Some national and state governments set up privacy laws particularly to protect celebrity privacy and their family members. 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. Celebrity privacy as a controlled publicity Celebrities are often controlled by the public exposure they received and the needs of maintaining positive professional images. This caused their private lives to be controlled by the public. According to Jamie Nordhaus "The boundaries of privacy and publicity for celebrities can become blurred, as they most are always watched by fans, paparazzi, and other potential stalkers." 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". 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 utilizing media in order to achieve or maintain fame'. 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. 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 as voluntarily sacrificing her privacy in order to publicize herself. Scholar Seong Hong has stated Lee's privacy right was not protected because of her celebrity identity. Intrusion by paparazzi and fans Paparazzi Diana, Princess of Wales Celebrities' pictures are taken and sold to press for financial purposes by freelance photographers known by the term “paparazzi” . " Some techniques which are used by the term paparazzi include stalking which could cause turbulence to lives of celebrities if approached aggressively. The technique stalking is harmful according to past events as it has led to injury or death of the celebrity. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has been cited as an example of the risks of paparazzi techniques. 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. Ray Murray argues that "some paparazzi will “draw an ethical line ” by abiding by specific rules and in a series of paparazzi interviews, most of the participants claimed that they would not break the law, and some attested that they would not take any photo of celebrity children without consent". 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". Fans Scholar Kinta Hung suggests the “ dual entertainment path model" shows that fans and non-fans adopt different ways to engage with their favorite celebrities For non-fans, they pay attention to celebrities and the released news to escape from boredom. For fans, they put a much higher emotional investment in order to create an individual “bond” with celebrities, which gives them pleasure and a sense of satisfaction. 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. Scholar Jens Hoffman has argued that this is a result of a pathological fixation. As fans exhibiting this can believe that there is a special connection between their favorite celebrities and themselves, even though such a relationship does not exist in reality. Once unsatisfied, this fixation can lead fans to invade celebrity privacy out of disappointment and resentment. Celebrity children Celebrities' private lives has been a main interest of the public, this prompted paparazzi to catch specific and trivial details of celebrities' daily lives, not excluding their children. Often fame and private lifestyles of celebrities are posted by Paparazzi. These images can be either authorized or unauthorized, Seong Hong claims that due to the circulation of celebrity children photos, the media leads the public to establish a pseudo-relationship with celebrity children and imagine them as “our children” . 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. Effects Lidia Maropo and Ana Jorge argue that celebrity children usually appear on newspapers and magazines together with their families: moments like celebrity children playing the park, having a picnic with the whole families or just hanging out with their parents are posted on media, which reflects the importance of children in the family and advocates for a more harmonious family relationship. The celebrity children photos can also suggest a pleasant experience and a sense of satisfaction of being a parent. The circulation of celebrity children images attracts the public to focus on the family relationship and highlights the happiness brought by children and the responsibility of parents. 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 paparazzi ’ s cars. To protect Jon, Lindbergh finally decided not to raise legal appealing but to move outside of the U.S with his family. Additionally, some celebrities send photos of their children to media in order to prevent paparazzi from continuing disrupting their private lives: American film celebrities David Arquette and Courteney Cox released the photo of their daughter Coco to the press, preventing themselves from being chased by paparazzi. United States Seong Hong argues that in the United States, the celebrity children privacy has been rarely protected by U.S law currently. The main reason is that the legal protection of celebrity children is too narrow and it might counteract with the First Amendment, which emphasizes “free press” to encourage democratic voices. However, as the California Anti-Paparazzi Act was introduced, some celebrities suggested the state government to put more focus on celebrity children: actress Halle Berry hoped that the law could restrict paparazzi from approaching celebrity children since her children were afraid of going to school and trips due to the stalking of paparazzi. Scholar