‘Steven Tyler Act’ Working to Ban Celeb Photography in Hawaii


Paparazzi working in the state of Hawaii might have to pack their bags and move back to the mainland. That’s because a new bill requested by Aerosmith lead and part-time Maui resident Steven Tyler may soon ban celebrity photography in the 50th state all-together.

Dubbed the ‘Steven Tyler Act,’ the bill would ban celeb photography while giving stars the right to sue over unwanted photos. Normal tourists and photographers need not worry — you’ll still be able to take pics of paradise while on vacation or hiking through Kalepa Ridge for a landscape shoot. But paparazzi living in the Aloha State may soon be saying goodbye to their jobs or hello to a lawsuit every time they publish a photo.

We’ve already seen the extent to which the paparazzi will go to get a shot, and the tragic consequences these tactics sometime lead to — and all this in a state with newer, more stringent anti-paparazzi laws.

Maybe an all-out ban is the only way to keep these things from happening while returning a shred of privacy to the people whose status allows for little to none. At least Hawaii legislators seem to think so: according to Jaunted, over two-thirds of Hawaii state senators have already signed on in support of the bill.

(via Digital Trends)

Image credit: Steven Tyler by media_media_biz

  •!/thelonelylights Adam Cross

    so that will lead to even more celebrities moving to hawaii to escape to an anti-paparazzi haven which will drive living costs even higher making it harder for regular folks to live there or even more expensive for people wanting to visit etc etc. ridiculous. and since when is Steven Tyler relevant these days? :S

  • JC Dill

    Good luck with that, Hawaii. There’s a pesky issue with the “shall pass no law … abridging the freedom of speech” clause in the first amendment of the US Constitution to deal with here. If you do pass and attempt to enforce such a law, expect news organizations to immediately launch a challenge that the law is unconstitutional.

  • michaelp42

    Some paps disgust me, but the thing is celebs would be nothing without media attention.

  • Jonathan Maniago

    Sure, nobody respects the paparazzi, but consider the laws of supply and demand. Nobody would be doing this sh*t if people weren’t paying for it.

  • Jeremy Madore

    This law is but a slippery slope toward legislated control over photography itself. This ought to be stopped in its tracks. Sure, it’s on the docket for good reason – the Paparazzi have gone too far too many times – but it’s opening doors for too may future laws.

  • helicoil

    How dumb. Celebrity’s want people to be be obsessed enough to pay ridiculous amounts of money to see them perform, watch them every time they appear on some TV talk show, read about them in trash magazines, buy clothing with their “brand” on it, and they want everyone to listen to them when they make announcements and spout off about politics. But then they want privacy? Sorry, can’t have it both ways. Go back into your cave in the 1980’s Steven.

  • Jake

    Unenforceable. Let’s say I, a non-paparazzi hobbyest photographer who lives and works in DC wants to shoot Steven Tyler when I see him on my Hawaii vacation, is that not allowed? What if it’s someone who I didn’t know was a celebrity but was wearing a funny hat? What if somebody takes a picture and I’m in the background? There are plenty of strangers around the world who know who I am, like people who’ve read my blog or seen my pictures on Flickr. Can I be considered a celebrity, and then sue that person?

  • Daniel

    At what point is someone legally considered a celebrity?

  • Guillermo Rodriguez

    Can’t have it both ways? Why not? Why is constant intrusion into one’s private life seen as a necessary and unavoidable “price of fame”?

  • Eduardo Cervantes Pérez

    Maybe I missed it. It doesn’t say where at. If the celebrities are in a private place like a private yard or hotel swimming pool they should be left alone. Inside a private joint, like a club or restaurant they should be left alone. While driving or riding they should be left alone for safety reasons. Other than that it should be ok to photograph people either a celebrity or John Doe.

  • junyo

    …and people in hell want ice water.

    Sorry, but I’m sure that being a celebrity sucks at times. You’re trying to enjoy a normal life, and people keep sticking cameras in your face. But here’s the thing, you could have been Steve Tyler, licensed electrician living in Fenway. And I’m fairly certain that Steve Tyler the electrician doesn’t get nearly as many cameras stuck in his face.

