# Explain the Paparozzi **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 30, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288 "2012-10-30T02:30:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/1 "2012-10-30T02:30:54Z")
Maybe I am naive, but I don’t understand how the Paparozzi functions. Don’t you need permission to publish photos of any recognizable people in your pictures? Is it simply a matter of volume that actors cannot keep up with filing law suit after law suit to combat the volume of unauthorized photos? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/2 "2012-10-30T02:53:54Z")
No, you do not need permission (at least not in the U.S.) to photograph any person in public, or to publish that photo. For the most part you do not need permission if the person is on private property and the property owner gives you permission to be on that property. You can not use someone’s photograph for “commercial purposes” without their permission, but that isn’t the same as getting a photo of a glamorous actress coming out of the supermarket wearing sweatpants and selling it to the _Enquirer_. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/3 "2012-10-30T02:56:43Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > No, you do not need permission (at least not in the U.S.) to photograph any person in public, or to publish that photo. For the most part you do not need permission if the person is on private property and the property owner gives you permission to be on that property. > > You can not use someone’s photograph for “commercial purposes” without their permission, but that isn’t the same as getting a photo of a glamorous actress coming out of the supermarket wearing sweatpants and selling it to the _Enquirer_. It’s the difference between that and using that picture in an ad for those sweatpants. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/4 "2012-10-30T02:58:46Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > No, you do not need permission (at least not in the U.S.) to photograph any person in public, or to publish that photo. For the most part you do not need permission if the person is on private property and the property owner gives you permission to be on that property. > > You can not use someone’s photograph for “commercial purposes” without their permission, but that isn’t the same as getting a photo of a glamorous actress coming out of the supermarket wearing sweatpants and selling it to the _Enquirer_. In paragraph 2 above, I fail to understand the difference. Please elaborate for I must be missing something. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/5 "2012-10-30T03:07:16Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > In paragraph 2 above, I fail to understand the difference. Please elaborate for I must be missing something. You can sell a photograph that you took in public. You cannot use a photograph that you took in public to sell something. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/6 "2012-10-30T03:09:30Z")
More specifically, you can’t use a photograph to imply that a particular person endorses your product or business without their permission. ---
**Author:** ![GaryM](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garym/32/241_2.png) [@GaryM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaryM)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/7 "2012-10-30T03:12:56Z")
It’s also true, at least in the U.S.A., that people with notoriety have a lower expectation of privacy than you or I do. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/8 "2012-10-30T03:15:05Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > In paragraph 2 above, I fail to understand the difference. Please elaborate for I must be missing something. Freedom of the press allows us photographers to use photographs in an editorial context liberally. Commercial usage is quite a different matter. As I don’t want to risk explaining the distinctions incorrectly, I refer you [to this article on the matter](http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/commercial-vs-editorial-use-of.html). ---
**Author:** ![zombywoof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/9e8a1a/32.png) [@zombywoof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zombywoof)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/9 "2012-10-30T03:24:33Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > In paragraph 2 above, I fail to understand the difference. Please elaborate for I must be missing something. You can sell a photo you took of a celebrity drinking a Coke on the street in public to a tabloid (it’s essentially protected as “news”), but you can’t use the photo in an ad saying “so-and-so prefers Coke over Pepsi” without their permission. ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/10 "2012-10-30T03:27:19Z")
Crazy! ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/11 "2012-11-01T18:02:50Z")
Just wanted to add one more thought to all of this. I have entered photo contests where the rules make it very clear not show people who can be identified in the photos, or have them sign a release. So, in light of this policy vs. what has been said in this thread…are all the photo contests wrong (or, just overprotective against a lawsuit)? How does this mesh with the fact the Paparazzi can go running wild? ---
**Author:** ![Cayuga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Cayuga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cayuga)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/12 "2012-11-01T19:10:47Z")
It’s the “public figure” thing, as **GaryM** said. Also, the policy you cite is a rule of the photo contest, not a law. (Yes, I realize they instituted the rule so as to avoid lawsuits, but still ….) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/13 "2012-11-01T19:25:00Z")
The reason photo contests require model waivers is so that the winning photo may be used in marketing materials for the contest (or whatever they’re promoting.) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/14 "2012-11-02T15:03:28Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > The reason photo contests require model waivers is so that the winning photo may be used in marketing materials for the contest (or whatever they’re promoting.) That and it helps their PR to follow certain standards. This is particularly common with blurring out the faces of children. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/15 "2012-11-02T15:20:51Z")
> [@Cayuga](#): > > It’s the “public figure” thing, as **GaryM** said. No, it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2012, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-the-paparozzi/639288/16 "2012-11-02T15:39:56Z")
To elaborate, as explained before. If you can be seen from a photographer who is standing in a place that he is allowed to be (in a public place or in a private place with permission) then you have no expectation of privacy from being photographed, regardless of whether you are a public figure. Indeed, there is no privacy exception for public figures. Public figures have the same expectations of privacy as everyone else. The public figure doctrine is a part of _defamation_ law, not privacy law.