California Enacts Law Requiring IMDb To Remove Actor Ages On Request (hollywoodreporter.com) 319
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."
Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Comment (Score:4, Funny)
Natalie Portman is still so fresh-faced. Just doesn't look her age. Must not have aged while she was petrified.
HOT GRITS POURED DOWN MY PANTS
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Too bad they couldn't have petrified her at age 12, when she could still act.
Re: (Score:2)
Acting is one of those professions where age discrimination probably isn't going away.... type casting isn't going away either.
Carry Fisher and Harrison Ford aren't going to be the stars of the any teen movies unless they are cast as mom and dad.
Re: (Score:2)
Acting is one of those professions where age discrimination probably isn't going away.... type casting isn't going away either.
Carry Fisher and Harrison Ford aren't going to be the stars of the any teen movies unless they are cast as mom and dad.
The world is one of those places where age discrimination probably isn't going away.
And I'm pretty sure the aforementioned celebrities both understand why they're no longer being cast in bikini/topless roles, and do not assume they're an unfair victim of discrimination when asked to play Grandma or Grandpa roles these days. Common sense.
We humans don't stay pretty forever, no matter what a plastic surgeon is selling.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think this is aimed at people like Natalie Portman so much. Age discrimination is a real problem. This is aimed to help out people that don't have her stature and her resources.
Re:Comment (Score:4, Informative)
No, it applies to entertainment databases that are under the jurisdiction of California law.
Re:Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, would you kindly tell me where the land of free is?
Re: (Score:3)
This law is a violation of 1st Amendment. Pure and simple. If I were IMDB, I wouldn't comply.
Re:Comment (Score:5, Informative)
This law is a violation of 1st Amendment. Pure and simple. If I were IMDB, I wouldn't comply.
Note the law only applies if the person has a paid subscription to the site. That means the site has entered into a commercial contract with the person, and the rules then change somewhat. If IMDB wants to post ages or birthdates, the law doesn't stop them, as long as they don't accept money from the party in question. As soon as they accept money, their rights fall under contract law and are subject to other laws as set forth by statute. No one is forcing them to accept the person's money.
Think of it like a person rents an apartment. Before they rent, there is a big political sign on the apartment's windows, which the renter doesn't want on HIS window. Having a law saying the tenant can decide what, if any, information is posted on the window isn't a violation of the building owner's first amendment rights, since the contract has shifted aspects of control of the property. Having a law that says if you CHOOSE to offer a certain service, like the ability to modify information about you on a website, then other requirements also come into play, such as the ability to decide whether an age/birthdate are included, is permitted and isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I suppose you can make the case that doxxing (also junk mail and telemarketing calls) should be protected by the 1st Amendment, but do you really want to live in a world like that?
Re: Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think the entertainment industry is probably one place where age discrimination is reasonable.
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd... Unless the movie is supposed to be a comedy or something.
I'm sure Barbara Hudson will chime in and label me as hateful and bigoted, but what can you do.
Re: Comment (Score:4, Funny)
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd... Unless the movie is supposed to be a comedy or something.
I'm sure Barbara Hudson will chime in and label me as hateful and bigoted, but what can you do.
And then Hopkins will play her in the inevitable biopic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm definitely opposed to this law, but think about your example: regardless of whether you know Anthony Hopkins age or not (I certainly don't know it without looking it up), he is visually and obviously unsuited to that role.
Consider more a case of Emily Kinney, whose age was at one time a bit hard to look up. She was pretty convincingly portraying Beth Greene on The Walking Dead - a 16-17 year old character - while the actress was in her late 20's.
You have to think of cases where people CAN'T real
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it all depends. Yes, realistically, I want someone who looks/sounds like a teenager and, while I think it'd be entertaining to see Anthony Hopkins do a London Teenager (in voice), I don't believe he could physically carry it off. Though they are doing interesting things with digital effects nowadays (The "young" RDJ in Captain America: Civil War was pretty well done, the "young" Michael Douglas in Ant-Man wasn't bad...)
That said, there are plenty of examples of actors pulling off playing younger and
Re: (Score:3)
I'm probably going to be going against the grain here, but I think the entertainment industry is probably one place where age discrimination is reasonable.
Think about it: Imagine Anthony Hopkins playing the role of a young teenager. Sure, he's a really talented actor, but it would just be really...odd... Unless the movie is supposed to be a comedy or something.
You might want to rethink how "reasonable" that age discrimination is. Let me give you a true story. Ever heard of Lillian Gish? She lived to be 100 and got famous in the silent screen era, although she did make movies after the sound era started. She worked with Lionel Barrymore on a film, who was roughly 15 years older than her, and played his grand-daughter. Then some years later she played his daughter in another film. Then by 1946 she played his wife in a film. She quipped that if they ever had
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An audition is precisely based on "how good you are at [convincingly] pretending to be w
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you don't live out here.
"There are age-related anti-discrimination laws already on the books, and they should be plenty sufficient for protecting actors as well as all other kinds of labor. "
If you're 40 and over, yes. Problem is, many actors get discriminated against in their 30s, considered too old. Unless you've got star power behind you, you're pretty much fucked, and might as well get a job being a gaffer or boom operator if you want to stay anywhere in the field, or relegate yourself to TV
Re:Yup (Score:4, Insightful)
You think the Supreme Court cares about Constitution? What rock are you living under?
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court hasn't seem to have made any rulings lately that I'd say are too far off-base, and their title *SUPREME* court basically means that they're the ones tasked with interpreting what the constitution means. You might as well accuse Hermin Melville of not knowing the ending of Moby Dick.
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always eas
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I'm guessing your post is just another one of those "government is bad, mmmkay" type posts where everyone is always doing everything wrong despite never including any actual examples. It's always easier to bring generic discontent than specific talking points.
It's a combination of that as well as "these guys made a ruling that disagrees with my political leaning and my interpretation of the Constitution, so they're definitely corrupt and lacking in morals."
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Loser pays all system basically means you DO NOT sue a big company regardless of how solid you think your claim is. I don't care if Microsoft wrote a program that caused my computer to intentionally come to life and shoot my dog, I wouldn't sue them for fear of maybe just POSSIBLY losing, which would mean I'm on the hook for their legal fees and I'm basically screwed for life.
Now, loser pays some capped portion of the opponent's legal fees and I could get behind that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Loser pays his own costs, and his opponent's costs up to a cap equal to his own costs?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 inev
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Yup (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, this pretty much IS a govt entity censoring a private entity on what they can publish as free speech.
I would have to imagine this law would be thrown out on first appeal...
Re: (Score:2)
What if that information was already public?
You can't retroactively silence existing speech.
The only way this law could apply is for people not yet born, or for people whose birth date is somehow still secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then how can we catch criminals if we aren't allowed to describe them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is age descrimination in the tech industry too.
None in the film industry though. Debbie Reynolds is to be Dorothy in the next remake of the Wizard of Oz; you haven't heard?.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need the DOB for Age discrimination in tech.
If you meet the job experience requirements, then you are too old to work there.
Also even if you are young and like to learn Old Technology and Languages as a hobby better not put them on your resume, because then you will be pinned as an old timer.
Only IMDB? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, we'll have it that Wikipedia can post age data about an actor or some other public figure, but IMDB can't?
That makes perfect sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:That makes perfect sense (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention their idiotic proposition 65 that forced the labeling of everything and every location that might cause cancer with:
"WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."
Which as it turns out is now posted EVERYWHERE. I remember going there for business and it was posted in the elevator of the hotel because I'm not even sure why, but probably one or more of the materials somewhere in the building triggered it. But it's everywhere, gas stations, grocery stores, banks, hardware stores, there's even a sign at Disneyland for God's sake.
The net effect is if the warning is everywhere, everyone ignores it.
YOU are known to the State of California to cause (Score:2)
CH2O is an essential compound using by the human body to produce other, more complex compounds. Your body maintains a fairly steady 2 ppm CH2O by releasing any excess as you exhale. California bans plywood containing any more than 0.05 PPM - because CH20 is "known to the State of California to cause cancer". Your body needs 50 times that level. Apparently California didn't notice that even eating the plywood would REDUCE the overall concentration of CH2O (formaldehyde) in the body.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia doesn't allow paid subscribers to post resumes, headshots or other information for prospective employers.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly. That means they can't be requested to remove the information, so it's still going to be available.
