California is home to many celebrities and public figures, and the paparazzi is regularly and continually make attempts to take photos of these public individuals, or to score interviews with them. Public figures are individuals who have placed themselves in public view, such as actors and actresses, sports athletes, and politicians – many people involved in the entertainment industry are considered to be public figures. But city attorneys, authors, and average citizens who publicly advocate to influence resolution on public issues have all been considered to be public figures in California as well.

Sometimes the paparazzi crosses a line into something that feels like an invasion of the public figure’s privacy in order to capture a picture or to get a statement. But since these public figures are people of interest, and have placed themselves in the public sphere, where is the line between private and public?

Privacy Rights In California

Everyone in California, from celebrity to average Joe, is entitled to roughly the same right of privacy under the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. However, those individuals who are considered to be public figures tend to have a more difficult time obtaining recovery when their privacy is violated than private individuals do.

There are four causes of action for invasion of privacy tort in California that have arisen through case law, meaning through decisions made by the courts. These invasions of privacy include:

1. Intrusion into private matters/private spaces. Public figures have little reprieve from invasions of privacy when they are out in public, but when they are in private spaces or engaged in private matters, they retain a right of privacy. Usually a public figure’s home serves as a private sanctuary where the individual can reasonably expect some privacy.
2. Public disclosure of private facts. It is an invasion of privacy for someone to publicly disclose private facts that would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person concerning another where those facts are of no legitimate public concern. Facts that are not newsworthy or are not widely known may be considered private.
3. Misappropriation of a person’s name or likeness. Sometimes also referred to as one’s right of publicity, it is an invasion of another’s privacy to misappropriate the name or likeness of another, in particular for commercial gains. This is particularly relevant to public figures whose name or image is used without permission to endorse products or services.
4. Portraying a person in a false light. It is impermissible for an individual to portray another in a false light, i.e., portray another in a way that is highly offensive and implied to be true when it is actually false.

California law additionally provides some protections of privacy under Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.8, which are particularly relevant to the techniques used by the paparazzi to get photographs of public figures. These laws prohibit a person from entering on to the private property of another without permission for the purposes of taking a photograph or making a recording.

For quite some time the paparazzi in California has relied upon the use of drones – which are unmanned, aerial devices that are operated remotely by a user or operator – to capture photographs of celebrities from afar, usually by piloting the unmanned drones over the private property owned by the celebrities to capture the shot. A new California bill aims to provide celebrities with a little more privacy by prohibiting the use of drones over private property, the LATimes reports.

Drone regulation has been a high-popularized issue in the area of technology law lately, especially in California.  Not only have the paparazzi made quite a bit of use out of drones for photography purposes, but others have taken up flying the contraptions to take photos of the wildfires that have been ravaging California.  The drones have even interfered with firefighting efforts in the recent past.  There have also been problems with drones being used to transport contraband into prison environments. However, many civilians enjoy drone manipulation as a hobby, and do not use their drones to break the law.

New Bill Puts Stop to Paparazzi Invasion of Celebrities’ Privacy

The bill, AB 856, deems flying a drone onto the private property of another for the purpose of taking photographs of video to be a physical invasion of privacy that will not be tolerated.  While previous versions of the bill would have made flying a drone within 350 feet over private property without consent a trespassing violation, the final version of the bill, which will be signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the upcoming weeks, is not as extreme.

Trespass is codified in California Penal Code Section 602 et seq. and already covers a variety of very specific trespassing violations.  Adding another trespass provision for the use of drones to take pictures of someone else, particularly a celebrity, would add more provisions to the already jumbled and dense area of trespass crimes.

The governor rejected many earlier versions of the drone bill as they would have created new crimes by adding new trespassing provisions to the law along with new punishments. In addition, making drone flying for photography purposes would unduly place restraints on a burgeoning drone industry. Rather, the new bill sets out to redefine the existing law to better incorporate invasions of privacy committed with a drone camera.

What Are The Existing Laws on Invasion of Privacy?

