Slashdot Mirror
California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb To Remove Actor Ages On Request (hollywoodreporter.com)
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed legislation that requires certain entertainment sites, such as IMDb, to remove -- or not post in the first place -- an actor's age or birthday upon request, reports Hollywood Reporter. From the report: The law, which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2017, applies to entertainment database sites that allow paid subscribers to post resumes, headshots or other information for prospective employers. Only a paying subscriber can make a removal or nonpublication request. Although the legislation may be most critical for actors, it applies to all entertainment job categories. "Even though it is against both federal and state law, age discrimination persists in the entertainment industry," Majority Leader Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, said in a statement. "AB 1687 provides the necessary tools to remove age information from online profiles on employment referral websites to help prevent this type of discrimination."Bloomberg columnist, Shira Ovide said, "Congratulations, IMDB. You have now become the subject of California law." Slate writer Will Oremus added, "Sometimes I start to think California is not such a bad place and then they go and do something like this."
Isn't that directory information? I suppose removing it from imdb.com makes it harder to learn an actor's age, but it's still out there people. You're in the public eye. Knowing exactly how old Natalie Portman is because imdb prominently displays it doesn't change anything.
So, we'll have it that Wikipedia can post age data about an actor or some other public figure, but IMDB can't?
Instead of displaying age:
Age: This actor is so ancient they do not wish it displayed.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue. It seems much more likely that Hollywood has a looks discrimination policy, and merely hiding the numeric age of an actor or actress isn't going to resolve this.
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role. Trying to hide their "real" age won't help with that. Nothing short of completely changing Hollywood culture - and, really, American culture - to not be so youth-focused will change that. And that's not an easy task, and certainly not something this law will help with.
This is clearly a "this is something, so we're doing something about the problem!" law. It won't help in any way, but at least it's a bullet point on some lawmaker's resume!
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
"Registrant Organization: IMDb.com, Inc.
Registrant Street: Legal Dept, PO Box 81226,
Registrant City: Seattle
Registrant State/Province: WA"
Dear California: How about "go fuck yourself". That a good answer?
Oh, you don't want IMDB operating in your state? Perhaps you could build some sort of Great Firewall. That's worked out so well for China (and North Korea).
That makes perfect sense, in California politico-legal logic. This is, after all, the same state that gave us the glorious legal logic "racial discrimination is mandatory by law because racial discrimination is illegal".
"Sometimes I start to think California is not such a bad place..."
Well there's your mistake right there.
Better known as 318230.
This is just dumb - publicly available, non-PII information banned because you run a particular type of website.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
"Click here for a list of actors who are so insecure that we cannot show you their age. Next to it you find a link to their Wikipedia entry."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If Hollywood actually gave a shit about age as much as this article claims they do, then plastic surgery wouldn't still be running rampant today.
Hollywood cares about how you look, not how old a piece of paper says you are. They've cast plenty of twenty-somethings as teenagers, and the sheer power of makeup has allowed actors and actresses of all ages to portray dozens of roles that are either much younger or much older than their actual age. I find this particular information filter totally pointless.
I can't figure out that if they had their first appearance in 1965 they're probably at least 60? It ain't about age but having the look the directors want...
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It's not even a issue if the discrimination is done for a bona fide occupational qualification.
It's also not just actors although they are visibly the most obvious example of looking an age. Directors, producers, other production staff, etc would also be covered. Not usually appearing on camera, it's harder to argue that they need to look an age in order to properly perform their job, yet they are the subject of ageism as well.
...California sure spends a lot of effort protecting/catering to multi-millionaires.
-Styopa
This feels like a total 1st amendment violation in every possible way.
I know in the US we have exceptions for first amendment, but this is hardly child porn. I can see how it can be an issue for age discrimination, but it's more a burden on the employer to no utilize this information. Besides, doesn't birthday come back on most standard background checks anyway?
You need to discriminate on appearance when it comes to acting roles, having someone with wrinkles and remnants of grey hair playing a teenage character would just look stupid.
There are plenty of roles for older actors because plenty of movies and tv shows feature older characters. You don't hear young actors complaining they weren't chosen to play a grandfather character.
Movie producers are just choosing actors who are appropriate to the role as envisaged in the story.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I understand that California is now moving to repeal the law of gravity. It seems it's not fair that some people weigh more than others.
But, is there some angle where we could blame Republicans for it?
Do you have ESP?
Why not just allow their birthdays to be posted, but forbid addition and subtraction?
You think the Supreme Court cares about Constitution? What rock are you living under?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It seems unlikely to me that Hollywood has an age discrimination issue.
Oh they certainly do have an age discrimination issue, particularly for female actresses.
Society has an age discrimination issue. Most of us, even women, would rather look at a fresh-faced young girl than at a woman with lines on her face. We'd rather look at perky boobs than saggy ones. Is it even possible to fix the problem of age bias in Hollywood, and if so, would that actually help address the problem of age discrimination in society? Or would there just be a lot of bitching about how feminist laws are compromising entertainment, ala Ghostbusters? (I don't have an opinion on that movie, which I haven't seen; I'm only characterizing the complaints.)
If an actor doesn't look the age for a part, they're not going to get the role.
