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".
"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 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.
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 ?
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.
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