The Rights Behind the Shot: Ownership and Use of Paparazzi Images

Introduction

In the era of social media and celebrity culture, it is now routine to post photos and snippets from a celebrity’s life. In some scenarios, celebrities, liking the paparazzi photos of themselves, are inclined to post them on their social media profiles. Hence, it raises the question, can a celebrity, who is the subject of a photograph, post that photo without the permission of the photographer according to American Laws?

History of Copyright Protection in America

In 1865, photographs were made eligible for copyright protection by the Congress. In the case of Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 1884, the U.S Supreme Court held that the Congress could, under the constitution, give photographs copyright protection.

The current copyright law in America, provides copyright protection to photographs under Section 102 of the Copyright Act, 1976. Under this act, a photo must be a work of authorship to qualify for such protection. Hence, human contribution is an essential aspect for the photographs to be eligible for copyright protection. This aspect was solidified in the case of Naruto v. Slater, commonly referred to as the “monkey selfie” case. The case began when a macaque monkey accidentally took a selfie from the camera of David Slater, a British wildlife photographer. The legal dispute began when Wikipedia started using the photo, arguing that the photo should be in public domain as animals cannot have such protection. On the other hand, Slater argued that he held the copyright ownership of the photograph. The court held that as animals do not have statutory standing, they cannot hold copyright protection and hence Wikipedia cannot be held liable for copyright infringement.

Copyrighted Photographs are subject to fair use provisions and other restrictions that are applicable to other copyrighted work.

Privacy Rights and Photography

Before delving into the question of copyright ownership and control of paparazzi pictures, another question needs to be answered. Does a photographer possess the right to take pictures of someone without their permission and does the rights of a copyright holder extend to such photographs in America.

In the United States of America, the 5th Amendment under the Constitution gives a person the right to take pictures or videos in the general public. Hence, unless prohibited by law, a person can generally take pictures of anyone in public. However, such a right is subject to certain conditions, and one of the most frequently occurring restrictions is concerned with the “Expectation of Privacy”. Under the Video Voyeurism Protection Act of 2004, a person cannot take a photo or a video of someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. This can include places such as their bedrooms, washrooms, lockers, hotel rooms etc.

Hence, no person has the absolute right to take pictures or videos regardless of the circumstance, thereby balancing both free speech and expression and privacy concerns of the general public.

At the same time, copyright ownership will still be conferred to a person taking such an image, as ownership of a copyright is automatic in the United States, but such ownership will be restricted from the free enforcement of such copyright. Other remedies include instituting criminal or civil proceedings against them.

Paparazzi and Celebrity Rights

When a person takes a photo of someone, the photograph is usually owned by the person who takes them. Under Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, the original works of authorship are fixed in any tangible medium of expression. Generally, the subject of the photograph is not considered as the medium of expression, but rather the lighting, the angle and every decision that was undertaken to create such a photograph. Hence, the authorship and ownership is generally conferred with the photographer.

Most people believe that if they are the subject of a photo, they naturally own and can hence control the use of such photographs. Under the Copyright Act, 1976, the right to control the use of such material is vested with the owner of the copyright, which is the photographer. Section 106(5) of the Copyright Act, gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to display the copyrighted work in public.

Hence, when a celebrity posts a paparazzi picture of themselves in their social media profiles without providing consideration of such use or without the consent of the copyright owner, believing that they have free use of such photos, it amounts to copyright infringement under Section 501 of the Copyright Act, 1976. As the photographers own the copyright, they possess the right to sue these celebrities for copyright infringement.

In 2019, a photo of Dua Lipa was taken by the paparazzi at the airport, which she later uploaded on her social media account without the permission or authorization of the copyright owner. Integral Images, the copyright owner of the photograph, sued Dua Lipa for Copyright Infringement seeking $150,000 in damages. They also argued that she gained commercial benefit from such infringement and hence, the use cannot come under the fair use provision. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, fair use is determined by a four factor test. One of the factors of this test is determining whether the use was commercial or non-commercial in nature. Though commercial use isn't automatically infringement under the section, such uses are more likely to be classified as infringement.

