I hope this is the right place to put this. Most of it is from a post I made in another thread, but these issues are so large, they really deserve their own thread. They are: 1) Paparazzi and First Amendment and Public Safety 2) First Amendment, public figures in public places and privacy We are seeing more and more incidents, and not just involving Britney, where the paparazzi activity is very definitively getting into the area of public health and safety. Mr Puff commented last night that unfortunately, someone will probably have to lose their life before the politicians - and even the public that creates the market for the photos - become sufficiently engaged with regard to this issue to begin addressing the question of crafting a solution that can simultaneously protect the First Amendment rights of both press and public, and the lives and health of that same press and public. What do you think? What's your solution? To the best of my knowledge, as long as she is displaying them in a public place, no. But your question reminds me of a recent offline conversation about the creative great lengths to which some famous names in the entertainment world have been going in order to prevent the photographers from, well, essentially getting money. Queen Latifa and Missy Eliot (or at least the report said it was them) were employing large beach umbrellas, and I believe it was Leonardo DiCaprio who actually had people holding up a large screen of what appeared to be black fabric panels. A celebrity cannot sue a photographer, whether freelance or a regular employee of a newspaper or television network - or you, for that matter, for taking their picture in a public place. But especially as the paparazzi culture has become more a part of the cultural fabric, and their activities and number have escalated, some have begun to make the argument that the celebrity - I'm going to use Queen Latifa just as an example, I do not know if she feels this way or not - is a product, and that she and/or any company to which she might be under contract, should be able to reserve the right to determine how and where and when and to and vial whom that product is presented. If Queen Latifa wants to go to a restaurant, should that constitute an automatic obligation on her part to be photographed, and to have those photos appear on TV shows and in newspapers? Should she be able to dictate the terms of how and where her image will appear, even if the image was obtained when she was in a public place? It's an interesting perspective, and I understand the reasoning, but I can't claim to agree with it. I am of two minds on the issue. While I am totally down with the First Amendment and free speech, and your right, either as a private individual or acting in a professional capacity, to take pictures of any and all celebrities in any public place, I am not really comfortable with the principle that anyone should essentially forfeit their right to privacy because they are famous people, public figures, etc. What do you think would be the best way to protect both your right to take a picture of a movie star in a public place, and the movie star's right to privacy in a public place?