Jump to content

Celebrity privacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.186.47.251 (talk) at 23:23, 21 November 2020 ({{notability}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 to the public. This often specifically pertains 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. Paparazzi make commercial use of their private data.[1]

Some national and state governments set up privacy laws particularly to protect celebrity privacy and their family members.[2] 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.[3][4]

Debate

Scholars have debated how much or what type of privacy celebrities and their friends or family can or should expect.[5] 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

In order to keep high public exposure and show positive professional images, celebrities and their teams often intentionally manage or control how their private lives are presented to the public.[1] 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."[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 utilizing media in order to achieve or maintain fame'.[6] 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.[7] 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.[7] Scholar Seong Hong has stated Lee's privacy right was not protected because of her celebrity identity. [7]

Intrusion by paparazzi and fans

Paparazzi

Princess Diana

The term “paparazzi”’ define as "the freelance photographers who take celebrities’ exclusive pictures and sell them to the press for financial purposes."[1] Techniques used by the paparazzi include stalking celebrities and their children, taking photos of them with or without consent, and chasing celebrities’ cars.[8][9] Some see these techniques as causing turbulence to the lives of the celebrities and those with them and that some aggressive techniques may result in the injury or death of the celebrity.[8] The death of Diana, Princess of Wales, has been cited as an example of the risks of paparazzi techniques.[8] 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][9]

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".[10] 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".[11]

Both Anne Jerslev and Mette Mendelson have noted that the paparazzi have become integrated into the mainstream culture and their photographs are distributed widely and quickly by consumers.[9]

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[12] 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.[12] Fans try to become physically and mentally closer to their idols by attending concerts, movies, and fan-meetings. In extreme circumstances, fans may become obsessed with celebrities and invade their privacy by stalking them.[12] 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.[6] Once unsatisfied, this fixation can lead fans to invade celebrity privacy out of disappointment and resentment.[6]

In South Korean culture, a fan who is overly interested in the private lives of K-POP idols or other public figure is called a "Sasaeng fan", which means "private life fan" in English.[13] According to a study by William Patrick and Samantha Xiang, Sasaeng fans are typically teenage girls between 13–22 years old, and their common stalking behaviors include installing hidden cameras in idols’ home, chasing idols’ car at high speed, and stealing personal things from idols’ room.[14] Some actions done by sasaeng fans such as poisoning members of a disliked K-POP idol or using bodily fluids to write letters to the object of their affections are not advocated in South Korea.[15]

Celebrity children

The public interest in the private lives of celebrities has prompted paparazzi to catch specific and trivial details of celebrities' daily lives, which includes the lives of their children.[16] Paparazzi photographs of these children are frequently posted in magazines, sometimes with friends or family, and often portray the celebrity and children's fame and lifestyles as high-quality and luxurious. These images can be either authorized or unauthorized,[16] 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”.[7] 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.[16]

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.[16] The celebrity children photos can also suggest a pleasant experience and a sense of satisfaction of being a parent.[16] 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.[16]

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.[7] 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.[7]

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.[16] 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.[16] All the UN countries, except U.S and Somalia, approved and sighed this treaty.

United States

Seong Hong argues that in the United States, the celebrity children privacy has been rarely protected by U.S law currently.[7] 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.[7] 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.[7] Scholar Joshua Azriel suggests that there should be a full ban on the photos of celebrity children with stronger punishment.[17]

Brazil

In Brazil, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA in Portuguese acronym) both directly and indirectly addressed the relationship between children and media.[16] 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.[16] Besides, Article 74-80 provides children with legal protection to harmful public media, such as violent television show.[16]

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.[16]

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.[2]

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.[2]

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.[3] 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.[2]

Since California noticed that confrontations between celebrities and paparazzi still happened and were even exacerbated, in January 2010, another anti-paparazzi law A.B 2479 was passed to address two main problems: paparazzi’s car-chasing which often leads to accidents and their behaviors that prevent the celebrities from moving freely. A.B 2479 further established both financial and criminal penalties for people who result in reckless driving because of the intention to gain photos or recording of other people for commercial purpose—the fine will be between $145 to $1,000, and the term of imprisonment will be between 5–90 days.[3] If any child is inside the car during the 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 behavior as false imprisonment that allows for extra damages.[2] In 2015, the state appeals 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 picture.[3]

Debate

The supporters of A.B 2479 were The City of Los Angeles, Screen Actors Guild and Paparazzi Reform Initiative. It is argued that the series of aggressive behaviors of paparazzi, such as parking their cars to block the celebrities’ cars or crowding the celebrities in public spaces like airports and entrances to public facilities have seriously disrupted celebrities’ private lives. 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 to journalists are unfair. According to Christina Locke and Kara Murrhee, even though compared to previous bills, A.B 2479 has made significant changes regarding focuses, the conflict between the California anti-paparazzi law and the First Amendment of Constitution still exists.[2]

"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.[18][4] 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.[2][4] 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.[2]

