# Cry me a fucking river, rich and/or famous people (re: privacy) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2013, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682 "2013-02-08T06:06:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/81 "2013-02-09T08:04:33Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Sick fucks are people who buy mags after they print this shit. The type of paps you mention are the instruments of those who pay them. I don’t mean to suggest they are unblameworthy, but I always feel this sort of comment needs to be put in context. Quoted for truth. And just think, for a moment, what sort of outcry there would be if suddenly all the pleb punters stopped buying the mags and overnight the paparazzi disappeared. I would bet very good (and substantial) dollars that the loudest howls would be heard from the ‘celebrities’ who moan and whinge **now** about how _unfair_ and _horrid_ is the invasion of their privacy. You (the celebrity ‘you’) are **only** celebrities because the paparazzi display your bods and your faux-passes. If you were ignored, sure, your privacy problems would go away, but I reckon you’d be pissed-off as all hell that your adoring public were ignoring you. Meh, I don’t give a fuck actually. Dare I say first world problem?? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/82 "2013-02-09T10:16:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And I stand by the assertion that this bill is really about creating special privacy rights for celebs, and not for the general public: Then you’re an idiot. As previously noted - by you! - celebrities aren’t a specific class of people, so there can’t be a law that specifically applies to them. Any law that prevents a crowd of photographers running after Brad Pitt will also stop them running after you. Are you really that ignorant about how the law works? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/83 "2013-02-09T10:56:31Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Is “President”? > > Make your argument. > > Then tell me how convincing my rebuttal of “Nope. Just ain’t so, bro” is. Sure, because they have enumerated powers in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/84 "2013-02-09T14:09:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So you’d be okay with my proposed law making it a special crime to steal a billion dollars from billionaires _or anyone else_? > > How about a law that makes it a special crime to cut a penis off a man _or anyone else_? > > This reminds me of Nevada’s Art Exemption Law (1997). I didn’t like that then and I don’t like this now. I see your point, but disagree. All laws only apply to the people they are aimed at. Are DUI laws unfair because they don’t affect people who abstain from alcohol? Are boating regulations unfair because they only apply to people who can afford boats? I do wonder how this law would apply to private investigators. Say a PI is investigating a worker’s comp claim he thinks might be bogus. Could he get in trouble for following the suspect and taking pictures (as is very common around here)? ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/85 "2013-02-09T15:45:31Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > So, are shit tons of disorderly conduct tickets being passed out? I don’t know about anywhere else, but in NY, disorderly conduct gets a fine and court costs of $250 maximum. If you only get one for every 10 pictures you sell, it’s a trivial ‘cost of doing business’. It wouldn’t deter many of them in the slightest. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/86 "2013-02-09T15:53:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I quoted the letter that was sent to the Hawaiian legislature in the OP. Perhaps you missed it. Here, I’ll quote it again: You misunderstood my post. I was _agreeing_ with you, saying that I doubt that celebrities like Steven Tyler are actually crying over the fact that the public might get hurt by paparazzi. They want protection, so then they threw in in the “Oh, and the public, too” to make themselves sound less self-absorbed. Not out of concern for us “little people”. For the record, I think paparazzi are scum, and the easier it is to discourage them, or throw them in the slammer, the better. But a high % of celebrities are probably scum, too. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/87 "2013-02-09T15:58:20Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > I don’t know about anywhere else, but in NY, disorderly conduct gets a fine and court costs of $250 maximum. If you only get one for every 10 pictures you sell, it’s a trivial ‘cost of doing business’. It wouldn’t deter many of them in the slightest. Good point, if it can be handled without having to waste a day in court, it just a business expense. I more or less pulled the specific charge of “disorderly conduct” out of my ass. What I’m getting as is: 1. Is knocking over kids and old ladies, blocking traffic, and damaging cars, while generally “causing a scene” at an airport a ticketable offense? 2. Do the police in LA go easier on tabloid photgraphers than they do “regular” people who engage in the same behavior? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/88 "2013-02-09T16:06:21Z")
> [@digs](#): > > You misunderstood my post. I was _agreeing_ with you, saying that I doubt that celebrities like Steven Tyler are actually crying over the fact that the public might get hurt by paparazzi. They want protection, so then they threw in in the “Oh, and the public, too” to make themselves sound less self-absorbed. Not out of concern for us “little people”. > > For the record, I think paparazzi are scum, and the easier it is to discourage them, or throw them in the slammer, the better. But a high % of celebrities are probably scum, too. I apologize for the misunderstanding, **digs**. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/89 "2013-02-09T17:26:29Z")