Invasion of privacy is based in tort law, and in California case law has established four tort actions based on invasion of privacy:

1. Intrusion into private places, conversations or other matters,
2. Public disclosures of private facts,
3. Presentation of a person to the public in a false light, and
4. Appropriation of another’s image or personality.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc., 18 Cal.4th 200, 214 (1998). The use of drones to take unauthorized photos of celebrities in their homes and on their personal property would be an intrusion into a private place and under California Civil Code Section 1708.8, a person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when they knowingly enter the land of another person without permission for the purpose of capturing any form of visual image of the person whose privacy is being invaded.

This bill is yet another example of how the law must catch up at times to address the legal implications a new technology presents, and it highlights the importance of obtaining proper legal advisement while navigating the complicated world of technology.

If you are working with a new technology or other product/service and do not yet fully understand the legalities and implications of your venture, it is especially important to retain an experienced business attorney for advisement on how to limit your liability and protect any intellectual property rights.

For those wanting a simple, no hassle divorce, summary dissolution is an option. It hinges on not having many assets, a low debt load and no request for spousal support.

Divorces are never fun to go through, and if there was a way to avoid the hassle, anxiety, stress and anger, most couples would jump at the chance. In California, there is a way to avoid the drama and get straight to the point. It’s called “Summary Dissolution”. If going to court is necessary because the parties can’t or don’t want to cooperate, then that option remains available.

“If you don’t really want to drag the kids and yourself through a messy, long drawn-out and nasty divorce, find out if summary dissolution is an option for you. This means you don’t even need to speak to a judge and will only have to fill out a minimal number of forms. Sure, it sounds easy, but there are exceptions, of course, and so it’s typically wise to seek the advice of a family lawyer so you know your rights and can get the explanation in plain English, rather than legal jargon. Our firm is noted for making legalese legal-easy to understand,” said Anthony J. Spotora, managing attorney of his Los Angeles law firm, which practices family law.

Not everyone is qualified to get a summary dissolution. “So, if you don’t qualify, you need to go the regular route to get a divorce. How do you know if you don’t qualify? I usually have a list of questions for the client that deal with living arrangements. For instance, I need to know if they have been married or living as registered domestic partners for less than five years. In addition, one of the requirements to qualify for summary dissolution is that the couple has no children – period,” Spotora said.

Another requirement that needs to be met when applying for a summary dissolution is that the parties do not own or have an interest in any property and if they have a debt load, they must have accrued less than $5,000 in debt since the marriage/partnership. They must also not own more than $33,000 worth of property bought together.

“It gets even more complex, in that you can’t own any separate property valued over $33,000, you have to agree that you will not seek support, and you have to sign a property agreement that splits what debts and property you do have. You can see why we advise divorcees to call us and get the full rundown on what they need to qualify for a summary dissolution. In some cases, they may not meet the qualifications and we’d need to go to court, but we won’t know that until we’ve spoken with them,” Spotora said.

When it comes to divorce and wanting to save time and money, it’s well worth talking to a highly qualified attorney, who will outline what options exist and how they may affect the proceedings. It’s better to have all the information needed to make an informed decision on how to proceed in the least stressful manner, particularly if children are involved.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

While no one wants to think of a marriage as a business, it often is just that. The partners work together to run it by agreement.

One of the more controversial areas of California divorce law centers on whether or not to have a prenuptial agreement. Many feel it’s not exactly the epitome of being amorous. And frankly, it really isn’t all that romantic, but it’s necessary in case something happens later. Not being protected can be a major disaster to the spouse who happens to have less money and/or assets than the other. It’s not that a prenup is intentionally a power play involving finances, but some cases turn out that way when the marriage comes apart. California is a community property state, so everything is split 50/50 unless a prenup says otherwise.

Prenuptials are not just for the wealthy, although you’d wonder about that reading the newspapers and watching television. Mostly, it seems, that only celebrities opt to have a prenup. In reality, they are for everyone and anyone who wants one. There’s a very common myth floating around that a couple doesn’t need to go this route if they don’t have much money between them. This is not the case.