In another such instance, LeBron James, the famous basketball player faced a $150,000 copyright infringement suit by photographer Steve Mitchell. James posted a photo of himself, taken by Steve Mitchell, during the game in his Facebook and Instagram accounts. Steve sells licenses of his photos, but James did not purchase his licence before posting the photo. James argued that the photo is fair use as he did not commercially benefit from the photo. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, it cannot be said that all non-commercial uses constitute fair use. However, there arises another question on whether such posts provide these celebrities commercial benefit indirectly. As social media provides them with opportunities to gain sponsorship and brand deals, it cannot be absolutely said that these posts do not confer financial benefit.

Many such celebrities have faced similar suits including Ariana Grande, Jennifer Lopez and Gigi Hadid.

Right of Publicity

“The right of publicity is an intellectual property right that protects against the misappropriation of a person’s name, likeness or other indicia of personal identity for commercial benefit”. Hence, in this case, this right provides celebrities the right to have some control over how their pictures are used in a commercial context. This right however, is not a federal law, but conferred through a variety of state laws in America. A photographer cannot use a celebrity’s image to sell any product. Hence, while these celebrities do have some control in deciding how their images are used commercially, this right still cannot override the rights of the copyright holder.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in the U.S, the person who takes photos or videos of a celebrity owns them and can hence control its use. As most celebrities are unaware as to the legal protection provided to these photographers, they end up accidentally infringing on the protection provided to the copyright owner and are often forced to pay a hefty sum as compensation or consideration for such infringement. Although the celebrity might be the subject matter of the photograph or video, they still do not possess the right to use or control the use of such copyrighted material.

The right of publicity mostly allows them to control the use of such photographs in a commercial setting and cannot override the rights of copyright ownership. While the right of privacy prevents a person from taking pictures of someone in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, the copyright ownership will still be conferred to the photographer in such cases, as copyright ownership is automatic but the enforceability of such copyright will be extremely limited. These rights of a photograph are however, subject to all the restrictions conferred to other copyrighted works provided under the Copyright Act, 1976.

Author: Roshni Rajesh, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co v Sarony 111 US 53 (1884)

2. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 102 (1976).

3. Naruto v Slater 888 F3d 418 (9th Cir 2018).

4. United States Constitution 1791, Amendment V.

5. Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub L No 108-495, 118 Stat 3999 (2004).

6. Sands v. CBS Interactive Inc., No. 18-CV-7345, 2019 WL 1447014, at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019).

7. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 106 (1976).

8. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 501 (1976).

9. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 USC § 107 (1976).

10. BBC News, ‘Dua Lipa sued over paparazzi photo’ (BBC News, 10 July 2021) https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57775670

11. Daniel Kaplan, ‘LeBron James, Lakers Settle Photographer’s Copyright Lawsuit’ (The Athletic, 3 February 2021) https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2365850/2021/02/03/lebron-james-lakers-settle-photographer-lawsuit/ accessed 6 June 2026.

12. Legal Entertainment, ‘Ariana Grande Hit With Lawsuit For Posting Paparazzi Photo Of Herself’ (Forbes, 14 May 2019) https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2019/05/14/ariana-grande-hit-with-lawsuit-for-posting-paparazzi-photo-of-herself/ accessed 6 June 2026.

13. BBC News, ‘Jennifer Lopez sued in copyright case for posting photos of herself’ (BBC News, 20 May 2025) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2qqew643go accessed 5 June 2026.

14. Bosher H, ‘How Gigi Hadid Faces Copyright Claim After Posting Her Picture on Instagram’ (Brunel University London, 19 February 2019) https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/How-Gigi-Hadid-faces-copyright-claim-after-posting-her-picture-on-Instagram accessed 5 June 2026.

15. https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/