California teleobjective people photography: Illegal?

Hi!

 

I just watched a documentary on paparazzy, and they said something

that struck me: "under California law, it is forbidden to take

pictures of poeple by means of a teleobjective"!

 

Is this true? Is there a difference between commerical/private use

and professional/amateur photographer?

 

Can an amateur sell thi kind of pictures?

 

Thanks a lot for any help with my inquiry.

 

Regards

In California; It is illegal to set a mousetrap without a hunting license.<BR><BR> It is illegal to cry on the witness stand in Los Angeles.<BR><BR> It is illegal to eat oranges in a bathtub.

God bless America. I love being an Americant.

 

Where'd you find those handy laws?

I found this out on the internet, it seems to point in the right direction...

 

..."Caution: if the photographer uses a telephoto lens or a boom microphone, there may be a violation of California's new anti-papparazzi law (Civil Code section 1708.8) even though the photo or video would otherwise be perfectly legal. And trespassing to get an image or sounds is now prohibited by this law."...

 

I looked at the above mentioned 1708.8 and it does not specifically mention telephoto lenses although it does refer to the use of visual or auditory enhancing devices (apparently referring to telephoto lenses, etc.) to violate someone's privacy.

 

Good Luck,

Carl

I know nothing about californian laws, but this formulation, matteo, is something that fits DiscoveryChannel, i think. Understandable to everyone and to noone, by oversimplifying the original.

 

Where does a tele lens begin to be tele, by the way? Is 90mm for 35mm format a tele already? And for medium format? Lots of portraits become crime evidences immediately.

 

On the other hand, I would feel bad myself to *take* photos of people I don't know with a lens longer than my 135mm from a distance where focal length manifests in a telescope manner. Like paparazzis do with their x-hundred mm lenses. Not to talk about how would I feel to SELL these photos. So, if I go deep enough, I don't think it's such an unreasonable law like the orange eating in a bath tube. But nowadays, I expect policemen, judges et al. to overreact in some cases, based on another poorly formulated law.

 

cheers

All Nikon has to do is re-label their line of telephoto lenses:

 

 

Multi-wide macro lens ,,, should fill the bill.

When someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, for example being behind a fence in their backyard, it seems to me like you're violating their privacty if you photograph them from a tree with a 1000mm lens. On the other hand, if the telephoto lens is aimed at someone in public, on a public sidewalk for example, the subject should have no such expectation.

Although there's the potential for abuse of a law like this I think the intent is to enforce the "reasonable expectation of privacy" portion of privacy rights. If one is sunbathing nude in his backyard with an 8 ft. high privacy fence in a secluded 20 acre estate they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If some doofas climbs a radio tower just off the property with a 1200mm focal length lens and shoots a photo of the nude celeb the state wants some recourse against the guy. I don't think that's unreasonable. Like any rule/law we depend on our courts system for reasonable and logical enforcement of the intent of the law. The exceptions always make the newspaper, but in this case I think it is pretty fair.

 

I seriously doubt anyone would get in touble for photographing a paid model with a 300mm lens--if you're shooting through someone's apartment window from accross the street with that lens you may have a problem.

Do you really think all those big-time paparazzi would break the law? :-)

As naive as this sounds, I think the laws of privacy should apply to everyone. If photographing me in my backyard without my knowledge is illegal, then the same should go for Madonna and Pierce Broslin.<p> This thread is an intersting seque from the snapshot/portrait thread. Are these pictures made of Brittany Spears in her backyard, with a 600mm lens, without her knowledge, eligible to be called "Portraits"?... t

that's a good point,tom:) Anyway, regarding the subject, the sneaky methods and the 600mm, they might be called "wildlife photography"... ;)

they need a new law to ban cars as well, too many car pursuits there..

Hunting with a mousetrap? When the founding fathers laid out the map of the nation, they lifted it up on the eastern seaboard, and everything loose slid to California...