In the age of social media, the issue of who owns a photograph has become increasingly relevant, particularly when it comes to photographs of celebrities. Many celebrities have assumed that they own pictures taken of them. That false assumption has proved costly in some cases. Under U.S. copyright law, the person who “authored” a work is the copyright owner. This means that the photographer, not the celebrity whose picture is taken, owns the rights to the image.
The Copyright Act grants creators (i.e., “authors”) several exclusive rights, including the right to use, reproduce, distribute, display or perform, prepare derivative works, sell and license the work. Anyone else who wants to use the photo must get permission from the rights holder, including the person depicted in the image. While celebrities may have rights to their appearance under other laws, they do not have the right to use the photo if they don’t own or license the copyright to it.
Some celebrities have argued that they have rights to photographs of them because they are “joint authors.” A joint author requires the intent of the parties to collaborate. Celebrities have maintained that because they cooperated with the photographer and posed for the picture, they’ve established themselves as a co-creator. Courts generally have rejected this argument.
Under right of privacy laws, celebrities and ordinary individuals are protected from being photographed without their permission in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in their homes. However, photographers can take photos of individuals in public places without permission. Although a photographer can photograph someone on the street, they may be limited in the use of that photo. Public figures typically have a right of publicity, which allows them to control their image, name or any other likeness used for commercial purposes. For example, the photographer may not be able to use the image to promote or advertise a product or company. There is no federal right of publicity and state laws vary from state to state.
Individuals can post images of themselves taken by someone else if they have permission. However, in some instances, they may be able to do so without permission. One defense to a claim of copyright infringement is fair use, which requires an analysis of four factors under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, including how much of the work is used and whether its being used for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
Typically, cases involving celebrities involve the use of the photo for commercial purposes – that is, to promote their image and/or activities (movies, products, etc.). They are also using the entire work (the photo), not a portion of it. And because paparazzi make their livelihood by licensing celebrity snapshots, a celebrity’s use of a photo of themselves is often not deemed to be a fair use.
If you are a public figure and want to post a picture taken by the paparazzi, you should consider whether you have permission to post the photo. Best practice for anyone seeking to use an image they did not take is to consult an attorney with experience in copyright law before posting. If your images have been unlawfully used by someone else, an attorney can assist you in enforcing your rights. They can advise you on whether you have a valid claim for copyright infringement, and if so, what legal remedies are available to you. At Romano Law, our team of experienced copyright attorneys can help you navigate the complex legal landscape of copyright law and enforce your rights. Contact us today for a consultation.
FAQs
Anyone else who wants to use the photo must get permission from the rights holder, including the person depicted in the image. While celebrities may have rights to their appearance under other laws, they do not have the right to use the photo if they don't own or license the copyright to it.
What are paparazzi not allowed to do? ›
Similarly, one cannot misappropriate the likeness of a person, even a celebrity or politician, to promote any goods or services without permission. Doing so can create civil liability for misappropriation of likeness which can lead to injunctions, compensatory, and even punitive damages against the misappropriator.
What is the new paparazzi law? ›
California recently made waves by passing three anti-paparazzi bills to amend criminal and civil statutes. The bills make changes that protect not only celebrities but also their children and protect privacy interests in the face of potential First Amendment opposition because of celebrities' status as public figures.
Is it illegal to post pictures of celebrities? ›
The California Right of Publicity is a law that protects a person's name, image, and likeness from being used for commercial purposes without permission.
Who owns paparazzi photos? ›
Copyright Law
Putting to one side any questions of privacy or so-called “image rights”, who the subject of the photograph is does not matter. The starting position, under both UK and US law, is that the creator of the work (the person who pointed and clicked the camera) is the first owner of the photograph.
Can I post celebrity pictures on my Instagram? ›
Anyone else who wants to use the photo must get permission from the rights holder, including the person depicted in the image. While celebrities may have rights to their appearance under other laws, they do not have the right to use the photo if they don't own or license the copyright to it.
What celebrities are sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves? ›
In addition to Cyrus, Lipa and Kardashian, many other celebrities have found themselves facing copyright cases after posting photos of themselves. Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande have also been sued – by the same photographer who filed suit against Cyrus and Lipa this year.
Are paparazzi photos copyrighted? ›
If a paparazzo's photo is considered an original work of expression, it is protected under the Copyright Act, and a right of publicity claim against it will likely fail.
Are there laws against paparazzi after Diana's death? ›
In 2005, Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law to triple damages awarded for photography-induced accidents and prohibit paparazzi from profiting from the photos that ensue.
Can celebrities sue paparazzi? ›
Celebrities Sue Over Unauthorized Use of Identity. A right of publicity is the right to control the commercial value of your name, likeness, voice, signature, or other personal identifying traits that are unique to you. The right of publicity is all about identity.
There are rights to photographs posted online, for example, on Instagram or in an online magazine. These photographs will belong to someone else, usually the photographer who took the image. Thus, your use may result in a copyright infringement claim against you.
Can I post a picture of a celebrity on Facebook? ›
If you happen to take a picture of a celebrity or public figure, you can post it as a "celebrity/public person sighting," (for example, "look who I saw at Whole Foods!!!") but not in connection with any product or service.
What is the most sold paparazzi photo? ›
NUMBER ONE — $ 6 MILLION
It's of late Princess Diana and her boyfriend, late Dodi Fayed. These pics were sold to the press for a staggering sum of $6 million. They were taken in July 1997, just a month beforeboth of them met with an unfortunate accident involving a high-speed car crash in Paris.
Will paparazzi become illegal? ›
As the paparazzi are not one organisation, there are not specific laws to ban them. However, protections for both paparazzis and their targets are covered in other legislation. Freedom of speech is protected under the first amendment in the United States.
What can celebrities do against paparazzi? ›
Some celebrities take the matter of privacy and safety even further by taking the photographers to court. In 2009, George Clooney ordered legal justice towards a paparazzo after they scaled a tree outside of the movie star's vacation home.
Is it illegal for paparazzi to take photos of minors? ›
In most parts of the United States, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone, including children, in public spaces. The one major exception is California, where a law that made it a misdemeanor to photograph the children of celebrities was passed in 2013.
Do the paparazzi have too much freedom? ›
The paparazzi don't have the right to break the law. The Constitution protects everyone's right to take a picture of anything or anyone in public, but you can't break into someone's home to get your shot.
Can paparazzi go to jail? ›
Illegal intrusion into private property, which is a restricted area or no trespassing area. For such an offense, you may be threatened with 6 months in jail and a fine of 1,000 is also imposed.
Do paparazzi break laws? ›
California passed a new anti-paparazzi law on Tuesday that will implement harsher penalties for photographers found breaking traffic laws or interfering with the operation of a celebrity's car while in pursuit of a photo. Under this new legislation, those guilty can receive a fine of up to $5,000 or a year in prison.
