I can understand that the need for the media to be able to publish The Truth gives them a free pass to being intrusive and annoying. However, it also seems like there is a point where you could say that what is being reported has ceased to be news, and is instead simply capitalising on the fame of another person.
Publicizing the private life of a politician could be viewed as potentially necessary information that the public needs to know. Taking pictures of Angelina Jolie, topless, at the beach (while appreciated) can not in any way be construed as being necessary for society to continue on productively. The tabloids are essentially just getting a free modelling session, without the approval of the model. I would think that, that would be illegal.
I can’t imagine though, that most celebrities have signed carte-blanche approvals to having their image used without receiving any sort of royalty. So I’m guessing that something in the law is defining publishing pictures of specific strangers, without their permission, as legal–even where it can be proven that the magizine is capitalizing on the fame and image of their targets.
Bump gor ya. My only contribution is that the courts have ruled repeatedly that famous people are much much lessin control of their image when defending themselves against unsolicited pictures or libelous statements. They still sue, on occasion, but generally aren’t nearly as protected as if some photog started snapping pictures of me while walking down the street.
Having said that, I despise paparazzi - it takes a certain class of scumbag for me to feel sorry for the likes of Lindsay Lohan. I’d love to see laws to greatly restrict their behavior. The question would be how you define those laws.
What you’re searching for is called a “newsworthiness” exception. It’s the reason why Tiger Woods can be put on the cover of SI. It’s the reason why Britney Spears can be on the cover of People. If you tripped in the street and accidentally had sex with Paris Hilton, they’d be justified in putting you on their cover as well - you’d be newsworthy. Now I understand that you might disagree that what Angelina Jolie had for breakfast is news, but that’s not the way the law has developed - the conduct of a public figure is news.
What happywaffle is referring to is the standard for defamation. Hitting the high point - when public figures are suing someone for defamation, there is a much tougher burden they have to meet in order to prevail.
Now, since happywaffle touched on opinion - my personal opinion is this: paparazzi are not the problem; publicists are. I’ll start worrying about the “invasion” into celebrities’ private lives, just as soon as they fire their publicist who is constantly releasing information to tabloids in order to generate buzz about their client. IOW, it’s a self-inflicted wound. They have to deal with it.
I think with the developement of Camera phones it’s taken a new personality. Already we have websites like one where a lady takes pictures of people sleeping on the subway and puts them on her website.
I see people in my gym taking pictures of “fat” people and laughing with their camera phones. Hell they are doing it in the locker rooms. I spoke to the gym owner (it’s a Bally’s) he said the state has a law against taking pictures in the lockerroom and Bally’s has a rule against cell phones, but they can’t enforce it as all the members constantly carry their cell phones with them.
So if they ever tried to enforce the no cell phone rule most of the members would quit.
Indeed go to YouTube and you see movies of teachers teaching their kids and the teachers are livid about it.
Eventually things like this need to be dealt with, but until something major happens it won’t happen.
Anyone in a public place (or viewable from a public place) can have their picture taken without permission as long as it’s not used in an advertisement.* You wouldn’t have to get signed releases if you take a picture of as parade and catch the people on the other side of the street, would you?
The issue with paparazzi is not that they’re taking the pictures, but that they’re constantly taking the pictures, making it difficult for celebrities to go about their business. When you get fifty flashbulbs going off in your face whenever you go somewhere, it can get tiresome.
*An actual ad for a product, not under “putting the celebrity on the cover promotes the magazine.”