Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FreeTally
I would think that being in a public place at a public event would lend her to not have a case. Isnt that the law that the paparatzi (sp?) use to take photos of celebrities and sell them for money?

And I wonder if when she exposed her puppies for the camera man if she thought that he didnt have any video tape in his camera.

65 posted on 01/22/2002 12:10:38 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Phantom Lord
I would think that being in a public place at a public event would lend her to not have a case. Isnt that the law that the paparatzi (sp?) use to take photos of celebrities and sell them for money?

Im trying to recall what was discussed in my Public Relations class back in college, and I think it is not an issue with celebrities because they have "put themselves in the public arena" so to speak, and are fair game. The point of being a celebrity is that your picture is everywhere. Im not sure though, you may be right. I think a private individual, who has not put themselves in the public arena like a politician or actor/actress, is due compensation for use of their likeness. Like I said, I may be off. It will be interesting to see, that is, if this reaches court.

71 posted on 01/22/2002 12:22:25 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson