PRIVACY AND THE PAPARAZZI – WHO DRAWS THE LINE?
Imagine yourself being famous. Don’t pretend that you haven’t done it at least once.
All the fans and photographers snapping your pictures, red carpet premieres, and let’s not even start with the big-ticket paychecks. However, life in the limelight comes at a price, and if you’ve read any tabloid news article within the last 20 years, you’d know that that price is privacy.
Paparazzi photojournalism is an ethically polarizing issue within our media sphere. For some it may be an ego boost, and a part of being famous, but for others it becomes frustrating, and even dangerous. This raises a series of ethical questions, with the main one being: who holds the power to draw the line, the paparazzi or the celebrity?
We saw an example of this ethical grey area in recent tabloid news, where popular singer, Ariana Grande, posted this image on her Instagram:

Innocent enough, right? Apparently not (Estera, 2019).
The photographer of this image, a New York paparazzo named Robert Barbera, has sued Grande for “US$25,000 worth of damages for each image used, or any profits Grande earned from the post” (Estera, 2019).
SO, WHO’S AT FAULT?
Legally, Grande is at fault, but ethically- this becomes a grey area.
To put this situation in perspective and relate it to the Australian legal system, let’s imagine that this image was taken in Australia, by an Australian photographer, of an Australian celebrity. Pearson and Polden outline that copyright is the “legal protection of the form of expression of a work such as an article or an image” (Pearson, Polden, 2015). So, there is no doubt that the photographer clearly has legal possession of copyright.
However, what if the image was taken without the celebrity’s consent? Would this evade privacy laws? Legally, the celebrity would still be at fault. Pearson and Polden further outline that as long as the image was taken on public property and does not reveal any confidential information about the subject, that it is the property of its creator. This law has become even more ethically skewed under Australian Law as the Australian legal system has refused injunctions for a breach of confidentiality previously (Pearson, Polden, 2015).
Even though the photographer is legally at fault- ethically, the photographer is still snapping a nonconsensual photo, and making money on the artists image. This raises questions on the ethical side of this situation.
WHO GOVERNS THE MEDIA?
The MEAA or “Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance” Is a trade union exclusively for the media (MEAA, 1999). Their “MEAA Code of Ethics” was written to encourage ethical journalism and reporting, as well as ethical media consumption as a whole.
When addressing privacy, the MEAA, as well as stating that a journalist must “commit themselves to honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others”, declares that journalists must “Respect private grief and personal privacy”, and furthers this through the statement that “Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude” (MEAA, 1999).
These statements pose three ethical questions.
- Are the paparazzi considered journalists and therefore are they bound to abiding by the code of ethics?
- Was the photographer intruding when taking the photo?
- By taking a photo without consent, is that fair? Does it respect the rights of the subject of the photo?
1.PHOTOJOURNALIST OR PAPARAZZI?
By definition, photojournalism is “The practice of communicating news by photographs, especially in magazines” (Oxford Dictionary). Following this definition, this would mean that paparazzi would fall under the category of journalists, even more-so than photo-journalists for newspapers or online publications.
This infographic outlines the salary and practice of a paparazzi photographer.

With all this considered, there is no reason why paparazzi photographers would be able to evade ethical guidelines, and therefore breaches of privacy by paparazzi must be considered as ethically wrong.
- WHAT IS INTRUSION?
Now that we have confirmed that paparazzi must abide by these ethical standards, we must assess whether the photo taken of Grande was “intrusion” or was denying her “rights to privacy” (MEAA, 2019).
On the surface, the answer to this would be yes. If we think realistically, any form of interruption, especially non-consensual photography without any motive or purpose is a violation of journalistic ethics, particularly with the intention to make money out of an artist or celebrity’s image.
In the image, Grande is simply walking, exiting a building and not doing anything particularly newsworthy. This denies Grande of her rights to simply exist without media interference. If this was the end of this, then yes- the photojournalist would ethically be at fault.
However, through uploading the images to her Instagram, Grande facilitates this photography, and even furthered this through using the image to promote her upcoming album “sweetener”. This completely alters the ethical circumstances of this situation. Although the images are of Grande, legally she doesn’t own the images, and was using someone else’s artistic work without compensation to promote her own merchandising and income. This is an unethical approach to advertisement which even breaks the MEAA Code of Ethics, the code states, “Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material” and “Aim to attribute information to its source”. (MEAA, 1999).
This makes this situation even more ethically complex, as both sides are irresponsibly and unethically undergoing media creation. This makes it difficult to say that the photographer was unethically intruding, as Grande facilitated the action through reposting the photo for her own financial gain.
- THE FAIRNESS AND RESPECT OF CONSENT
Technically, the photo is the photographers and paparazzi are legally allowed to take photos in public places without the consent of the subject, however, just because they are legally allowed to, this does not make it ethically just.
The MEAA code of ethics explains that when obtaining journalistic material, journalists must “Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast” (MEAA, 2019). The photographer of this image did break this guideline, as the photo was taken without consent, and without a formal introduction between both parties.
IN CONCLUSION…
Both the paparazzi and Ariana Grande were both ethically at fault but photo journalism should be included under the classification of a code of ethics so that it is restricted on what you can and can’t do to save any further confusion as to who can actually do what with photos of themselves, and the photos a paparazzi may take.
REFERENCE LIST
Estera, C. (2019). Ariana Grande sued for posting paparazzi photos on her Instagram account. [online] Celebrity.nine.com.au. Available at: https://celebrity.nine.com.au/latest/ariana-grande-sued-by-paparazzi-instagram-photos/515c50d8-37d9-4165-a6ac-ec1d55ae2a3f [Accessed 24 May 2019].
MEAA. (1999). MEAA Journalist Code of Ethics. https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/ [Accessed 24 May 2019].
O’Connell, C. (2019). Interesting facts about the world of the Paparazzi. [online] Carl O’Connell Photography – wedding photography services for Brighton, Hove, East Sussex, West Sussex, Surrey, London and the UK. Available at: http://www.carloconnell.co.uk/interesting-facts-about-paparazzi/ [Accessed 24 May 2019].
Oxford Dictionaries | English. (2019). photojournalism | Definition of photojournalism in English by Oxford Dictionaries. [online] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photojournalism [Accessed 24 May 2019].
Pearson, M. and Polden, M. (2015). The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law. Crow’s Nest, N.S.W. Allen & Unwin.