    Steve Tyler the electrician also doesn’t get to dress like a crazy person and bang women younger than his daughter (but he does have a sweet bass fishing boat).

    Relaxed rules of privacy are part of the territory for the fame, adulation, and newsworthiness that comes with being a celebrity. If you want to change that the answer isn’t to try and stop people from taking your photo – which honestly seems just a little self serving, since it’s not that you don’t want your photo taken, you just want to control when/how/and by whom, which virtually none of the rest of us get to do in an increasingly security camera’d world – the answer is to tell the rest of us to stop worshiping celebrities and thus dry up the market for pictures of celebrity nip slips.

  • gabe sturdevant

    So the biggest camera hog show off rock star does not want his picture taken? Awesome. Can we just ban taking photos of him? See how long he lasts on Idol, or The Voice, Next Big Whatever, or whatever show he is a “judge” on.

  • Some Guy That Gives A Sh*t

    Ya know, being a celebrity just plain old SUCKS!
    Why you ask?
    You have a talent [well some do anyway] and you get to make millions of dollars selling that talent.
    You get endorsement deals to make even more money in between jobs.
    You get to travel all over the world and and entertain people and again, make millions while doing it.
    You get to live in sometimes many luxurious homes in exotic locations if you so choose.
    You get offers from beautiful women who don’t really even know you, that just want to throw their bodies to you and let you do what ever you want to them.
    You have the world on a string at some points of your life.

    And the price of this fame, fortune and influence? Having a camera in your face snapping pictures whenever you go outside.

    Do I sound a little bitter, maybe just a little envious.

    But a small price to pay for all that you have.

    Do yourself a favor and yourself in the process. Shut Up!
    The media is what makes and breaks you, remember that Steven.
    Without “Us” the media, you would still be a coked up 2nd rate classic rock/pop singer, let’s not forget that!

    You guys [Aerosmith] blew your money on drugs and booze and you git a 2nd chance at it all and made more then you ever did before, why? The Media.

    Now Shut Up and pose for the damn picture.
    If I trespass or violate any laws to take your picture, then you are in the right, until then, just be quiet and ride the money train!!!

  • Ken Jones

    After reading the bill it sounds like exactly what you’re talking about.

    The bill talks about “constructive invasion of privacy” and the standard is “offensive to a reasonable person.” Plus, it’s a civil remedy bill detailing that folks who commit “constructive invasion of privacy” for pay can be held liable along with anyone who buys the photos.

    The problem comes when someone is on the street with his family trying to have family time when a bunch of folks come up and hound you. You can’t have a conversation with your family. These folks force you to stop walking or walk around them. They bother you until you leave the area, yet they follow you to another location. Now put a camera in those folks’ hand and it suddenly become okay? I don’t think so.

    There needs to a rewrite to make the bill much less vague. It gives no guidance was to what “privacy” is in a public setting. Is it like what I mentioned? Can they bring cause because you stepped in front of them to take a picture? What about you took a photo of them in a public park from a distance? What if they so happen to be in a picture you took of something else?

  • Chris Lyn

    Banning the wrong kind of shooting. I think they should focus on banning guns rather than banning the photography of celebs.

  • Jason

    The bill I saw is actually written to protect celeb privacy when they should have an expectation of privacy, in their home for example. So you can’t shoot into their home with a telephoto… I’m OK with that. It does not change the expectation in public places.

  • Mead Norton

    Good on them. There is no need for people to be hiding in bushes to capture an image and the more laws against that kind of “photography” work, the easier it will be for “real” photographers to actually shoot in public without being harassed!

  • Swade

    The key phrase is “published photos”. Tourists don’t usually publish their trip to Hawaii. It is enforceable by lawsuit. It gives a precedent that allows them to take legal action. It helps to read the post.

  • Andres Trujillo

    I guess it depends on the language, if I post it to my FB or Google+ account, would that be considered “published” or is it only against “publishing for profit”?

  • Kathryn

    Hawaii is required to have public beach access to protect the people who live here.Try getting to the beach at Steven Tylers compound

  • Kathryn

    Steven Tyler as do other celebrities often work directly with paparazzi of their choice to get free publicity shots..

  • Mickey Bill

    At some point in the future Steven Tyler will be able to go over the 7`-11 and no one will care…