Celebrity privacy

Last updated

Celebrity privacy refers to the right of celebrities and public figures, largely entertainers, athletes or politicians, to withhold the information they are unwilling to disclose. This term often pertains explicitly to personal information, which includes addresses and family members, among other data for personal identification. Different from the privacy of the general public, 'Celebrity Privacy' is considered as "controlled publicity," challenged by the press and the fans. In addition, Paparazzi make commercial use of their private data. [1]

Contents

Some national and state governments set up privacy laws mainly to protect celebrity privacy and their family members. [1] The legal impact of these celebrity privacy laws has currently been undetermined since the curb for celebrity privacy intrusion often counteracts the legal principle of "free press" in many countries. [2] [3]

Debate Surrounding the Celebrity Privacy

Scholars have debated how much or what type of privacy celebrities and their friends or family can or should expect. [4] Commonly posed arguments center upon topics such as the idea of celebrity privacy as controlled publicity, the intrusion of paparazzi or fans, and what types of privacy should be granted to and expected by children of celebrities. [1]

Celebrity privacy as a controlled publicity

Celebrities are often controlled by the public exposure they receive and the need to maintain positive professional images. This invasion of privacy causes their private lives to be governed by the public. [1] Jamie Nordhaus says, "The boundaries of privacy and publicity for celebrities can become blurred, as they most are always watched by fans, paparazzi, and other potential stalkers." [1] It has been suggested that celebrities "remain conscious of maintaining a public persona when they are in the public eye as opposed to a personal one in private" and "negotiate with the press to release staged private life photos." [1] Jens Heffman argues that 'Celebrity attempts to sacrifice their privacy for publicity may result in a loss of legal protections, as celebrities claiming that an invasion of privacy by the press could be seen as using media to achieve or maintain fame.' [5] The latter argument was used in a court decision on a stolen sex tape that featured American actress Pamela Anderson Lee and her then-boyfriend Bret Michaels. [6] Lee has sued Internet Entertainment Group (IEG) and Paramount for broadcasting a story in 1998 that contained excerpts from the tape; however, the court considered her voluntarily sacrificing her privacy in hopes of publicizing herself. [6] Scholar Seong Hong has stated Lee's privacy right was not protected because of her celebrity identity. [3]

Intrusion by paparazzi and fans

Paparazzi

Diana, Princess of Wales PRINCESS DIANA longing (c) copyright 2010 (5113084540).jpg
Diana, Princess of Wales

Celebrities' pictures are taken and sold to the press for financial purposes by freelance photographers known by the term "paparazzi." [1] Some techniques which the term paparazzi use include stalking, [5] [6] which could cause turbulence to the lives of celebrities if approached aggressively. The method of stalking is harmful according to past events, as it has led to injury or death of the star. [5] The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has been cited as an example of the risks of paparazzi techniques. [5] On the other hand, scholar Elizabeth Hindman claims that the sale of exaggerated content without context to sensationalize particular moments has decreased credibility in the news industry. [1] [6]

Ray Murray argues that "some paparazzi will draw an ethical line" by following specific rules. In a series of paparazzi interviews, most participants claimed they would not break the law. Some attested that they would not take any photo of celebrity children without consent." [7] Scholar Andrew Mendelson has argued that "Paparazzi are valuable in that they reveal potential mismatches between the public image and the reality of celebrities who possess great power in contemporary society, which legitimizes the paparazzi's invasion of celebrity privacy as a form of watchdog journalism." [8]

Anne Jerslev and Mette Mendelson have noted that the paparazzi have become integrated into mainstream culture, and their photographs are distributed widely and quickly by consumers. [6]

Fans

Scholar Kinta Hung suggests that the "dual entertainment path model" shows that fans and non-fans use different ways to engage with their favourite celebrities. [8] As for those who are not fans, they pay attention to celebrities and the released news to escape from boredom. For fans, they put a much higher emotional investment into creating an individual "bond" with stars, which gives them pleasure and a sense of satisfaction. [8] Fans try to become physically and mentally closer to their idols by attending concerts, movies, and fan meetings. The term stalking also exists with fans, as in extreme circumstances, fans may be obsessed with their celebrities and invade the celebrities' privacy. [8] Scholar Jens Hoffman has argued that this results from a pathological fixation. Fans exhibiting this can believe there is a special connection between their favourite celebrities and themselves, even though such a relationship does not exist. [7] Once unsatisfied, this fixation can lead fans to invade celebrity privacy out of disappointment and resentment. [7]

These extreme fans are known as "Sasaeng fan," which means "private life fan" in English according to South Korean Culture. [9] According to a study by William Patrick and Samantha Xiang, Sasaeng fans are typically teenage girls between 13–22 years old. Their common stalking behaviours include installing hidden cameras in idols' homes, chasing idols' cars at high speed, and stealing personal things from idols' rooms. [10] Some actions done by sasaeng fans, such as poisoning members of a disliked K-POP idols or using bodily fluids to write letters to the object of their affection, are not advocated in South Korea. [10]

Celebrity children

Celebrities' private lives have been a primary interest of the public; this prompted paparazzi to catch specific and trivial details of celebrities' daily lives, not excluding their children. [9] Often fame and private lifestyles of celebrities are posted by the paparazzi. These images can be either authorized or unauthorized. [9] Seong Hong claims that due to celebrity children's photos circulation, the media leads the public to establish a pseudo-relationship with them and imagine them as "our children." [11] This public imagination, combined with the potentially constant presence of paparazzi, has been seen as having the potential to threaten the privacy of celebrity children. [9]

Effects

Lidia Maropo and Ana Jorge argue that celebrity children usually appear in newspapers and magazines with their families. Moments like celebrity children playing in the park or having a picnic with the whole family are posted on media, reflecting the importance of children in the family and advocating for a more harmonious family relationship. [9] Celebrity children's photos can also suggest a pleasant experience and a sense of satisfaction with being a parent. [9] The circulation of celebrity children's images attracts the public to focus on Family Relationships. It highlights the happiness brought by children and the responsibility of parents. [9]

The exposure of celebrity children to the public can result in the invasion of their Privacy rights. For example, the 20-month-old son of aviator Charles A. Lindbergh, who became a national celebrity after he created records for flying from the U.S. to France in 1927, was kidnapped and murdered in 1932. After this tragedy, Jon, Lindbergh's second son, was chased continuously by the paparazzi's cars. Lindbergh decided not to raise legal appeals but to move outside of the U.S. with his family to protect Jon. [11] Additionally, some celebrities send photos of their children to the media to prevent paparazzi from continuing to disrupt their private lives: American film celebrities David Arquette and Courteney Cox released the image of their daughter Coco to the press, to prevent themselves from being chased by paparazzi. [11]

The United Nations

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was permitted in 1989 as human rights started to gain more attention globally. [9] This treaty deals with the most fundamental issue between children and the media, such as free expression, non-discrimination and respect. Article 16, in particular, set that children have the right to protect themselves when encountering illegal interference of privacy or attacks on reputation. [9] All the UN countries, except the U.S. and Somalia, approved and signed this treaty.

United States

Seong Hong argues that in the United States, celebrity children's privacy is rarely protected by U.S. law. [1] The legal protection of celebrity children is too narrow, which might counteract the First Amendment, which emphasizes the "free press" to encourage democratic voices. [1] However, as the California Anti-Paparazzi Act was introduced, some celebrities suggested the state government should focus more on celebrity children. Actress Halle Berry hoped the law could restrict paparazzi from approaching celebrity children, including its effects on her children. [1] Scholar Joshua Azriel suggests that there should be a total ban on the photos of celebrity children with more substantial punishment. [10]

Brazil

In Brazil, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA in the Portuguese acronym) directly and indirectly addressed the relationship between children and media. [9] ECA grants children fundamental civil and human rights, including free expression and the right to image, ideas, identity, etc. Article 18, in particular, emphasizes that everyone has the responsibility to protect children's dignity and save them from any violent or terrifying situation. [9] Besides, Article 74–80 covers children from harmful public media, such as violent television shows. [9]

Portugal

In Portugal, the Law for Protection of Children and Youth at Risk (LPCJP in the Portuguese acronym) protects children from media that bring risky elements, such as violence or inhumanity. Besides, The Young Offenders’ Law prohibits media from identifying youngsters from 12–16 who commit illegal actions. [9]

Global Celebrity Privacy Laws

United States

California "Anti-Paparazzi" Law

In August 1997, Princess Diana died in a car accident in France which was suspected to be caused by seven paparazzi. Although the judge clarified later that the drunk driver rather than the paparazzi caused the accident, the California government was aware of the danger brought by paparazzi and thus quickly set the first anti-paparazzi law. [12]

In 1998, California set the "invasion of privacy statute," which prohibited using digital devices to take photos of celebrities on private occasions. However, this statute is criticized by opponents who believe it might inhibit the freedom of the press to gather news. Also, the language used needed to be more broad and specific. Some media attorneys described the statute as a "Pandora's box" that brought a large number of severe problems. [12]

The First Amendment of the "invasion of privacy statute" was passed in 2005, which regulated the profits from photos taken during altercations between celebrities and photographers will be forfeited. The fine was imposed in 2005 by the California legislature on making a profit from any picture in which paparazzi assaulted a celebrity and expanding the 1708.8 civil code. [2] In 2009, another new law A.B 524, stated that California would charge up to $50,000 penalties from the first publishers of the photos taken in ways that violate the privacy statute. This law aimed to stop the paparazzi who take private photos of celebrities for profit-gaining reasons. However, scholars Christina Locke and Kara Murrhee claim that the law is ineffective because the first publishers of celebrity photos can usually make over a million dollars. Furthermore, A.B 524 seemly contradicts the Supreme Court again for prohibiting the press from gaining news legally. [12]

Due to confrontations between celebrities and paparazzi still occurring and even worsening, in January 2010, another anti-paparazzi law, A.B 2479, was passed. It was to address two main problems: the paparazzi’s car-chasing, which often leads to accidents and their behaviours that prevent the celebrities from moving freely. A.B 2479 further established financial and criminal penalties for people who result in reckless driving because of the intention to gain photos or recordings of other people for commercial purposes. The fine will be between $145 and $1,000, and the term of imprisonment will be between 5–90 days. [2] If any child is inside the car during reckless driving, the fine will be up to $5,000, and the term of imprisonment will be up to one year. Also, to curb the paparazzi from encompassing the celebrities and thus prevent them from moving freely, the law counts this behaviour as false imprisonment that allows for extra damages. [12] In 2015, the state appealed the superior court of Los Angeles to arrest the paparazzi for breaking California vehicle code section 40008 in which paparazzi endangered the motorist and chased the celebrity in high-speed car to take a picture. [2]

Debate

The supporters of A.B 2479 were The City of Los Angeles, the Screen Actors Guild and the Paparazzi Reform Initiative. Aggressive behaviours of paparazzi, such as parking their cars to block the celebrities' cars or crowding the stars in public spaces, have seriously disrupted celebrities' private lives. On the other hand, California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) opposed the bill since it undermines the activity of the press to gather news freely. Also, CNPA argued that the penalties for reckless driving targeted at journalists are unfair. Christina Locke and Kara Murrhee state that A.B. 2479 has made significant changes regarding focus. However, the conflict between the California anti-paparazzi law and the Constitution's First Amendment still exists. [12]

"Anti-Paparazzi law" vs. The First Amendment

Keith Willis claims that in the U.S legal system, the conflict between the right to privacy and the right to free expression exists. [13] [3] Many state bills, such as California's anti-paparazzi law, are set to protect celebrity privacy, while the First Amendment of Constitution ensures the press's freedom to express and gather information. [12] [3] In history, the balance of these two forces has been uncertain—sometimes the celebrities’ privacy requests outweigh the freedoms of press and expression, while other times the First Amendment is prioritized over celebrities who claim to be disrupted by the open press. [12]

United Kingdom

Britain set laws to restrict press reporting earlier than many other countries to prevent the royal family from being disrupted by the media. [1] Also, institutions like the European Convention on Human Rights and the British Law Commission have been submitting proposals to protect individual privacy. [1] After the death of Princess Diana in 1997, the Press Complaints Commission, a self-regulating organization of British media, proposed a series of regulations to prevent similar accidents. [1] The proposals include banning paparazzi photos taken through continuous pursuit, expanding the definition of private property, strengthening the protection for celebrity children, and preventing media collective harassment. [1]

France

According to Jamie Nordhaus, Although the French government set strong laws to prevent paparazzi from invading celebrity privacy, these laws counteract each other. They, thus, are not efficient enough to protect celebrities and their children. [1] The government prohibits paparazzi from publishing any photo that is not consented to by the subjects but allows them to post pictures in public places. [1] According to the New York Times, "France has such strict press privacy laws that editors usually print a black band across the faces of subjects who have not given permission for their pictures to be published." Besides, the high profits resulting from publishing exclusive celebrity photos in France significantly exceed the $32,000 fine, which encourages French paparazzi to take risks. [1]

New Zealand

Like the U.S., Seong Hung claims privacy laws rarely protect celebrities and their children in New Zealand. [11] In 2004, Mr. Hosking, a well-known television celebrity in New Zealand, sued Pacific Magazine for taking and publishing the photos of his children. Still, the Court of Appeal ruled against Mr. Hosking by stating that the photographs did not invade his privacy right because they were taken in public spaces [11]

Spain

The threat to private life due to expansion in technology and photography was noted in 1890 by Warren and Brandies, lawyers from Boston. [14] After more than one century, the ways of finding information about someone's private life have increased, easily violating the right to privacy. The government has imposed legal regulations considering the right to privacy for revealing someone's personal information to others, spreading through social media, allowing others to have access to someone's details and allowing others to distribute and expose the data. [14] In Article 198 of the Spanish penal code, the civil government has analyzed the new code to the right to punishable privacy offences: taking someone's paper, letters, electronic messages, and belongings or intercepting communication in someone's personal space and exposing or spreading obtained information. [14] The punishment for these offences will be greater if the person is an authority and civil servant. [14]

Other laws regarding celebrity privacy

Right of publicity

United States

The right of publicity, also called personality rights, aims to control and protect the unauthorized commercial use of people's identities, such as names, photos, or likenesses. [13] Based on the right to privacy, the right of publicity is relatively new in the U.S. and was first recognized in the 1953 Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum case. Supreme Court later analyzed it in the 1977 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. case. [13] The right to publicity is significant due to the trend of "everyone can be famous on the Internet for 15 minutes"; the right to publicity becomes increasingly relevant and vital protection. [15] This right is closely related to celebrity privacy because it protects celebrities from paparazzi or individuals who take their names and images for commercial use. Currently, no federal law in the U.S. protects celebrities' right to publicity. However, states like California have established statutes and common law to protect celebrity citizens. [16] Keith Willis argues that publicity rights controversies often happen on celebrity product endorsement issues. [13]

Canada

According to Ellen Whitehorn, the Canadian government protects the right to publicity. However, the extent of the scope is still uncertain. The Courts protect individuals’ gain from self-marketing, including name, images and personality, when violated. [15] Similar to the U.S., the right of publicity laws mainly concentrate on different provinces. For example, Ontario has specific common laws which prevent personality rights from being violated commercially. [15] However, while the right to publicity in the U.S. originates from the right to privacy, the personality right in Canada stems from the Unfair competition law. [15]

United Kingdom

Ellen Whitehorn claims that The United Kingdom currently does not have a specific legal statute to protect the right of publicity because, in history, U.K has been inclined to offer more protection for free speech and thus less focus on celebrity and their publicity rights. [15] However, the U.K government still protects the right of publicity through other torts, such as some claims in the British Human Rights Act, violation of copyright, or misuse of private information. [15]

Copyright is also closely related to celebrity privacy. In the U.S., Congress enacts copyright law based on Article 1(8)8 of the Constitution, which suggests that authors have the exclusive right to their work for a limited period. [16] The original work protected by copyright laws includes literary, artistic, musical, dramatic, etc. [16] Since the producers of the original work are artists, musicians, or well-known authors, they are likely to be involved in copyright lawsuits. This could affect their privacy rights. Scholar O'Neill Eaton suggests that sometimes the press fights for the copyright of paparazzi photos to make most of the profits from exclusive celebrity images. In 2006, the famous U.S. celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton was sued by paparazzi agency X17 because he posted photos taken by X17 onto his website without permission. [16] Perez has denied violating copyright laws, stating that his work falls under fair use, as he uses the material for humour and satire. The Court's final decision was that Perez's use of the paparazzi photos violated copyright laws, as Perez gained huge profits from publishing the paparazzi photos. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

Entertainment law, also referred to as media law, is legal services provided to the entertainment industry. These services in entertainment law overlap with intellectual property law. Intellectual property has many moving parts that include trademarks, copyright, and the "right of publicity". However, the practice of entertainment law often involves questions of employment law, contract law, torts, labor law, bankruptcy law, immigration, securities law, security interests, agency, right of privacy, defamation, advertising, criminal law, tax law, International law, and insurance law.

Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paparazzi</span> Photographers who take candid pictures of celebrities

Paparazzi are independent photographers who take pictures of high-profile people; such as actors, musicians, athletes, politicians, and other celebrities, typically while subjects go about their usual life routines. Paparazzi tend to make a living by selling their photographs to media outlets that focus on tabloid journalism and sensationalism.

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals. Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy. On 10 December 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere; while right to privacy does not appear in the document, many interpret this through Article 12, which states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Street photography</span> Photography genre

Street photography is photography conducted for art or inquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents within public places, usually with the aim of capturing images at a decisive or poignant moment by careful framing and timing. Although there is a difference between street and candid photography, it is usually subtle with most street photography being candid in nature and some candid photography being classifiable as street photography. Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

A gag order is an order, typically a legal order by a court or government, restricting information or comment from being made public or passed onto any unauthorized third party. The phrase may sometimes be used of a private order by an employer or other institution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy laws of the United States</span>

Privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into their private affairs, discloses their private information, publicizes them in a false light, or appropriates their name for personal gain.

Celebrity photography is a subset of photojournalism where the subjects are celebrities in the arts, sports and sometimes politics. There are three main types of celebrity photographs used by magazines and newspapers: event photography, celebrity portraiture, and paparazzi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secret photography</span> Imaging or videoing an unaware subject

Secret photography is the use of an image or video recording device to photograph or film a person who is unaware that they are being intentionally photographed or filmed. It is sometimes called covert photography.

<i>Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co Ltd</i>

Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co Ltd (1998), 39 OR 555, is a Canadian case on appropriation of personality, the ownership of copyright, and requirements of fixation.

In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right," the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Film still</span> Photograph taken during production of a movie or television

A film still is a photograph, taken on or off the set of a movie or television program during production. These photographs are also taken in formal studio settings and venues of opportunity such as film stars' homes, film debut events, and commercial settings. The photos were taken by studio photographers for promotional purposes. Such stills consisted of posed portraits, used for public display or free fan handouts, which are sometimes autographed. They can also consist of posed or candid images taken on the set during production, and may include stars, crew members or directors at work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal issues with fan fiction</span>

Fanfiction has encountered problems with intellectual property law due to usage of copyrighted characters without the original creator or copyright owner's consent.

The Celebrities Rights Act or Celebrity Rights Act was passed in California in 1985, which enabled a celebrity's personality rights to survive his or her death. Previously, the 1979 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures decision by the California Supreme Court held that Bela Lugosi's personality rights could not pass to his heirs, as a copyright would have. The court ruled that any rights of publicity, and rights to his image, terminated with Lugosi's death.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Imagery of nude celebrities</span> Topic of visual depiction of nude celebrities

There has been demand for imagery of nude celebrities for many decades. It is a lucrative business exploited by websites and magazines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Photography and the law</span> Legal status of photography, including intellectual property and privacy laws

The intellectual property rights on photographs are protected in different jurisdictions by the laws governing copyright and moral rights. In some cases photography may be restricted by civil or criminal law. Publishing certain photographs can be restricted by privacy or other laws. Photography can be generally restricted in the interests of public morality and the protection of children.

<i>PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd</i>

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 is a UK constitutional law case in which an anonymised privacy injunction was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people. Media outside England and Wales identified PJS as David Furnish.

Post-mortem privacy is a person's ability to control the dissemination of personal information after death. An individual's reputation and dignity after death is also subject to post-mortem privacy protections. In the US, no federal laws specifically extend post-mortem privacy protection. At the state level, privacy laws pertaining to the deceased vary significantly, but in general do not extend any clear rights of privacy beyond property rights. The relative lack of acknowledgment of post-mortem privacy rights has sparked controversy, as rapid technological advancements have resulted in increased amounts of personal information stored and shared online.

Privacy and the United States government consists of enacted legislation, funding of regulatory agencies, enforcement of court precedents, creation of congressional committees, evaluation of judicial decisions, and implementation of executive orders in response to major court cases and technological change. Because the United States government is composed of three distinct branches governed by both the separation of powers and checks and balances, the change in privacy practice can be separated relative to the actions performed by the three branches.

