Prev NEXT  

Advertisement

How Paparazzi Work

The Laws of Photography

Princess Diana’s fatal car wreck spurred legal limitations for paparazzi.
Princess Diana’s fatal car wreck spurred legal limitations for paparazzi.
Christ Jackson/Getty Images

Princess Diana’s 1997 fatal car crash during a high-speed paparazzi chase instigated a string of photography-related legislation. Consequently, any photographer who pursues Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (formerly known as Kate Middleton), in the same manner risks litigation in the event of an accident [source: Harman]. In fact, by the time she wed Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge had already won settlements in court for paparazzi privacy breaches [source: Harman].

In California, paparazzi are legally prohibited from trespassing on private property, using telephoto lenses to survey private property or pursuing targets in cars [source: LaPorte]. However, the frequency of paparazzi-celebrity run-ins since January 2010, when the law was last amended, have indicated that the legislation’s bark might tougher than its bite.

Advertisement

Laws regarding public photography have always been a gray area. In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech. There are exceptions, however. Here are just a few of the gray areas:

  • Police crime scenes, disasters, fires or riots are considered secured emergency areas. Photography isn’t legal in these situations without permission.
  • Even editorial photographs can come under scrutiny when a caption is added. If photo captions imply something false or libelous about the person in the photo, then they aren't legally protected free speech.
  • Photos of a person in a public place can’t be used to promote any goods or services without permission.

The controversy surrounding anti-paparazzi legislation comes down to the question of where to draw the line between legitimate news gathering and invasions of privacy. If laws are left as they are, a celebrity's privacy -- and, in some cases, his or her life -- may continue to be endangered by the ruthlessness of some photographers [source: LaPorte]. On the other hand, if the laws become too restrictive, then the freedom of the press could be jeopardized, and for that reason, a judicial tension remains between the two.

With the cultural appetite for celebrity voyeurism, it’s questionable whether the public is even concerned about anti-paparazzi legislation. As long as images of the rich and famous committing foibles both minor and monstrous continue to arrest our attention -- and sway our online traffic and magazine purchases -- the paparazzi mobs will continue to swarm and snap. After all, they’re only giving us what we want: proof that celebrities are imperfect, just like us.

Related Articles

Sources

  • Dowell, Ben and Robinson, James. “Amy Winehouse wins court ban on paparazzi at her home.” The Guardian. May 1, 2009. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/may/01/amy-winehouse-big-pictures-paparazzi-privacy
  • Harman, Danna. “How Princess Diana changed the way paparazzi pursue Kate Middleton.” The Christian Science Monitor. April 29, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0429/How-Princess-Diana-changed-the-way-paparazzi-pursue-Kate-Middleton
  • Hirsch, Afua. “Sienna Miller sues paparazzi for harassment.” The Guardian. Oct. 30, 2008. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/31/sienna-miller-big-pictures-darryn-lyons
  • Independent. “Sienna Miller: Hacking’s heroine.” Sept. 23, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/sienna-miller-hackings-heroine-2359415.html
  • LaPorte, Nicole. “The Do-Nothing Paparazzi Law.” The Daily Beast. Feb. 25, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/25/the-do-nothing-paparazzi-law.html
  • Loomis, Nicole Zsuzsanna. “Paparazzi.” University of Southern California. May 2009. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Loomis-2851.pdf
  • Nordhaus, Jamie E. “Celebrities’ Rights to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi Be Allowed to Go?” The Review of Litigation. Vol. 18. Issue 2. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/c734%20resources/celebrities%20rights%20-%20nordhaus.pdf
  • NPR. “Brad Pitt: ‘Moneyball, Life and ‘The Stalkerazzi’.” Sept. 22, 2011. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140629778/brad-pitt-moneyball-life-and-the-stalkerazzi
  • Rose, Lacey. “The Most Expensive Celebrity Photos.” Forbes. July 18, 2007. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/17/celebrities-photojournalism-magazines-biz-media-cx_lr_0718celebphotos.html
  • Samuels, David. “Shooting Britney.” The Atlantic. April 2008. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2008/04/shooting-britney/6735/
  • Telegraph. “Ron Galella and Jackie Onassis in pictures.” Nov. 25, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/galleries/TMG8129874/Ron-Galella-and-Jackie-Onassis-in-pictures.html
  • TIME. “The Press: Paparazzi on the Prowl.” April 14, 1961. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,872287,00.html
  • Wood, Gaby. “Camera, movie star, Vespa…it all began on the Via Veneto.” The Guardian. Sept. 23, 2006. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/sep/24/pressandpublishing1
  • Yancy, Kitty Bean. “Tour L.A. with a real-life paparazzo.” USA Today. Dec. 23, 2010. (Oct. 28, 2011) http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/12/las-new-paparazzi-tour/135493/1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


Advertisement


Recommended

Advertisement

Advertisement