Paparazzo: “Your Kids Are Fair Game” — MJ’s 30 Seconds Changed California Law
Your kids are fair game, Michael. They’re public property. The paparazzo leans against his car, camera still in hand, smirking after photographing Michael Jackson’s children without permission at a public park. But what Michael says in the next 30 seconds doesn’t just shut down the photographer. It starts a legal movement that will change California law and protect celebrity children for generations. This is the story of how one father’s 32nd response to invasion became a landmark
protection for every famous parents child. Santa Monica, California, June 1998, Saturday afternoon, 3:15 p.m. Michael Jackson is at a public park with his two children, Prince 1-year-old, and Paris, 3 months old. He’s trying to give them something normal, something every parent takes for granted. An afternoon at the park, fresh air, swings, the simple joy of being outside. But Michael Jackson can’t have normal. Within 10 minutes of arriving, paparazzi appear, five of them. Cameras with
telephoto lenses surrounding the playground, shooting from every angle. Not just Michael, but the children, the babies, getting close-up shots of their faces for tabloid magazines that will pay thousands for photos of Michael’s kids. Michael is wearing a hat and sunglasses, trying to be inconspicuous, but it’s useless. The paparazzi recognized his car in the parking lot, called others. Now they’re circling like sharks. He tries to shield the children, positioning his body between them and the cameras, but there are too many angles, too many photographers. He picks
up Paris from the stroller, holds her against his chest, turns away from the cameras. Prince is in a baby carrier on his chest. Two security guards, Frank and Marcus, are trying to create space, asking the photographers to back up, but they’re on public property, legally allowed to be there, legally allowed to photograph anyone in a public space. One photographer, Tony Greco, 38, has been following Michael for six years. Made a career selling Michael Jackson photos to tabloids. He’s aggressive, known for getting shots other photographers won’t. Pushing boundaries,
getting close, making subjects uncomfortable, because uncomfortable photos sell better than comfortable ones. Tony moves closer, kneeling to get a ground level shot directly at Paris’s face. Michael turns away, but Tony repositions, stays low, keeps shooting. The camera motor drive is loud. Rapid fire clicks. Mechanical and invasive. Back up, please. Frank says, stepping between Tony and Michael. Public park, public property. Tony responds. Not moving. I have every right to be here. You’re harassing them. I’m doing my job. They’re public figures. No expectation of privacy
in public. Tony grins, knowing the law is on his side. That includes the kids. They’re part of the story. People want to see Michael Jackson’s kids. Michael stops walking, turns to face Tony directly, Paris still held against his chest. Prince and the carrier. Leave my children alone, Michael says. Voice quiet but firm. You can photograph me, but not them. Tony stands up, still holding his camera. Can’t do that, Michael. Your kids are public figures, too. Part of the package. People want to see them. Magazines pay for these shots. It’s business. They’re babies.
They didn’t choose this. You chose it when you became famous. Your kids inherit that. That’s how it works. Tony raises his camera again, points it at Paris’s face. Come on, Michael. Just let me get a clear shot. You’re making this harder than it needs to be. Michael’s jaw tightens. He’s dealt with paparazzi his entire life since he was 5 years old. Knows the game. Knows fighting makes it worse. Knows engagement gives them what they want. But this is different. This is his children.
This is invasion not of his privacy but theirs. My children, Michael says, voice still controlled, but emotion underneath are not public property. They’re human beings. They have rights. Not in public. They don’t. Tony responds. Public space means public photography. That’s the law. Your kids, my kids, anyone’s kids. All fair game in public. Fair game. Michael repeats. And something in his tone makes Tony pause slightly. You just said my infant daughter is fair game. That’s not
I mean legally. You said it fair game like she’s something to be hunted. Michael steps closer still holding Paris protectively. Do you have children? Tony hesitates. Yeah. Two kids. How old? 6 and 8. Would you want someone following them with a camera? Someone photographing them without permission? Selling their images to strangers? Making money from their faces? That’s different. My kids aren’t famous. Why is that different? Why do my children deserve less protection than yours?
Tony doesn’t have a good answer. Falls back on legality. Look, I’m not making the rules. I’m just working within them. California law says public space means no privacy. Your kids are in public. End of story. Michael is very still. And when he speaks, his voice is different. Not emotional, not angry, but clear, deliberate. The voice of someone who’s made a decision. You’re right. California law does say that right now today you’re legally allowed to photograph my infant children without consent to sell their images to profit from their existence and there’s
nothing I can do to stop you. Tony nods thinks he’s won this exchange but laws change. Michael continues, “Laws are written by people and people can rewrite them. You standing here today calling my 3-month-old baby fair game. You just gave me the evidence I need to change California law.” Tony’s smile fades slightly. I’m going to push for legislation that protects children of public figures from exactly what you’re doing right now. I’m going to work with lawmakers,
civil liberties organizations, child advocacy groups. I’m going to use every resource I have to make sure what you’re doing becomes illegal. Good luck with that, Tony says. But his confidence is shaking. You’re one person. I’m following existing law. I’m one person with a platform, with resources, with lawyers, with motivation, and with documentation of exactly why this law needs to change. You think you’re protected by current law, and today you are. But when that law changes,
and it will, people like you won’t be able to hide behind public spaces anymore. Not when the subjects are children. Not when they’re infants who can’t consent. Michael adjusts Paris in his arms. Looks directly at Tony. You said my children are public property, but property can’t consent. Property can’t be traumatized. Property doesn’t grow up with psychological damage from being hunted since infancy. My children aren’t property. They’re people, and the law needs to
protect them like people. You’re being dramatic, Tony says. But his camera is lowered now. No longer shooting. Am I? You’ve been photographing my daughter’s face for magazine covers since she was born. She’s 3 months old. She has no awareness of what’s happening. No ability to consent, no way to protect herself. And you think that’s okay because I’m famous. The public has a right to know. The public has no right to my children. Michael interrupts. Voice still controlled,
but intensity building. They have a right to know about my work, my art, my public appearances. They don’t have a right to hunt my infant children for photographs. That’s not journalism. That’s not public interest. That’s exploitation of minors for profit. I’m not exploiting. You called them fair game. Your words fair game. That’s hunting language. That’s predator language. You’re treating my children like prey. And you’re defending it with law that was never written with
infant photography in mind. Tony is uncomfortable now. Defensive. Other photographers do it, too. And when the law changes, they’ll all have to stop. You’re not special. You’re just the one who said it out loud. Who made it clear what this really is. Exploitation. harassment, predatory behavior disguised as journalism. Frank and Marcus have been watching this exchange, both recording on their phones, documenting everything. Michael is aware of this, planned for this, wants documentation. Leave my children alone. Michael says one final time today. You can legally
harass them. Soon you won’t. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise. He turns, walks back to his car. Security creating a barrier between him and the photographers. Tony stands there, camera at his side, uncertain, feeling like something just shifted, but not quite understanding what. Two weeks later, Michael’s lawyers file a complaint with the California State Legislature, requesting review of privacy laws regarding minor children of public figures. They include documentation
from the Park incident, including Tony’s fair game comment recorded by security. Three weeks later, a state senator, Liz Figueroa, reads about the complaint, reaches out to Michael’s team. She has two children, understands the concern, agrees that existing law doesn’t adequately protect minors. She begins drafting legislation specific protections for children of celebrities, making it illegal to photograph minors without parental consent for commercial purposes, establishing penalties for harassment of children by photographers. Tony Greco hears
about this through industry channels, doesn’t take it seriously. It’ll never pass. Too many lobbying groups against it. First Amendment issues. It’s dead on arrival. But Tony underestimated two things. Michael’s determination and public sympathy for protecting children. Michael doesn’t just push for legislation privately. He talks about it in interviews carefully, strategically. He frames it not as protecting celebrities, but as protecting children. He emphasizes that no child,
