This weekend we had a historical moment. A moment we will all remember. One that will impact our future.
Justin Bieber got into his first fistfight.
I wish I was kidding. Don’t pretend you didn’t already hear about this event. In case you are living under a rock (or have more intellectual pursuits), here is the story: Justin and his famous girlfriend attend movie. Justin and Selena leave the movie. Paparazzi gets in his way. Justin beats up paparazzi. Important foreshadowing: Justin has been sparring with Mike Tyson recently. I truly am speechless at the thought of the two of them together.
Lucky for us, this ridiculously important event presents lots of legal issues. First, we have the potential for some tort claims. Depending on whether Justin threatened the paparazzi with imminent harm before his hit him, the paparazzi can sue Justin for the torts of assault and battery. I would put the odds of this lawsuit, or a threat of this lawsuit, at 100%. Justin has a lot of money, so he is a dream tort defendant.
Second, it sounds like the prosecutors are thinking about bringing a criminal charge against Justin. This would probably be a battery charge. It is a helpful case for pointing out the distinction between criminal and civil assault. The prosecutors can charge the Biebs with a crime. Only the paparazzi can sue for the tort. I find the odds of Justin going to jail for this about 1%. But it makes for great TMZ headlines.
Last, a journalist for CNN actually managed to turn this into a thoughtful opinion piece on copyright and publicity laws. Although I can barely stand a serious approach to this fist fight, the author raises some interesting questions about copyright law and celebrities. As the law stands, the photographer owns the copyright to any photos he or she takes. The person in the photo does not. This means that paparazzi have a financial incentive to do things like follow Justin and Selena to a movie. The author proposes that the law be changed to give copyrights to the celebrity in the photo. This would make for different copyright laws for public figures. Although it sounds complicated, we already do this for defamation law, having a different standard for celebrities suing for defamation.
Do you agree with the author’s proposed changes to the law?
5 Comments
David Han posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:47 pm
This reminds me of the same manner in which a musician would earn royalties on his or her record or song for every radio play or purchase. Many of these “paparazzi” workers probably earn a living at the expense of another human being’s loss of privacy and a simple stroll on the streets of a major city.
Russell Crowe, a respectable, award-winning actor had trouble when he beat a paparazzi with a payphone. There are photos of Sean Penn punching what appears to be a photographer in cold blood.
Celebrities are subject to a different lifestyle in which, yes, compromise may need to exist in regards to how much publicity they receive, but perhaps this author had some interesting ideas in regards to how to better reconcile privacy laws, property rights, and all related legal issues.
Peter H posted on June 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm
In a weird way, I do agree with the proposed law change. I was never a fan of celebrities let alone the stupid things that they do when in front of paparazzi, however I feel like in general people should have rights to the photos that they are in, specifically celebrities in this case.
If a law of this nature were to come into effect, it would have to extend beyond celebrities and public figures. Sure these people are the ones that encounter issues with pictures being taken of them day after day after day, but specifying that only celebrities or only public figures have rights to the pictures taken of them would open up a whole new set of problems that the general public would not approve of.
TANIA PRANATAJAYA posted on June 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm
I think that if copyrights of the photos are given to the celebrities, gossip magazines such as Us Weekly, or celebrity online sites such as perezhilton.com , would not be as interesting to read. Since the celebrities would be able to control what photos can be published, the photographs released in the media would not be as scandalous or exciting.
Jenny Rozenzaft posted on June 5, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Although I do agree with the idea that the person in a photo should have at least partial ownership of said photo, I do not think the law should be changed. Paparazzi make their living off of “stalking” celebrities and recording intimate details about their personal lives’; as unethical and lowly as their job may be, it is still their job. Paparazzi, gossip columnists, and all those contributing to sites such as TMZ or any sort of gossip magazines would probably lose their jobs since most celebrities would likely refuse the publication of defamatory photos (unless they want publicity). It would not be a very economically wise decision to change the law. Celebrities should understand what they are getting themselves into when they become famous – they are giving up the rights to a normal, private life.
Qing Du posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm
I don’t agree that the law should be changed, I think the celebrities should understand that its a price to pay for being famous. If celebrities can chose what photo or news of themselves they want on the newspaper or magazine, nothing would be surprise or interesting to us. Moreover, its Paparazzi’s jobs to look into celebrities’ intimate and private life, so Paparazzi is just trying to do their best to accomplish their jobs. Even though I do understand its annoying sometimes when personal life has to be exposed to the public