Being famous sucks in ways you’d never imagine. I spent some time being mildly noticeable (one of maybe five foreigners in a Chinese city of three million) and that aspect was miserable. Picture people peeking into your windows while you cook breakfast, people snapping photos of you while you walk to the pharmacy for cold medicine, people waiting at your door hoping to talk to you, dinners with friends being disrupted by strangers, and basically every tiny aspect of your daily life being turned into a small circus. Sometimes, you get so sick of it that you retreat into a bubble of your home and the handful of “safe” places where you can live normally. And that is a miserable existence. Humans are not happy in cages, even gilded ones. The alternative is that you brave it, and that is tiring beyond belief. The issue is that people are meeting you for the first time, while you are greet the public for about the billionth time this week. So your life becomes a constant stream of making the same half-hearted introductions, the same forced sincerity, the same little bits of small talk, answering the same five or ten questions…all the freaking time, every second of you dare to step outside of your home. And if you fuck up once- if you are snappy because you are sick, you had one to many beers, you are tired from being out too late…people are going to remember it forever. Being seen at anything less than your best for even a second is going to have lasting effects on not just your life, but on the lives of people you understand are usually just being sweet and well meaning. I can’t even imagine having to deal with this being the organized industry it is out here. It’s one thing to deal with well meaning fans, and another to deal with people who don’t give a damn about you as a person except what money they can make off you. Anyway, nobody has the foresight to know how they’d feel about it when it’s a reality. Being famous seems awesome, but think about how many famous people are deeply troubled. Nobody thinks they are going to get rich and famous and then descend into a mess of drug abuse while surrounded by fawning yes men, but all to often, that’s what happens. You just don’t know how something is going to turn out, even if from the outside it seems like all positives. Nor do I blame them for wanting to sometimes have exposure, and sometimes not. Having sold something doesn’t automatically make something public property, and having chosen to do something for yourself doesn’t give other people the right to make those choices for you. If I’ve given paid tours of my home to the public, that doesn’t mean it’s cool for randos to let themselves in to take a look at my house. If I’ve shot a blue movie, that doesn’t mean that someone has the right to rig up a camera in my bedroom and film what I do with my husband. A voluntary transaction- say, giving money to a panhandler or having sex with someone- is really a different beast than the same thing done involuntarily. Anyway, I think the same protections should apply to everyone, and nobody should be subject to stalking or harassment of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/90 "2013-02-09T17:44:12Z")
The reason there are paparazzi is because there is a demand. If dumbass pathetic people would quit buying People, US Weekly, surfing TMZ, or buying tabloids, we wouldn’t be in this mess. So while we can Pit the paparazzi, the celebrities, and the tabloids, let’s not forget the people who feed this celebrity culture with their dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/91 "2013-02-10T18:24:42Z")
So, after reading a few articles (I can’t seem to find the text of the bill?)… it seems like they’re not banning people from **taking pictures** , instead, they are allowing celebrities to **sue for and recover “damages”** when their “private life” / “family time” (???) has been invaded in a way they don’t like. This seems to include someone taking photos on the beach. Honestly. This sounds like a new revenue stream for aging celebs with saggy boobs. Can anyone find the actual text of the bill? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/92 "2013-02-10T22:02:16Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > Can anyone find the actual text of the bill? [Here you go]("1663- Constructive invasion of privacy; civil cause of action. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Steven Tvler Act”. (b) A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.). It’s Hawaii Senate Bill 465. The important bits: > [@](#): > > "1663- Constructive invasion of privacy; civil cause of action. > > (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Steven Tvler Act”. > (b) A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy. > > \ > > (d) A person who commits constructive invasion of privacy shall be liable for the following damages proximately caused by a violation of this section: > > - ( 1 ) General damages ; > - (2) Special damages; and > - (3) Punitive damages up to three times the amount of general and special damages combined. > (e) If the constructive invasion of privacy is committed for a commercial purpose, the person shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the violation of this section. There is no corresponding criminal penalty. It’s not nearly as bad as we all seem to have been assuming. The term “reasonable expectation of privacy” has been defined with almost mathematical precision after [45 years of criminal litigation](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html). ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2013, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/93 "2013-02-10T22:54:44Z")
The underlying question is this: the first amendment protects the “press”, which is today generally regarded as including electronic media, so reporters are granted a great deal of latitude as far as obtaining material for a story, but many of the paparazzi are independent operators looking to sell their captures to a media outlet – what kind of protection can an uncredentialed wildcat photographer expect as they go to extremes to obtain material? And, with all the other cameras in use at any given time, how much privacy can any one person realistically expect? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/94 "2013-02-11T00:05:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I imagine there are plenty of cons to stardom even if paparazzi aren’t constantly snapping pictures of you going about your private business on private property. > > Always being pestered by photographers and others when you’re out in public, having everything you do or say in an interview picked to pieces in the media, not being able to go to your kid’s recital or sports game like a normal person, having the success and prosperity of lots of non-celebrity colleagues depending on how much work you do and how well you do it (as **Shakes** noted), being constantly badgered by opportunistic people trying to hook onto you for advantage or notoriety, just to name a few. > > It startles me sometimes how much some people seem to loathe and despise the normal life of ordinary people, judging by how inferior they consider it to the lavish lifestyles of wealth and fame. Personally, I’m a thoroughly and deservedly obscure ordinary person, and for the most part, I love it. I love feeling like a “regular” person with a regular person’s ideas of the value of money, I love the democratic feeling of living a lifestyle that isn’t too exclusive for millions of other people to share, I love the sensation of being sturdy and tough enough to be able to, say, carry my own luggage or make good things with my own hands or walk a couple of miles to get somewhere without having staff and personal assistants fussing over me and constantly smoothing my path and buying everything I need from some overpriced store. > > It does kind of shock me that so many people seem to think that getting away from the small challenges and triumphs of ordinary life would be such a blessing that nobody who achieves it has any right to complain about their life at all. Sheesh, I don’t even think that wealth and fame in **themselves** are all that great a deal; certainly not a great enough deal to make losing the joys of normal life completely insignificant by comparison. > Well, not more so for celebrities than it is for ordinary people, it seems to me. **bump** ’s criterion for what celebrity-hunters should and shouldn’t be allowed to do sounds reasonable. It startles _me_ that people can’t grasp basic economics: More $$$ usually= More happiness. If it didn’t (or people didn’t believe it did) our consumer economy would collapse. ---
**Author:** ![Enkel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Enkel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enkel)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/95 "2013-02-11T00:43:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Here you go]("1663- Constructive invasion of privacy; civil cause of action. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Steven Tvler Act”. (b) A person is liable for a civil action of constructive invasion of privacy if the person captures or intends to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, through any means a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of another person while that person is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy.). It’s Hawaii Senate Bill 465. The important bits: > > There is no corresponding criminal penalty. It’s not nearly as bad as we all seem to have been assuming. > > The term “reasonable expectation of privacy” has been defined with almost mathematical precision after [45 years of criminal litigation](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html). Thank you, but you left out the DEEP POCKET MONEY GRAB section of the law: > [@](#): > > ``` > (f) **A person who directs, solicits, induces, or causes another person** , regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship, to violate this section is liable for damages to the same extent as provided in subsection (d). <-- Death to publishers > > (g) **Any person who transmits, publishes, broadcasts, sells, offers for sale, uses any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression, or who subsequently retransmits, republishes, rebroadcasts, resells** , reoffers to sell, or reuses any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression in any form, medium, format, or work of the same visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that was taken or captured in violation of this section shall constitute a violation of this section if: <-- death to wikileaks > > (1) The person had actual knowledge that the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression was taken or captured in violation of this section; and > > (2) The person received compensation, consideration, or remuneration, monetary or otherwise, for the rights to the unlawfully obtained visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression. > > (h) [... omission ...] > > (i) In any action pursuant to this section, the court additionally **may grant equitable relief, including but not limited to an injunction and restraining order against further violation of this section.** <-- You are NO LONGER free to move around the country! > > ``` So, basically, offering a $10,000 reward for a picture of actor’s new doggie… is enough to allow them to haul you into court, even when _ **there has been no picture** _. This allows them to go on a money grab rampage based on an accusation that someone got their nickers in a knot. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/96 "2013-02-11T02:56:40Z")
No, not really. You need to ready more closely. As to section (f) which you have marked “Death to publishers” you are forgetting that the publisher would need to direct, solicit etc the photographer to take pics “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person”, while the target is “engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy”. Five minutes after this law comes into being, every publisher will broadcast to all their photographers a memo which will read something like “You are specifically directed never to take photographs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, while the subject is engaging in a personal or familial activity with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Any breach of this requirement will result in [insert suitable sanction here]”. This will be in all their standard contracts and so on. That will cover their ass unless, regardless of the memo, they actually encourage paps to take intrusive photos in which case, they are getting what they deserve. As to your “death to wikileaks” thang, have you even read the section? It requires the offender to have actual knowledge the photo (or whatever) was obtained in violation of the section and to have to paid for the rights to it. Since when does wikileaks pay for the rights to leaked info? As to the hysterical “you are no longer free to move around the country” comment, I suspect you have no idea at all concerning the typical wording of an injunction. It would likely bar the offender to approaching particular persons by a certain distance or at certain locations. It’s ridiculous to suggest that would constitute any significant restriction on movement generally. AS to the reward for the doggie picture, see my first para. All the offeror would have to do is make it clear in their reward offer as per my suggested memo. By the way, I haven’t read the whole act and I’m not qualifed to comment on US law and you’d be insane to rely on this post as actual legal advice, but the above is what seems likely from what I’ve read here. ---
**Author:** ![Seanette](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/seanette/32/9139_2.png) [@Seanette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seanette)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/97 "2013-02-11T04:51:49Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Those of you excusing the paparazzi, have you ever seen this stuff in person? I’m not a celebrity _at all_ but I have seen a few incidents at LAX that have made me feel pretty bad for celebs. I’m not that into celebrity personal lives, but sometimes it’s hard to avoid. I’m recalling one instance (I think Britney Spears) where those jackals wouldn’t let an AMBULANCE through in an emergency without getting those pictures. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/98 "2013-02-11T14:08:13Z")
I don’t know that not letting an ambulance through requires any new legislation, since that’s already a crime, I believe. Not really pertinent other than to demonstrate that paparazzi are ruthless, which I think everyone already acknowledges. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/99 "2013-02-11T15:02:18Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > The Osborne family? Seriously? These are people who had their daily lives filmed and they are worrying about privacy? It is to laugh. You do realize that was a TV show and not a documentary? It was heavily edited and processed for television. They were able to edit a daughter out of their lives even though she lived in the house. Just because they were involved in a “reality” show does not mean they have given up their rights to privacy for life. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682/100 "2013-02-11T16:19:21Z")
> [@Enkel](#): > > So, basically, offering a $10,000 reward for a picture of actor’s new doggie… is enough to allow them to haul you into court, even when _ **there has been no picture** _. This allows them to go on a money grab rampage based on an accusation that someone got their nickers in a knot. If the offer induces a photographer to violate the subjects REOP, yes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cry-me-a-fucking-river-rich-and-or-famous-people-re-privacy/649682.md?page=6)