Actors Age (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of displaying age:
Age: This actor is so ancient they do not wish it displayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Age: Unavailable.
Wikipedia: [name of the actor linked to the Wikipedia page]
Re: (Score:2)
- Talentless-star-wannabe:
- Old fart celebrity: 34 honey
- Talentless-star-wannabe: Let's check IMDb
- Old fart: See !?
I doubt Hollywood has an age discrimination issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood discriminates on age, race, gender... (Score:2)
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. They also have race discrimination issues, gender discrimination issues, and lots more besides. This isn't even a debate. The evidence is undeniable.
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 [wikipedia.org]. Same thing happens with them hiring actresses who are FAR too young for the role they are playing.
Re:Hollywood discriminates on age, race, gender... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Paying customers and age appropriate roles (Score:2)
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.
Whatever issues society has, it doesn't follow that a movie producer has to indulge them because of some unsupported delusion that people won't pay to see a quality actress in an age appropriate role. Or a black actor. Or an asian one. Frankly I think there is a lot of credibility to the argument that a movie with some integrity would be more likely to attract fans than a movie that plunks whatever starlet-of-the-month into the role regardless of what it does to the movie.
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?
Given that they are the image ma
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to fix? Maybe. Won't be easy though. The key would be proving that age discrimination is actually harmful to the economic outcome for a film. Challenging case to make since they don't let a lot of people who aren't white and young (if women) into movies to test the theory.
I suspect it's also going to be a challenging case to make because it's wrong. They simply also make movies which appeal to that audience, which is not interested in big special effects and whatnot. Different audience, different budget, different casting. And different release strategy as well; many of those movies are direct-to-video.
Hollywood aren't the consumers (Score:2)
Hollywood aren't the consumers of the actors' work. They are the middlemen. We — the world-wide audience of viewers — discriminate. We want to be entertained by sexually-appealing people, which generally means younger ones. There is no escaping this — trying to legislate it away is just the kind of stupidity, for which California has been known (and mocked) for decades.
(Heinlein's Friday [wikipedia.org] (1982) is a good example of
Re:Hollywood aren't the consumers (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this [psmag.com]?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even a issue if the discrimination is done for a bona fide occupational qualification [wikipedia.org].
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, discrimination in Hollywood is not a "problem"... it's by design. We, as a society, have for whatever reasons decided that Hollywood can feel free to consider race, gender, age, etc in a way that most businesses are not allowed. California is being a little bit schizophrenic here in that they still allow Hollywood to discriminate based on age but they want to mitigate the effects of this by forbidding the sharing of age information.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood is the place where they cast one of the 10 most beautiful people in the world for a role of a homely older person and then spend three hours in makeup every day getting her to look just right. And, they do this while there is a line of talented, average looking, age appropriate women around the block looking for work.
Personally, I don't think they do it because of age discrimination. I think they do it because there's only a handful of actresses that will guarantee ticket sales just by casting the
And IMDB cares about this *why*, exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And IMDB cares about this *why*, exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
IMDBPro, the paid service that the entertainment industry can subscribe to for finding work (among other things), appears to be based in Santa Monica based on the careers page [imdb.com]. That'd make it subject to California law.
Re: (Score:2)
No reason those jobs have be in Santa Monica though. Or anywhere else in CA. Move them to Seattle like the rest of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a subsidiary of Amazon, though, so I'm not sure how that is viewed under the law.
California (Score:2, Funny)
"Sometimes I start to think California is not such a bad place..."
Well there's your mistake right there.
Be a "Splitter" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OR, you can say it violates the 1st Amendment.
Why are we pussyfooting around the idea that California Liberals do no care about the Constitution. This is such a no-brainer.
