The Laws of Photography

The laws regarding public photography have always been a gray area. In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under the right of free speech. There are exceptions, however. Here are just a few of the gray areas:
  • While taking a picture in a public place is almost always legal, any public place can become a secured emergency area in the event of a police crime scene, disaster, fire or riot. In this case, photography is not legal without permission.

  • Even editorial photographs can come under scrutiny when a caption is added. If the caption implies something false or slanderous about the person in the photo, then it is no longer protected. And the gray area becomes even grayer when you talk about photos as fine art. That is especially true if the artist intends to sell the photograph.

  • Photographers cannot take pictures of a person in a public place without permission if that photo is going to be used to promote any goods or services.
Moreover, it is important to note that not all places that seem public are public. Malls, hospitals, restaurants and hotels are all privately owned businesses.

Anti-Paparazzi Legislation
In a 2003 interview with The Guardian, Ewan McGregor spoke out against paparazzi and the publications that buy their pictures:

    Heat magazine's a dirty, filthy piece of sh-t and I'd like to put that on record. People shouldn't buy it because it sucks… If a guy comes up and asks me, 'Can I take a picture of your daughter?' that's one thing. But if he's hiding behind a bus and he takes a picture of me and my daughter he's legally allowed to publish that photo in the press. I have no rights to stop him and I think that's wrong. I think we should encourage people to beat up paparazzi.

More and more stars are taking paparazzi to court. McGregor won a case in the United Kingdom on breech-of-confidence and data-protection laws.

Michael Douglas and Katherine Zeta-Jones won their settlement on a separate legal issue. They had official wedding photographers and a deal with OK magazine. When Hello! and The Sun bought and published Rupert Thorpe's photos, they broke trade laws by destroying the exclusivity of the couple's deal with OK.

More and more stars are able to turn to other laws to protect themselves from paparazzi since their rights of privacy are contested. Specific anti-paparazzi legislation has gone into effect in various countries. France has very strict anti-paparazzi legislation. In the United States, California passed anti-paparazzi legislation into law after the death of Princess Diana. That event alone caused many governments to reexamine their paparazzi laws.

The controversy surrounding anti-paparazzi legislation is the question of where to draw the line between legitimate newsgathering and invasions of privacy. If laws are left as they are, a celebrity's privacy and, in some cases, his or her life will continue to be endangered by the ruthlessness of some photographers. On the other hand, if the laws become too restrictive then the freedom of the press could be jeopardized. The solution remains unclear.

So the question arises -- what is the source of the problem? While the tactics of paparazzi are repellent to most people, the same people clamber to buy magazines that carry such photos. Are paparazzi the problem or merely a symptom of a voyeuristic society?

For more information on paparazzi, privacy legislation and related topics, check out the links on the next page.