Digital cloning is an emerging technology, that involves deep-learning algorithms, which allows one to manipulate currently existing audio, photos, and videos that are hyper-realistic. One of the impacts of such technology is that hyper-realistic videos and photos makes it difficult for the human eye to distinguish what is real and what is fake. Furthermore, with various companies making such technologies available to the public, they can bring various benefits as well as potential legal and ethical concerns.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Nordhaus, Jamie. "Celebrities' Rights to Privacy: How Far Should the Paparazzi Be Allowed to Go?". Review of Litigation. 18: 285–231. Archived from the original on 29 June 2013.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Azriel, Joshua (4 October 2016). "Reining in the California Paparazzi: An Analysis of the California Legislature's Attempts to Safeguard Celebrity Privacy". California Journal of Politics and Policy. 8 (4). doi: 10.5070/p2cjpp8432756 . ISSN   1944-4370.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Privacy, Technology, and the California "Anti-Paparazzi" Statute". Harvard Law Review. 112 (6): 1367–1384. 1999. doi:10.2307/1342388. JSTOR   1342388.
  4. ↑ McNamara, Kim (1 February 2009). "Publicising private lives: celebrities, image control and the reconfiguration of public space". Social & Cultural Geography. 10 (1): 9–23. doi:10.1080/14649360802553178. ISSN   1464-9365. S2CID   143004039.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Hindman, Elizabeth Blanks (1 September 2003). "The Princess and the Paparazzi: Blame, Responsibility, and the Media's Role in the Death of Diana". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 80 (3): 666–688. doi:10.1177/107769900308000311. ISSN   1077-6990. S2CID   144989347.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Mortensen, Mette; Jerslev, Anne (30 September 2013). "Taking the extra out of the extraordinary: Paparazzi photography as an online celebrity news genre" (PDF). International Journal of Cultural Studies. 17 (6): 619–636. doi:10.1177/1367877913503425. ISSN   1367-8779. S2CID   19704858.
  7. 1 2 3 Hoffmann, Jens (3 July 2009). "Public Figures and Stalking in the European Context". European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 15 (3): 293–305. doi:10.1007/s10610-009-9104-0. ISSN   0928-1371. S2CID   73544756.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Hung, Kineta (3 April 2014). "Why Celebrity Sells: A Dual Entertainment Path Model of Brand Endorsement". Journal of Advertising. 43 (2): 155–166. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.838720. ISSN   0091-3367. S2CID   145663411.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Marôpo, Lidia; Jorge, Ana (1 November 2014). "At the heart of celebrity: celebrities' children and their rights in the media". Communication & Society. 27 (4): 17–31. doi: 10.15581/003.27.4.17-32 . hdl: 10171/37908 . ISSN   2386-7876.
  10. 1 2 3 Berkowitz, Dayna. "Stop the 'Nazzi': Why the United States Needs a Full Ban on Paparazzi Photographs of Children of Celebrities". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 37: 175–206.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Hong, Seong; Hong, Seong Choul (7 April 2016). "Kids Sell: Celebrity Kids' Right to Privacy". Laws. 5 (2): 18. doi: 10.3390/laws5020018 .
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M., Locke, Christina; Carnley, Murrhee, Kara. "Is Driving with the Intent to Gather News a Crime? The Chilling Effects of California's Anti-Paparazzi Legislation". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 31 (2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. 1 2 3 4 Willis, Keith.D. "Paparazzi, Tabloids, and the New Hollywood Press: Can Celebrities Claim a Defensible Publicity Right in Order to Prevent the Media from Following their Every Move?". Texas Review of Entertainment and Sports Law. 9: 175–202.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Bueno, Manuela; Luisa Cárdenas, María; Esquivias, Lola (August 2007). "The Rise of the Gossip Press in Spain". Journalism Studies. 8 (4): 621–633. doi:10.1080/14616700701412100. ISSN   1461-670X. S2CID   146514743.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Whitehorn, Ellen.E. "Publicity, Privacy, and Fame: A Comparative Analysis of the Right of Publicity in the United States, Canada, and the U.K., Through the Lens of Kanye West's 'Famous'". Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems. 27: 201–221.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 Eaton, O'Neill. "Paparazzi/Blogger Face-Off: Opportunity Knocking for A Fair Use Limit?". Cardozo Arts&Entertainment Law Journal. 26: 535–558.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.