Comment removed (Score:3)
New IMDB feature (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
An utterly pointless filter. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood cares about how you look, not how old a piece of paper says you are
This reminds me of Guy Pearce in Prometheus. Ridley Scott got a 44 year old to play a 90 year old dude, required over 5 hours of makeup, and he doesn't even appear as his younger self in the final film release. Why didn't he just get a 90 year old to play that part?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of Guy Pearce in Prometheus. Ridley Scott got a 44 year old to play a 90 year old dude, required over 5 hours of makeup, and he doesn't even appear as his younger self in the final film release. Why didn't he just get a 90 year old to play that part?
From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt14... [imdb.com]
Ridley Scott initially wanted Max von Sydow for the role of Peter Weyland. However, Scott and Damon Lindelof conceived of a scene in which David the android (Michael Fassbender) would interface with Weyland while in hypersleep, and that Weyland's dream would reflect his looks as a younger man since he is obsessed with immortality. Though the scene was cut from the script and never filmed, Guy Pearce had already been cast in the role and thus underwent extensive make-up to appear elderly. Fortunately, Pearce was also allowed to appear as the younger Peter Weyland giving a TED Talk in one of the promotional clips of the movie. A longer version of this clip is available as a bonus feature on the home theater edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Max von Sydow was Scott's original choice to play Weyland, but the casting of Pearce made it possible for him to portray Weyland as both an elderly character, and a younger man who appeared in an earlier script draft.
Right there on the page you linked to.
Personally I think Guy Pearce is a terrible actor. Even Max Von Sydow couldn't have saved Prometheus, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is not twenty-somethings, it's expiring 30-somethings submitting photos taken when they were 20.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that...did you say expiring 30-somethings who feel entitled to use utter bullshit to land a job?
Seems to me the problem has little to do with age, and everything to do with accepting that kind of moronic behavior.
So if I look at an actor's list of parts (Score:3)
And the remaining zillion websites (Score:2)
For a "land of liberals"... (Score:3)
...California sure spends a lot of effort protecting/catering to multi-millionaires.
Freedom of Speech? (Score:3)
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?
Stupid law (Score:5, Funny)
But, is there some angle where we could blame Republicans for it?
Why not just...? (Score:5, Funny)
Shall Make No Law (Score:3)
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.
Governor Most Pressing Task (Score:2)
Well, as long as his priorities are in order.
imdb2.com (Score:2)
you can't subscribe to imdb2.com. you can't have a membership of any kind. There's no one to pay. So that means it can legally post ages and birthdates. done.
I see.. (Score:2)
Californian once more proves it needs to slide off into the ocean and be gone....
Re: (Score:2)
Californian once more proves it needs to slide off into the ocean and be gone....
Didn't Hollywood recently make a movie about that?
Odd (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that Birth, Death, and marriage information was publically available in California.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic... [ca.gov]
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.
Californa Uber Alles (Score:3)
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown!
Sounds like another stupid CA law (Score:2)
Think Holywood has it bad? Try porn (Score:2)
The movie industry isn't anywhere near as bad as the porn industry. They don't seem to hire anyone over or under the age of 18. I mean let's face it most actors in the porn industry remain 18 long after the cellulite starts showing from under their schoolgirl outfit.
Or so a friend told me. Can someone verify this for me? I don't know because I don't watch such stuff. *whistles and looks at the ceiling*.
Under the heading of 'right to be remembered' (Score:3)
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.
What if LinkedIn did this without asking you? (Score:2)
To everyone slamming California and "Hollywood" for this, how would you feel if your profile on LinkedIn or any other employment site posted your age without you having any choice about it? And what if those profiles were created without any participation on your part? I see people on Slashdot complaining about ageism in the IT industry all the time, and they don't even have to deal with something like this. IMDB is basically an employment profile site for people in the entertainment industry, and it's the
Personally-identifying information (Score:2)
I'm not sure this would be a big problem for famous actors, but knowing someone's date of birth is an important piece is building a portfolio for identity theft. I think it's quite reasonable for people not to want their birth date published.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh... important piece of...
And yeah, I'm aware this wasn't the motivation for the law, but sometimes you can accidentally get something right for the wrong reasons.
Dear CA lawmakers (Score:2)
Dear California lawmakers,
We hate you.
Sincerely,
The rest of the nation
Re:Accuracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is age realy used or is looks? As it relates to the entertainment industry it's looks not age that matter.