'Govenator' Expands California Anti-Paparazzi Law

Image via Wikipedia

Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a target of celebrity photographers during his Hollywood days, signed a bill this week expanding his state's 11-year-old anti-paparazzi law that extends liability to the media outlets that pay for and publish the candid pictures.

The dogged freelance photogs who sell unauthorized snapshots of celebrities engaged in familial or personal activities could be criminally liable and subject to a maximum $50,000 fine under the new law. Media outlets (listen up, TMZ and National Enquirer) that initially publish paparazzi photos aware that the photos in question were improperly obtained are also liable under the amended anti-paparazzi statute.

Pursuant to Calif. Civ. Code Sec. 1708-1725, it is illegal for photographers to trespass, physically and constructively, to capture on film celebrities engaged in familial or personal activities in a "manner that is offensive to a reasonable person."

The amendment to the statute, which takes effect in January 2010, media advocates argue, could encourage timidity and hinder legitimate journalism outlets in the newsgathering process.

UPDATE: California Schemin'

Image via Wikipedia

It's getting harder by the day to be a 90-year-old recluse, J.D. Salinger is finding.

Fredrik Colting, whose pen name is John David California, has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts' ruling earlier this month that Colting's novel, "60 Years Later:Coming Through the Rye," infringed on the copyright of Salinger's 1951 classic "Catcher in the Rye" (See "TUOL" post 7/2/09). Publication of Colting's tome, which occurred in England a few months ago, has been derailed by Judge Batts.

Unless the Second Circuit reverses Batts' ruling, California will be hard-pressed to match the 35 million copies Salinger's tale of alienated youth has sold.

Stale Rye: 'Catcher' Sequel Not Coming Through

Image via Wikipedia

"60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," will not be published, advertised or otherwise distributed in the U.S. during the pendency of J.D. Salinger's copyright infringement lawsuit against its Swedish author, Fredrik Colting.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Deborah A. Batts yesterday granted the preliminary injunction against publication sought by the reclusive 90-year-old Salinger in the case of J.D. Salinger, individually and as Trustee of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust v. Fredrik Colting, writing as John David California, WindupBird Publishing, Ltd., Nicotext A.B. and ABP, Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors, Inc. (No. 1:09cv05095). Judge Batts confirmed her findings in extending the temporary restraining order that she instituted on June 17 that Salinger holds a valid copyright in his 1951 classic "The Catcher in the Rye," whose sales have topped 35 million worldwide, and that the novel's alienated teen protagonist, Holden Caulfield is sufficiently delineated so that a claim of infringement has merit. (See "TUOL" posts 6/3/09, 6/18/09).

The defendants' arguments that "60 Years" was a literary critique or parody of "Catcher" that was transformative of the original and shielded by the Fair Use exception to the Copyright laws did not hold sway with Judge Batts, who found that Colting's effort borrowed wholesale "substantively and stylistically" from Salinger's work. "To the extent defendants contend that '60 Years' and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivete of the original, rather than reasonably perceived parody," Judge Batts wrote in her 37-page decision.

The 227-page "60 Years,"which already has been published in England, features a 76-year-old character named Mr. C who escapes from a retirement facility in upstate New York and encounters, among other characters, an individual named Salinger. Defendants may immediately appeal Judge Batts' ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

At least for the time being, as Holden Caulfield would put it, Judge Batts' decision is a "crummy" "lousy" one for the defendants.