right to be that eye. The debate between the right to privacy and freedom of the press is an ongoing issue in Malibu especially, even forcing residents into the courtroom.
In June 2008, at Little Dume Beach, Malibu residents Skylar Peak and John Hildebrand ended up in a fight with a French paparazzo who was attempting to photograph Matthew McConaughey surfing. Peak and Hildebrand faced assault charges following the incident, which were dropped after a second mistrial in 2010.
“The most important thing that stemmed from that incident was the public safety issue,” Peak said. “The paparazzi pose a public safety problem here in Malibu, running stop signs and speeding through residential neighborhoods, which should be stopped.”
Peak, who is running for city council, agrees that paparazzi have a right to do their job and sustain a livelihood. However, he believes they frequently overstep their boundaries, such as during the 2008 incident that took place on a private part of the beach, according to Peak.
“The people that were there that day know what happened, and I think we all agree we wish nothing physical had happened,” Peak wrote in an email separate from the interview. “I felt in the moment I was doing something to protect the privacy of our community and was very threatened by them … I will always stand up for privacy in this community.”
In Malibu, residents frequently run into paparazzi mobs around town and for some, the celebrities aren’t the only people bothered by their presence.
“They’re a pain in the neck,” said Malibu resident Sheila Becker, who has lived in Malibu for 12 years. “They’re obstructive — especially when they’re hanging around store fronts and windows and you can’t get through them.”
Setting boundaries for paparazzi, however, is difficult to enforce, even in “Paparazzi Free Zones” such as at the Malibu Lumber Yard. Paparazzi can disguise themselves as private citizens before walking onto the premises or wait and take photos from the sidewalk of celebrities entering or exiting businesses.
Despite their tactics, paparazzi do have the right to take pictures in public spaces.
And because Malibu is known as a popular spot for paparazzi, residents and celebrities alike expect inconveniences from paparazzi in a town as star-studded as Malibu.
“The paparazzi are fine. As far as the inconveniences and what they put people through, it’s the price you pay for asking for $5 or $10 million to be in a movie,” explains Malibu resident Ron Weiner. “It adds to the color of Malibu. They can be a little out of hand … but it’s a glorious place to live out here. The stars have a presence here and the paparazzi add to the color of our community… otherwise we’d be bored to death.”
When it comes to determining the rights of celebrities, privacy is difficult to define. Technically, even private citizens can be photographed and videoed in public places. (Usually this isn’t the case because a photograph of a private citizen isn’t newsworthy enough to media outlets.) One of the biggest differences in privacy rights between a celebrity and a private citizen is that news outlets can pry into private lives of public figures, but not for private citizens.
“In the eyes of the law, they [public figures] are selling their image and so do give up some privacy rights,” media law Professor Jon Pfeiffer said. Pfeiffer also works as an entertainment lawyer.
That is not to say that paparazzi have the unhindered rights to push cameras in celebrities’ faces. There are still lines paparazzi can cross even in public places. In 1973, one of the first groundbreaking trials involving paparazzi took place between paparazzo Ron Galella and Jackie Kennedy Onassis. Galella stalked the Kennedy children at their schools and closely followed the family, often jumping in their path and endangering their well-being. Jackie O., though a public figure, was able to obtain a restraining order against Galella.
“This case showed there are limits on paparazzi and there actually is a such thing as harassing and being too intrusive,” Pfeiffer explained. In this case, the constant obstructions in the Kennedys’’ lives were ruled as more significant than the newsworthiness (or the value to the news media) of Galella’s photos.
The 2006 case involving Jennifer Aniston suing a paparazzo for photographing her sunbathing topless also helped define privacy. Because she was in her backyard and because the paparazzo had to use a telephoto lens, there was a reasonable expectation for privacy for Aniston and was able to win the case.
Though these cases were successful for the celebrities, the press usually has the upper hand in legal battles. In order for a celebrity to obtain a restraining order or file a lawsuit, he or she has to direct it at a specific paparazzo, who would be difficult to identify when they swarm in packs. Often, it may not even be the same paparazzo causing problems.
“There’s no such thing as a ‘keep the world away’ restraining order,” Pfeiffer said in regard to lawsuits filed by celebrities attempting to obtain blanket restraining orders.
In addition to the problem identifying specific paparazzo, celebrities are often caught in overwhelming situations that lead to reactions that paparazzi then use as front page stories. For example, in 2006, Britney Spears was swarmed by paparazzi near Starbucks in Malibu and while attempting to make a quick getaway, she drove off with her baby in her lap. Paparazzi sold these pictures as a story, which people later bought off the shelves in the supermarket.
“They [celebrities] are human beings and they aren’t how the paparazzi present them. There’s a falsity about it all,” Becker commented, regarding how the celebrity gossip industry uses the photos taken by paparazzi.
Yet these photos are used because, simply enough, the celebrity gossip industry is an extremely lucrative one. The more vigorous paparazzi can make upwards of one million dollars a year. Also, circulation of tabloid magazines such as People or US Weekly are sometimes more than double the circulation of major U.S. newspapers. For example, People magazine, one of the more popular celebrity gossip magazines, had an average circulation of 3,569,811 over six months in 2011, whereas the New York Times weekday paper reached an average of only 1,150,589 people. Subscription fees can be taken into consideration, but both publications’ fees are comparable: The New York Times sells its Monday through Friday paper for $3.85 a week (which amounts to 77 cents each) and People, with a subscription for 54 weekly issues, costs about $2.00 per issue.
There is no lack of online celebrity gossip sites either, as sites like Perezhilton.com and TMZ.com are extremely popular. The latter receives an estimated 19,000,000 unique visitors per month as of 2012.
In this regard, the paparazzi have a huge demand to fulfill, which greatly substantiates their claim that stalking celebrities on Saturday afternoons is newsworthy. And though celebrities may feel constantly hounded and upset that they can’t go get coffee without being obstructed by paparazzi, the photos have partially brought them their fame and kept them in the limelight.
The fine line between celebrities’ right to privacy and the right for paparazzi to make a living is constant battle zone, resulting in an endless stream of court battles and tabloid controversies.
“They’re two competing rights… It’s a balancing act [in regards to the law],” Pfeiffer said.
According to Peak, defining and enforcing that line will be a challenge, but he feels it is important to address the issue now rather than later.
“I feel it’s one thing for a paparazzi [sic] to be doing a job, the client poses, they take a photo and leave. But lots of them stick around and it’s like Packer game mentality,” Peak said. “I hope people will start being more proactive and reporting illegal activity. We need to be more proactive before someone gets killed.”