Virtually anything and everything can be the focus of a prenuptial agreement. Getting around the “not so romantic” stigma associated with them often works if the couple just has a very frank and wide-ranging discussion about how each of them handles finances before they get married. Finding out later that the husband spends thousands on sports equipment, while the wife thinks the money should be set aside for the children’s education, is not exactly conducive to a happy, well-balanced marriage. The bottom line is if you don’t want surprises later, get things out in the open now, because no one knows what will happen.

What if one of the spouses comes into more money in the future, as a result of their business or a talent they have? If you know how to handle the division of community property in advance of any possible divorce, you’ll be well ahead of the game and won’t necessarily have to face the bitter acrimony that sometimes accompanies divorces without a prenup in place. If you don’t know how to go about setting that kind of agreement up, contact an experienced attorney.

This brings up another very common belief, that prenuptials really only protect the partner with the most money and take it away from the partner that doesn’t have much. The reality is that prenuptial agreements are designed to protect both parties.

It should also be noted that just about anything can be written into a prenup, but that doesn’t mean that everything and the kitchen sink must be included in the agreement. These agreements can either be incredibly complex or strikingly simple. It’s up to the parties to decide what they want.

By the way, living together without the benefit of a marriage license is not the way to get around not having a prenuptial. Some couples think if they just live together, the live-in has no claim to the other’s property or income. Wrong. The person making the money and with the assets could be taking a huge risk just living together. It’s called palimony. If you want to protect what you’ve got, get a prenup drafted and signed.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles family lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Have you ever seen this brief legal ditty? Sure you have. And whether you know it or not, you likely accept contracts containing this language on a weekly, maybe even daily basis.

Ever valet park your car or use the services of your local dry cleaner; or, maybe you have attended an amusement park? Well then, without signing anything, you have just entered into an “adhesion contract”.

Adhesion contracts are contracts between two parties that do not allow for negotiation — it’s take it or leave it! However, can you realistically leave it? What would your options be anyway? Should you park your car elsewhere or take your clothes to a different cleaner? Won’t you just be faced with the same issue there? And what about that pocket size agreement? Will it really limit their liability? I mean really, who can even read that boilerplate it’s so small?!

And how about the long-form adhesion contract that you actually sign; a residential lease agreement, for example? Were you afforded the opportunity to negotiate its terms or, did the landlord stand in a position of such superior bargaining power that you signed it, knowing also that it would not be any different down the street?

Theoretically, the common debate relating to contracts of adhesion have reasonably focused on whether or not courts should enforce them. On the one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of efficiency in the marketplace. These standard form agreements can substantially reduce transaction costs by eliminating the need for buyers and sellers to negotiate the terms of every sale of goods or services. However, they may also consequently result in unjust terms being agreed to by the accepting party. Few would disagree that it is simply unfair for the seller to avoid all liability or to unilaterally give themselves the right to terminate the agreement.

So then, are these contracts enforceable?

In common law jurisdictions, these standard form agreements are treated like any other contract and a signature or other manifestation of acceptance and intent to be legally bound will bind the acceptor. This reality, however, has caused for many common law jurisdictions to develop special rules that govern such situations. As a general rule, courts in these jurisdictions will interpret the standard form agreement contra proferentem which, literally means — ‘against the proffering person.’

Most of the United States, however, follows the Uniform Commercial Code which, similar to the common law jurisdictions mentioned above, has provisions relating specifically to standard form contracts and; when a standard form contract is found to be a contract of adhesion, it is given special scrutiny.

For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be:

1. Presented on a standard form and on a “take it or leave it” basis; and
2. Give the consumer no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position.

Next, the “special scrutiny” may be performed in a number of ways, a few of which are:

1. If the term was beyond the reasonable expectations of the “adhering” party, the court can find it to not be enforceable; or
2. Under the equitable principles of the Doctrine of Unconscionability, unconscionability may be found and the contract held unenforceable when there is an “absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to the one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.” (Fanning v. Fritz’s Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.)

So…the good news is: recourse may be available for the underdog!

The bad news is: both parties will have to expend time and money for a court to determine if the adhesion contract is enforceable.