Smash His Camera, a documentary revolving around the work of Ron Galella, brings to light the issue of paparazzi and their right to photograph celebrities and public figures. As stated in the film, individuals who become the subject matter of the photographs are faced with the dilemma of whether or not their privacy is infringed upon when photographers pursue them.
Individuals taking a stance against allowing the paparazzi almost unlimited access to the right to photograph, such as in the case of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, lean upon the belief that these photographers invade their privacy and induce fear in the individual. This was the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals trial of Galella v. Onassis, where Onassis sued Galella for his invasion of her privacy. The court ruled in favor of Onassis, citing Galella as guilty of “harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, commercial exploitation of Onassis’s personality, and invasion of privacy (Source 1).” The court thus “Enjoined Galella from keeping Onassis or her children under surveillance, from following them, from coming within 100 yards of Onassis’s home or the children’s schools, within 75 yards of the children, or within 50 yards of Onassis, from using the name or picture of Onassis or her children for advertising, and from attempting to communicate with Onassis or her children (Source 1).” In addition to these concerns falls another concern that photographed individuals may hold, which was included above–using an individual’s likeness for monetary gain. As was mentioned in class lecture, it is not legal to use a person’s likeness to procure payment, or to endorse or advertise a product or service. Those being photographed would hold the stance that their likeness is their own and that they should receive a sum of the profits that their likeness earned. In the case of the paparazzi, then, it can be argued that they are using their subject’s likeness for-profit without allowing payment to the individual.
However, those who believe in the right of the paparazzi have just as much weight in their opinion. Those claiming that their constitutional right to privacy is violated by the photography of paparazzi have no just claim to such sentiments as “privacy is not in the Constitution (Source 2),” and there is “little protection against media, government, and private snooping… (Source 2)” outside the privacy of one’s home. In addition, celebrities and people of public interest do not hold the same privacy as those who are private figures as they classify as all-purpose public figures–those with “widespread fame and notoriety, [or who] occupies a position of such pervasive power that they are deemed a public figure for all purposes (Source 3).” In terms of the privacy of the individual once their pervasive power has diminished, “people once newsworthy are always newsworthy (Source 4),” meaning that, even though they might not hold the spotlight on certain occasions, those who were once frequently in the news will again be subject to the news if their actions allow so. Finally, it has been established that “It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property (Source 5),” thus validating the paparazzi’s choice to photograph celebrities in public spaces.
Personally, in situations such as these–where individuals feel threatened by the presence of others, no matter what their societal status may be–I find it completely valid for the individual to take legal action. In the situation of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, I found it reasonable for her to seek legal protections, especially for her children. Procuring a document that demanded that Galella stay far away from her children allows for Onassis to provide them with the privacy and safety they deserve. In addition to this, the children themselves, in my opinion, did not classify as all-purpose public figures, which should allow them the privacy and respect of private figures. Photographing children, in my book, violates the ethical code in photojournalism of “acting with compassion and sensitivity (Source 6),” as these children can potentially face harmful repercussions for their photos being taken and released across the country.
Galella, as an individual, changed the face of paparazzi as a whole. Described as “‘… the Godfather of U.S. paparazzi culture’ by Time and Vanity Fair (Source 7),” and as “… a pioneer paparazzo (Source 8),” Galella showed how much could be earned from following the most recognized faces in America. Over time, the intensity of the paparazzi, as well as their population, has greatly increased because of Galella’s adamant search for famous faces to plaster on pages. This intensity has inspired two bills in California limiting the photography of paparazzi. “One of the bills makes it illegal to interfere with someone trying to enter or leave a building,” and “… was intended to protect the children of [celebrities] (Source 9).” The other “… [expanded] the state’s definition of stalking to include unwanted surveillance that has no legitimate purpose (Source 9).” Though Galella calls the paparazzi of today “gangbangers (Source 10)” it is no doubt that his intense love of photographing the famous has inspired many to pursue their careers as paparazzi as well, in addition to inspiring legislation to curb their ability to “…inflict emotional distress… (Source 1)” upon their subject matter.
Sources:
1. Quimbee “Galella v. Onassis Case Brief”
2. Class Notes: 11.1 Privacy
3. Class Notes: 6.1 Libel and Public Figures
4. Class Notes: 11.1 Private Facts
5. Wikipedia “Photography and the Law”
6. Class Notes: 5.1 Ethics in Photos
7. Ron Galella “Much Has Been Written of Ron Galella”
8. Wikipedia “Ron Galella”
9. USA Today “California Lawmakers Pass Bills to Restrict Paparazzi”
10. AARP “Where Are They Now? Ron Galella”