No Privacy for Britney?
Britney Spears and her husband, Kevin Federline, were promised complete privacy during their October honeymoon in the Fiji islands. No paparazzi were there to intrude. But the couple allowed the resort’s staff members to photograph them enjoying their honeymoon when assured that the photos were for personal use and would be placed in a souvenir album to be given to the couple. However, one staff member sold the photos to US Weekly Magazine, and a full spread was published.
Britney is furious. She didn’t sign a model release. Did the photographer violate her rights of privacy? Not likely.
Britney can allege that the photographer “invaded her privacy” or “intruded upon her seclusion.” This happens when someone actually intrudes a person’s private domain that would be considered offensive to the average person. However, she agreed to have her photo taken, so a court probably would find that the use of the photo in a manner other than she expected affected her no differently during the picture-taking session.
Britney also may claim that her right of publicity – the commercial appropriation of her name or likeness – was violated. However, this also will likely be unsuccessful. Since she and her honeymoon are “newsworthy” items, First Amendment concerns are sure to override her protests.
In a statement to The Associated Press, US Weekly said: “Coming from a celebrity who sold pictures of both her wedding and her stepdaughter, it’s unlikely the issue here is privacy. Could it be that Britney is seeing red after not seeing the green from these photos? Britney Spears should start a magazine if she’d like to dictate her own coverage.”
Take my advice; get professional help.