Celebrity privacy

[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.

'[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.

[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.

"[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] 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[10] In Brazil, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA in the Portuguese acronym) directly and indirectly addressed the relationship between children and media.

[12] In 1998, California set the "invasion of privacy statute," which prohibited using digital devices to take photos of celebrities on private occasions.

[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.

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.

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.

On the other hand, California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) opposed the bill since it undermines the activity of the press to gather news freely.

[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] 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] 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.

[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] The threat to private life due to expansion in technology and photography was noted in 1890 by Warren and Brandies, lawyers from Boston.

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.

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.