famous or not, should be hunted by adult photographers for profit. Public opinion shifts. Parent groups rally behind the legislation. Child psychologists testify about the developmental harm of constant photographing and surveillance. Civil liberties groups, initially opposed, negotiate language that protects children without infringing on legitimate journalism. The bill gains momentum, moves through committee, reaches the floor for vote. Tony and other paparazzi lobby against it argue it restricts press freedom limits their ability to work but the fair game comment from
the park is everywhere played in legislative hearings quoted in newspapers the perfect example of why the law is needed September 1999 14 months after the park incident California passes the child protection act making it illegal to photograph minors for commercial purposes without parental consent establishing harassment penalties creating buffer zones around children of public figures in public spaces. It’s not perfect. Enforcement will be challenging, but it’s precedent setting. The law acknowledges that children, even children of celebrities,
deserve protection from predatory photography. Tony Greco’s business model collapses overnight. The tabloids that paid thousands for celebrity children photos stop buying because publishing them becomes legally risky. Tony tries to adapt, focus on adult celebrities only, but he never recovers financially. 5 years later, he leaves the paparazzi business entirely. In 2006, he’s working as a wedding photographer when he’s interviewed for a documentary about paparazzi culture. They ask about the California law, about Michael Jackson. I didn’t think it would actually
pass. Tony admits, “I thought it was just Michael being dramatic, flexing his power, but he was right. what I was doing, what we were all doing. Photographing infant children without consent, selling their images. It was wrong. I knew it was wrong. I just hid behind. It’s legal because it made me money. The interviewer asks if he regrets the park confrontation. Tony is quiet for a long moment. Yeah. Yeah. I regret it. Not because the law changed and hurt my business. I regret it because Michael asked me if I’d want someone doing that to my kids. And I said it
was different because my kids aren’t famous. But it’s not different. His kids didn’t choose to be famous. They were just born to someone famous. They deserved the same protection I wanted for my own children. I called a 3-month-old baby fair game. Tony continues. I said that out loud. Defended it. Thought I was right because the law was on my side. But legal doesn’t mean ethical. Legal doesn’t mean moral. I was hiding behind law to justify something I’d be horrified by if
it happened to my own family. The documentary airs in 2007 becomes part of the broader conversation about paparazzi ethics, celebrity privacy, and children’s rights. 2009, Michael dies. In the flood of tributes, Senator Liz Figueroa writes an op-ed titled Michael Jackson’s legislative legacy. She describes the park incident, the fair game comment. Michael’s immediate pivot to legal advocacy. Michael didn’t just complain about the problem. She writes, “He worked to solve it. He
met with legislators, child advocates, legal experts. He used his platform not for himself, but for all children of public figures. The California Child Protection Act exists because one father in a park facing a photographer who called his infant daughter fair game decided enough was enough. The law has since been cited in multiple states as model legislation. New York, Illinois, Massachusetts have passed similar protections. It’s not universal. Enforcement remains imperfect, but its progress, tangible legal change that traces directly back to 30 Seconds in a Santa
Monica Park, 2015. Paris Jackson, now 17, is asked in an interview about growing up as Michael Jackson’s daughter. She mentions the California law, says she didn’t know about it until recently. I found out my dad basically changed state law to protect me and my brother. Paris says, “I knew he was protective, but I didn’t realize he’d literally fought to change legislation. That’s not just being a protective parent. That’s being a father who saw a systemic problem and decided to fix it for everyone.” She pauses emotional. There are kids now who
don’t get harassed by photographers like we would have without that law. That’s my dad’s legacy, too. Not just music. Actual legal protection for children who’s being exploited in plain sight right now. while everyone says it’s legal. What injustice are you witnessing and dismissing because existing law allows it? Michael Jackson was told his infant children were fair game by a paparazzo in 1998. He could have accepted it, shielded them better, moved on. Instead, he spent 14 months working with legislators to change California law, creating protections for
all celebrity children. Legal doesn’t mean right. Permitted doesn’t mean ethical. Sometimes the law lags behind morality and someone has to push for change. 30 seconds in a park, one father refusing to accept. That’s just how it is. One law that now protects thousands of children from predatory photography. Tony Greco called a 3-month-old fair game. Michael Jackson made that illegal. That’s the difference between accepting the system and changing it. What system are you accepting that
someone needs to change? What injustice needs someone brave enough to say this ends now?