Joshua Azriel suggests that there should be a full ban on the photos of celebrity children with stronger punishment. Brazil In Brazil, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA in Portuguese acronym) both directly and indirectly addressed the relationship between children and media. ECA grants the fundamental civil and human rights to children, including free expression and the right of image, idea and identity, etc. Article 18, in particular, emphasizes that everyone has the responsibility to protect the dignity of children and to save them from any violent or terrifying situation. Besides, Article 74-80 provides children with legal protection to harmful public media, such as violent television show. Portugal In Portugal, the Law for Protection of Children and Youth at Risk (LPCJP in Portuguese acronym) protects children from media that brings risky elements, such as violence or inhumanity. Besides, The Young Offenders’ Law prohibits media from identifying youngsters from 12-16 who commit illegal actions. Global celebrity privacy laws United States California “ Anti-Paparazzi ” Law In August 1997, Princess Diana died from 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 paparazzi caused the accident, California government was aware of the danger brought by paparazzi and thus quickly set the first anti-paparazzi law. In 1998, California set the “ invasion of privacy statute ” , which prohibited the use of 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 was considered too broad and vague. Some media attorneys described the statute as a “ Pandora’s box ” that brought a large number of severe problems. The First Amendment of the “ invasion of privacy statute ” was passed in 2005, which regulated that the profits from photos taken during altercations between celebrities and photographers will be forfeited. The fine was imposed in 2005 by California legislature on making profit from any picture in which paparazzi assaulting celebrity and expanding 1708.8 civil code. In 2009, another new law A.B 524 stated that up to $50,000 penalties would be charged from the first publishers of the photos taken in the ways that violate the privacy statute. This law aimed to stop the paparazzi who take private photos of celebrities for profit-gaining reasons. However, scholar Christina Locke and Kara Murrhee claims that the law is not effective 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 to gain news legally. "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. 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. 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. The right of publicity, also called personality rights, aims to control and protect the unauthorized commercial use of people ’ s identity, such as name, photos, or likeness. Based on the right of privacy, the right of publicity is relatively new in the U.S—it was first recognized in the 1953 Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum case, and was later analyzed by Supreme Court in the 1977 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.case. The right of publicity is significant because with the advent of a new media age when “ everyone can be famous on the Internet for 15 minutes ” , the right of publicity becomes increasingly relevant and vital protection. This right is closely related to celebrity privacy because most of the time, it is used to protect celebrities from paparazzi or individuals who take the celebrities’ names and images for commercial use. Currently no federal law in the U.S protects celebrities’ right of publicity, however states like California have established statutes and common law to protect their celebrity citizens. Keith Willis argues that the publicity right controversies often happen on celebrity product endorsement issues. Canada According to Ellen Whitehorn, Canada government protects the right of publicity, but the extent of the scope is still uncertain. The Courts protect individuals’ gaining from self-marketing, including name, images and personality, when it is violated. Similar to the U.S, the right of publicity laws mostly concentrate on different provinces: for example, Ontario has specific common laws which prevent the personality rights from being violated commercially. However, while the right of publicity in the U.S originates from the right to privacy, the personality right in Canada stems from unfair competition law. Copyright Copyright is also closely related to celebrity privacy. In the U.S, the Congress enacts copyright law based on Article 1(8)8 of the Constitution, which suggest that authors have the exclusive right to their work in a limited period. The original work protected by copyright laws includes literacy work, artistic work, musical work, and dramatic work etc. Since the producers of the original work are artists, musicians, or authors who are well-known, they are likely to be involved in copyright lawsuits, which could affect their rights of privacy. 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 own website without permission. Perez has denied violated copyright laws, stating that his work falls under fair use, as he uses the material for humor and satire. The Court final decision was that Perez ’ s use of the paparazzi photos violated the copyright laws, as Perez gained huge profits from publishing the paparazzi photos.
