After all, they’re only giving us what we want: proof that celebrities are imperfect, just like us. As long as images of the rich and famous committing foibles both minor and monstrous continue to arrest our attention - and sway our online traffic and magazine purchases - the paparazzi mobs will continue to swarm and snap. With the cultural appetite for celebrity voyeurism, it’s questionable whether the public is even concerned about anti-paparazzi legislation. On the other hand, if the laws become too restrictive, then the freedom of the press could be jeopardized, and for that reason, a judicial tension remains between the two. If laws are left as they are, a celebrity's privacy - and, in some cases, his or her life - may continue to be endangered by the ruthlessness of some photographers. The controversy surrounding anti-paparazzi legislation comes down to the question of where to draw the line between legitimate news gathering and invasions of privacy. ![]() Photos of a person in a public place can’t be used to promote any goods or services without permission.If photo captions imply something false or libelous about the person in the photo, then they aren't legally protected free speech. Even editorial photographs can come under scrutiny when a caption is added. ![]() Photography isn’t legal in these situations without permission. ![]() Police crime scenes, disasters, fires or riots are considered secured emergency areas.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |