https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-10-05/lisa-rinna-paparazzi-lawsuit
Hey everyone,
It was fascinating to read this article yesterday, especially in light of the discussion we had in class about Emily Ratajkowski’s re-publishing of paparazzi images, which I considered to be particularly relevant.
It has been reported that Lisa Rinna is being sued for publishing paparazzi images of herself to her social media accounts. Rinna has been accused of infringing on the copyright of the company Backgrid by putting their own images on her Instagram feed. When Rinna and Backgrid were unable to reach a settlement agreement, Backgrid filed a lawsuit claiming $1.5 million in damages. I’m wondering as to how Backgrid came up with this particular reasoning for the amount of penalties it is seeking— even the US Copyright system normally provides for $750-$30,000 in damages for each infringement and up to $150,000 in damages if the violation is “willful.”
Rinna made an interesting point about the company that I found intriguing, in that the photo agency has “essentially weaponized the Copyright Act” in order to supplement money that has been lost as a result of the pandemic, which I thought was interesting take – and could apply to paparazzi endeavours beyond the pandemic. We studied Ms. Ratajkowski’s case in class, and the fact that someone may take a photograph of you and that photograph becomes their property, despite the fact that you are the subject of the photograph, really creeped me out. As the article illustrates, it appears to be a more serious problem for celebrities, not only because of the fact that the bigger celebrity, the more valuable the photograph may be, but also because the subject of the photograph may want more control over what is done with the photograph after it is taken.
Is it possible for Lisa Rinna to regain control over her own imagery? Is it enough skill and judgement to absolve her from copyright infringement if she had edited the photo in any manner, or if she added stickers or commentary to it? For media outlets, selling celebrity images is a lucrative business, and I’m curious if celebrities can take any steps to protect themselves and their likeness from being used without their permission.
My question regarding paparazzi photographs is where is the line drawn to how far copyright protection can extend? Is it legal for a photographer to use a photograph they shot of a celebrity to promote a product if they are the owner of the rights to do so? That was certainly the case in the instance of Emily Rata’s book of published photographs, which was published by the photographer and not Ms. Rata. However, where does this line come to an end? Does the subject of a photo possess no moral rights to determine what is done with the work? Is it okay for me to use a photo of Kim Kardashian that I snapped with my iPhone to promote my own personal makeup collection? Celebrities’ careers entail them being photographed, but does this automatically imply that they are entitled to greater rights than the general public? Or is it simply the cost of doing business, as stated by intellectual property attorney Neal Chatterjee?
Communications Law