Some national and state governments set up privacy laws particularly to protect celebrity privacy and their family members. 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. Celebrity privacy as a controlled publicity Celebrities are often controlled by the public exposure they received and the needs of maintaining positive professional images. This caused their private lives to be controlled by the public. According to Jamie Nordhaus "The boundaries of privacy and publicity for celebrities can become blurred, as they most are always watched by fans, paparazzi, and other potential stalkers." 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". 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'. 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. 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 as voluntarily sacrificing her privacy to publicize herself. Scholar Seong Hong has stated Lee's privacy right was not protected because of her celebrity identity. Intrusion by paparazzi and fans Paparazzi Diana, Princess of Wales Celebrities' pictures are taken and sold to press for financial purposes by freelance photographers known by the term "paparazzi" . " Some techniques which are used by the term paparazzi include stalking which could cause turbulence to lives of celebrities if approached aggressively. The technique stalking is harmful according to past events as it has led to injury or death of the celebrity. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has been cited as an example of the risks of paparazzi techniques. 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. Ray Murray argues that "some paparazzi will “draw an ethical line " by abiding by specific rules and in a series of paparazzi interviews, most of the participants claimed that they would not break the law, and some attested that they would not take any photo of celebrity children without consent". 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". Fans Scholar Kinta Hung suggests the " dual entertainment path model" shows that fans and non-fans adopt different ways to engage with their favorite celebrities For non-fans, they pay attention to celebrities and the released news to escape from boredom. For fans, they put a much higher emotional investment to create an individual "bond" with celebrities, which gives them pleasure and a sense of satisfaction. 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. Scholar Jens Hoffman has argued that this is a result of a pathological fixation. As fans exhibiting this can believe that there is a special connection between their favorite celebrities and themselves, even though such a relationship does not exist in reality. Once unsatisfied, this fixation can lead fans to invade celebrity privacy out of disappointment and resentment. Celebrity children Celebrities' private lives has been a main interest of the public, this prompted paparazzi to catch specific and trivial details of celebrities' daily lives, not excluding their children. Often fame and private lifestyles of celebrities are posted by Paparazzi. These images can be either authorized or unauthorized, Seong Hong claims that due to the circulation of celebrity children photos, the media leads the public to establish a pseudo-relationship with celebrity children and imagine them as "our children" . 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. Effects Lidia Maropo and Ana Jorge argue that celebrity children usually appear on newspapers and magazines together with their families: moments like celebrity children playing the park, having a picnic with the whole families or just hanging out with their parents are posted on media, which reflects the importance of children in the family and advocates for a more harmonious family relationship. The celebrity children photos can also suggest a pleasant experience and a sense of satisfaction of being a parent. The circulation of celebrity children images attracts the public to focus on the Family Relationship and highlights the happiness brought by children and the responsibility of parents. 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 paparazzi ' s cars. To protect Jon, Lindbergh finally decided not to raise legal appealing but to move outside of the U.S with his family. Additionally, some celebrities send photos of their children to media to prevent paparazzi from continuing disrupting their private lives: American film celebrities David Arquette and Courteney Cox released the photo of their daughter Coco to the press, preventing themselves from being chased by paparazzi. United States Seong Hong argues that in the United States, the celebrity children privacy has been rarely protected by U.S law currently. The main reason is that the legal protection of celebrity children is too narrow and it might counteract with the First Amendment, which emphasizes "free press" to encourage democratic voices. However, as the California Anti-Paparazzi Act was introduced, some celebrities suggested the state government to put more focus on celebrity children: actress Halle Berry hoped that the law could restrict paparazzi from approaching celebrity children since her children were afraid of going to school and trips due to the stalking of paparazzi. Scholar Joshua Azriel suggests that there should be a full ban on the photos of celebrity children with stronger punishment. Brazil In Brazil, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA in Portuguese acronym) both directly and indirectly addressed