United Kingdom

To prevent the royal family from being disrupted by the media, Britain set laws to restrict press reporting earlier than many other countries.[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 from happening.[1] The proposals include banning paparazzi photos taken through the continuous pursuit, expanding the definition of private property, strengthening the protection for celebrity children, and prevention of 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 with each other and thus are not efficient enough to protect celebrities and their children.[1] The government prohibits paparazzi from publishing any photo that is not consented by the subjects but allows them to publish photos taken at 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 resulted from publishing exclusive celebrity photos in France greatly exceed the $32,000 fine, which encourages French paparazzi to take risks.[1]

New Zealand

Similar to the U.S, Seong Hung claims that celebrities and their children in New Zealand are rarely protected by privacy laws for now.[7] In 2004, Mr Hosking, a well-known television celebrity in New Zealand, sued the Pacific Magazine for taking and publishing the photos of his children, but the Court of Appeal ruled against Mr. Hosking by stating that the photographs did not invade the privacy right because they were taken in public spaces.[7]

Spain

The threat to private life due to expansion in technology and photography was noted in 1890 by Warren and Brandies, lawyers from Boston.[19] After more than one century, the ways of finding information about someone private life have increased which easily violate the right to privacy. The government have imposed legal regulation considering the right to privacy for revealing someones personal information to others, spreading through social media, allowing others to have access of someone personal details and allow others to spread and expose the information.[19] In the Article 198 of Spanish panel code, the civil government have analyzed the new code to the right to privacy punishable offence which are taking someones personal paper, letters, electronic messages, belongings or intercepting communication in someones personal space and exposing or spreading obtained information.[19] The punishment of this offences will be greater if the person doing is an authority and civil servant.[19]

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 identity, such as name, photos, or likeness.[18] 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.[18] 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.[20] 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.[21] Keith Willis argues that the publicity right controversies often happen on celebrity product endorsement issues.[18]

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.[21] 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.[21] 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.[21]

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.[21] 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.[21]

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.[22] The original work protected by copyright laws includes literacy work, artistic work, musical work, and dramatic work etc.[23] 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.[22] 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.[22]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n 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 2013-06-29.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h 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)
  3. ^ a b c d Azriel, Joshua (2016-10-04). "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.
  4. ^ a b c "Privacy, Technology, and the California "Anti-Paparazzi" Statute". Harvard Law Review. 112 (6): 1367–1384. 1999. doi:10.2307/1342388. JSTOR 1342388.
  5. ^ McNamara, Kim (2009-02-01). "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.
  6. ^ a b c Hoffmann, Jens (2009-07-03). "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.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Hong, Seong; Hong, Seong Choul (2016-04-07). "Kids Sell: Celebrity Kids' Right to Privacy". Laws. 5 (2): 18. doi:10.3390/laws5020018.
  8. ^ a b c Hindman, Elizabeth Blanks (2003-09-01). "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.
  9. ^ a b c Mortensen, Mette; Jerslev, Anne (2013-09-30). "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.
  10. ^ Murray, Ray (2011-03-11). "Stalking the Paparazzi: A View from a Different Angle". Visual Communication Quarterly. 18 (1): 4–17. doi:10.1080/15551393.2011.548724. ISSN 1555-1393. S2CID 146214700.
  11. ^ Mendelson, Andrew L. (2007-09-01). "On the function of the United States paparazzi: mosquito swarm or watchdogs of celebrity image control and power". Visual Studies. 22 (2): 169–183. doi:10.1080/14725860701507230. ISSN 1472-586X. S2CID 145722460.
  12. ^ a b c Hung, Kineta (2014-04-03). "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.
  13. ^ Lansky, Sam (2012-09-10). "Hallyu Tsunami: The Unstoppable (and Terrifying) Rise of K-Pop Fandom". Grantland. Retrieved 2018-11-28.
  14. ^ Williams, J. Patrick; Ho, Samantha Xiang Xin (2015-10-16). ""Sasaengpaen" or K-pop Fan? Singapore Youths, Authentic Identities, and Asian Media Fandom". Deviant Behavior. 37 (1): 81–94. doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.983011. ISSN 0163-9625. S2CID 146320533.
  15. ^ Soh, Elizabeth (2012-08-02). "Sasaeng Stalkers (Part 1): K-pop fans turn to blood, poison for attention". Yahoo! Singapore. Retrieved 2017-05-24.
  16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Marôpo, Lidia; Jorge, Ana (2014-11-01). "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.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ a b c d 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.
  19. ^ a b c d 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.
  20. ^ Mullins, Michael. "New Fame in A New Ballgame: Right of Publicity in The Ear of Instant Celebrity". Indiana Law Review. 45: 869–95.
  21. ^ a b c d e f 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.
  22. ^ a b c Eaton, O'Neill. "Paparazzi/Blogger Face-Off: Opportunity Knocking for A Fair Use Limit?". Cardozo Arts&Entertainment Law Journal. 26: 535–558.
  23. ^ Adams, John (2007-12-21). "Originality in copyright: a solution to the database problem?". Copyright Law. doi:10.4337/9781848440210.00005. ISBN 9781848440210.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Celebrity_privacy&oldid=989952594"