That might have some credibility if they didn't also hire actresses who do not look the role at all. See Emma Stone in Aloha. See whitewashing. Same thing happens with them hiring actresses who are FAR too young for the role they are playing.
Yeah, I thought that was a bullshit argument, too. The truth is that they're going to hire the prettiest, most popular actress to play the role, and part of that means hiring the youngest one that can more or less carry it off because that's what puts asses in seats. I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you this, either. The degree to which youth equals beauty has been explored nigh unto death by everyone and their mom, especially as she ages.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bad law bring it to the Supreme Court and get it overturned. IMDB probably has mega money from all that advertising they run on their site. They have plenty of money for a lawsuit
There's something wrong when you need "plenty of money" in order to assure your rights aren't violated. We need to modify the system where, if you challenge a bad law and prevail, you get your legal costs reimbursed.
This law says, you may not publish true information because some one else might do something discriminatory with it.
But, we already have laws forbidding the discriminatory thing that might happen. So, this law abridging freedom of speech and of the press is necessary why, exactly?
Answer: It isn't necessary at all. This is exactly the "won't someone think of the children" thinking that suckers us into whittling our rights away into nothing, one sliver at a time.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
If IMDB is going to post ages of people for whom age is a crucial factor in their career, they better be absolutely damn sure they are getting it right.
The fix for that is to allow the actor to demand a correction if the information is wrong, not ban the display of age entirely.
I was under the impression that Birth, Death, and marriage information was publically available in California.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic...
It would seem that this law is in violation of the existing laws, but IANAL, nor am I a rich 'celebrity'. Hollywood folks seem generally above most laws, or at least shielded from them.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown!
It would stop a lot more non-frivolous ones from people who have a legitimate claim but not the resources to beat a team of $500/hr lawyers.
There's something wrong when you need "plenty of money" in order to assure your rights aren't violated. We need to modify the system where, if you challenge a bad law and prevail, you get your legal costs reimbursed.
In many states it does work that way. Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
The problem is you still have to have someone who can front the legal expenses as you go through the multi-year legal process.
This is as dumb as the 'right to be forgotten'. Tell that to a sex offender. Oh, wait, the EU wants to use 'right to be forgotten' to sanitize a powerful person's past history of sordid acts. As if this makes sense. Rendering the truth illegal is a very interesting step, no?
But this is California, the land of the irrational. Most any serious casting director can use IMDB etc to work through an actor's history and make reasonable assumptions. Look through Helen Mirren's filmography, and you can reasonably conclude she is older than 60. Duh. And she's still fabulous.
the complaint her isn't the obviously old actors, it's the difficult older-than-they-seem bunch. In an industry based on illusion, it is both remarkable and understandable that they rely on perception, and if an actor is perceived as older than the role, or perceived age is critical to a role, well, they 'need' to address that.
In every way, though, this is a stupid idea. No one who intends to benefit from this will. No one.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Loser pays his own costs, and his opponent's costs up to a cap equal to his own costs?
Recently in Wisconsin, our Republican Gov and Legislature had to reimburse Planned Parenthood over a million dollars for legal expenses when the latest anti-abortion law was thrown out.
Luxury! Here in Arizona we have a sheriff who openly violates court rulings, gets hit with contempt of court, and our lawmakers still approve $50 million or so of taxpayer money to fight his legal battles.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Do you actually believe a jury of 12 of your "peers" are not swayed by the most eloquent orator rather than the "facts" as you "claim" them to be? Money talks in courts. Which sucks, and punishes honest poor people, but we haven't seen a better system. I'd use the court system in its current format simply because I have some faith in humanity still, but not enough to wager a million dollars if I lose. I put "peers" in quotes because showing knowledge and intelligence are often disqualifying criteria for jury selection, not always, but often.
This can happen, of course, but if one does not have any confidence in the court to render a fair and just verdict, then why would one try and use the court system at all unless they were actually hoping to use the court system to render what they believe may be an unjust one?
It is not a simple either/or question. The court system, being imperfect, is always a gamble to some degree. Therefore you must look at the situation with the dispassionate eyes of a professional gambler. I may risk $50k for a chance to gain justice and a big check for compensation. How I assess the odds is very different if my loss would not be just the $50k for my lawyer, but $50k for my lawyer plus $200k for BigCo's "reasonable expenses" plus $50k for court costs instead.
A loser pays system will inevitably cause some legitimate claims to be dropped. (In fact, it is probably already happening.)
The system that exists will inevitably cause some dodgy claims to be put forward.
There is no simple answer that guarantees the system will be fair to everyone.
If I claimed that I always followed every law then I would be a liar.
If you don't like Joe, we'll take him.
Good, please do. Write to him and let him know where he should move his campaign to. And take his legal fees also.
All he does is enforce the laws that the Federal government won't.
Turns out that's not actually *all* he does. He also uses his power to intimidate his political opponents, hires private investigators (on the public's dime, of course) to dig up dirt on his political opponents, hires family members for big prison contracts, and yeah, openly violates court rulings that specifically block him from certain actions, like target Mexicans because they're Mexican. He's a wanna-be celebrity sheriff more concerned with a photo opportunity than doing his job. Go ahead and figure out how large the backlog for processing rape cases is right now. Instead of processing rape cases he would rather investigate Obama's birth certificate. If you want him, take him.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black