the relationship between children and media. ECA grants the fundamental civil and human rights to children, including free expression and the right of image, idea and identity, etc. Article 18, in particular, emphasizes that everyone has the responsibility to protect the dignity of children and to save them from any violent or terrifying situation. Besides, Article 74–80 provides children with legal protection to harmful public media, such as violent television show. Portugal In Portugal, the Law for Protection of Children and Youth at Risk (LPCJP in Portuguese acronym) protects children from media that brings risky elements, such as violence or inhumanity. Besides, The Young Offenders’ Law prohibits media from identifying youngsters from 12–16 who commit illegal actions. Global celebrity privacy laws United States California " Anti-Paparazzi " Law In August 1997, Princess Diana died from 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 paparazzi caused the accident, California government was aware of the danger brought by paparazzi and thus quickly set the first anti-paparazzi law. In 1998, California set the " invasion of privacy statute " , which prohibited the use of 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 was considered too broad and vague. Some media attorneys described the statute as a " Pandora’s box " that brought a large number of severe problems. The First Amendment of the " invasion of privacy statute " was passed in 2005, which regulated that the profits from photos taken during altercations between celebrities and photographers will be forfeited. The fine was imposed in 2005 by California legislature on making profit from any picture in which paparazzi assaulting celebrity and expanding 1708.8 civil code. In 2009, another new law A.B 524 stated that up to $50,000 penalties would be charged from the first publishers of the photos taken in the ways that violate the privacy statute. This law aimed to stop the paparazzi who take private photos of celebrities for profit-gaining reasons. However, scholar Christina Locke and Kara Murrhee claims that the law is not effective 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 to gain news legally. "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. 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. 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. The right of publicity, also called personality rights, aims to control and protect the unauthorized commercial use of people ' s identity, such as name, photos, or likeness. Based on the right of privacy, the right of publicity is relatively new in the U.S—it was first recognized in the 1953 Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum case, and was later analyzed by Supreme Court in the 1977 Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.case. The right of publicity is significant because with the advent of a new media age when " everyone can be famous on the Internet for 15 minutes " , the right of publicity becomes increasingly relevant and vital protection. This right is closely related to celebrity privacy because most of the time, it is used to protect celebrities from paparazzi or individuals who take the celebrities’ names and images for commercial use. Currently no federal law in the U.S protects celebrities’ right of publicity, however states like California have established statutes and common law to protect their celebrity citizens. Keith Willis argues that the publicity right controversies often happen on celebrity product endorsement issues. Canada According to Ellen Whitehorn, Canada government protects the right of publicity, but the extent of the scope is still uncertain. The Courts protect individuals’ gaining from self-marketing, including name, images and personality, when it is violated. Similar to the U.S, the right of publicity laws mostly concentrate on different provinces: for example, Ontario has specific common laws which prevent the personality rights from being violated commercially. However, while the right of publicity in the U.S originates from the right to privacy, the personality right in Canada stems from Unfair competition law. Copyright Copyright is also closely related to celebrity privacy. In the U.S, the Congress enacts copyright law based on Article 1(8)8 of the Constitution, which suggest that authors have the exclusive right to their work in a limited period. The original work protected by copyright laws includes literacy work, artistic work, musical work, and dramatic work etc. Since the producers of the original work are artists, musicians, or authors who are well-known, they are likely to be involved in copyright lawsuits, which could affect their rights of privacy. 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 own website without permission. Perez has denied violated copyright laws, stating that his work falls under fair use, as he uses the material for humor and satire. The Court final decision was that Perez ' s use of the paparazzi photos violated the copyright laws, as Perez gained huge profits from publishing the paparazzi photos.
R
“free press”
"free press"
R
utilizing media in order
using media
D
in order
R
“paparazzi”
"paparazzi"
R
”
"
R
“
"
D
in order
R
“bond”
"bond"
R
“our children”
"our children"
R
family relationship
Family Relationship
R
privacy
Privacy
R
’
'
R
’
'
D
in order
R
“free press”
"free press"
R
74-80
74–80
R
12-16
12–16
R
“
"
R
”
"
R
“
"
R
”
"
R
“
"
R
”
"
R
“
"
R
”
"
R
’
'
R
’
'
R
’
'
R
“
"
R
”
"
R
unfair
Unfair
R
’
'