Annie Nguyen

Charles Acland
COMS Directed Study
16.04.2019

Whose Photo is It Anyway?: Control in the Era of the Celebrity Image

Throughout this directed study, I was not necessarily surprised to learn that one of the most

recurrent themes in celebrity culture was that of control. However, the more that I read, the more

that I realized I had no idea what to what degree this struggle played out – not simply for the

individual celebrity figure, but for the media and for the wider public. From the death of Princess

Diana to carefully constructed private moments caught on camera for public consumption, control

seems paramount to celebrity life. This final reflection will very briefly consider two contemporary

contexts in which public figures must navigate this issue – ownership of paparazzi photos, and

the impending royal birth for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – and how they are framed by

news outlets in an attempt to interrogate where the current climate of celebrity has lead us when

it comes to that control and our relationship with supposedly untouchable elite.

As mentioned in my previous paper, there has been a growing trend of photography agencies

“aggressively pursuing legal action against celebrities” who use images shot by the paparazzi

without permission, which only exacerbates what Claudia Rosenbaum claims is “the friction that

already exists between celebrities and the relentless photographers who pursue them”

(Rosenbaum). While the Seiter and Seiter article examines the right to publicity, or “one’s right

to control the use of his or her name, image, likeness, and voice for commercial gain,” Rosenbaum

suggests that copyright law, rather than the right to publicity, is the issue at hand and that it “clearly

favours the photographer” (Seiter and Seiter 169; Buzzfeed News). As entertainment lawyer

Bryan Sullivan explains, “the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph; it doesn’t matter

who is in it,” but to me, this raises an interesting and important question about the ability to control
one’s own image (qtd in Rosenbaum). I can understand a desire to make a living on the part of a

photographer, but they are ultimately benefiting from a celebrity’s decision to be visible in a public

space and open to spectacle or scrutiny. To damage would could be construed, as already implied

in this directed study, as a symbiotic relationship in the form of a lawsuit does not seem like a

logical business practice for an industry that is “making less money these days” due in part to the

rise of social media, which allows more direct access to celebrity images (Harrison qtd in

Rosenbaum). The idea that control has suddenly shifted to those who are dependant on the

status of others for profit is a strange one. Celebrity photographer Giles Harrison acknowledges

this delicate balance, claiming that many public figures “slyly engage their own photographers or

work in conjunction with them to snap their “candid” styles to avoid these type of legal hassles”

(qtd in Rosenbaum). But if one cannot necessarily avoid being photographed nor retain capital

gain from their own image, what can be done? Some celebrities resort to particular tactics to avoid

photographers being able to profit off of their photos, such as Daniel Radcliffe wearing the exact

same outfit whilst leaving a London stage production every night for six months, making his image

unusable due to no discernible difference, or Taylor Swift walking sideways or backwards into her

vehicle to deny photographers a shot of her face (Ferro; Stack). And while I understand that the

bright glare of the public eye is one of the consequences of internationally recognized art, skills,

or branding, these measures, to me, seem not just silly looking as behaviours, but also exist as

a visual reminder of how fraught a hold that these individuals have on control over their lives.

Despite teams of management, publicity, styling, and security to help celebrities craft and maintain

the illusion of glamourous, perfect lives, I would in fact argue that these concessions, whether

financial or behavioural, are a product of this unraveling of control and the shift of power moving

further and further away from celebrities who were once thought to have all of it.

For the second and final case study of this small paper, I would like to examine the perceived

media controversy surrounding the upcoming birth of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s first
child. In rebuke of “the various press rituals surrounding the British royal family,” and “more than

40 years’ tradition,” the Duke and Duchess have recently decided to keep the details of the labour

and delivery private, and release the first photos of the baby after they have “had an opportunity

to celebrate privately as a new family” (Barry; qtd in Barry). The reaction in the press was

dramatic, to say the least. The Sun accused the couple of violating their “royal rights,” claiming

that the public had “a right to know about the lives of those largely funded by their taxes” (qtd in

Barry). An anonymous senior journalist claimed that the price for “the shattering of a tradition that

goes back for decades” was “mockery,” which I and Guardian columnist Zoe Williams would argue

has happening to Meghan long before this decision was made public (qtd in Barry; Williams).

Among any number of contradictory offences, if she is not “luxuriating in the attention” from the

press for smiling at photographers, she “besmirches the majesty of her office,” for doing “anything

remotely normal,” as “[p]eople who in normal life are intensely relaxed about wealth inequality are

suddenly exercised about the fact that a celebrity married a prince and now – miracle – has an

expensive handbag” (Williams). Now, she and Prince Harry, as many celebrities have done

before, must navigate the intensely intimate process of a pregnancy and birth with millions of eyes

on them, compounded by a decades old media industry that seems to believe they deserve this

access. Fellow Guardian columnist Rhiannon Cosslett claims that “there appears to be little

reflection from the tabloid press since Diana’s death,” as royals are expected to give up a “pound

of flesh,” in order to be even vaguely tolerated by the mass public, and yet seemingly fail to

remember that it was Prince Harry’s mother whose death came at the hands of overzealous

paparazzi, and Prince Harry and his wife who they seem so intent on accosting now (Cosslett). I

would imagine that control, for someone whose public life is now as regimented as the Duchess’,

must be hard won and taken wherever and however possible. It does not seem unreasonable to

me that the Duke and Duchess seek what would be, in non-royal circles, a perfectly reasonable

amount of privacy and a normally established boundary. Yet, this exercising of control on the part

of the royal couple is being met with intense backlash from the media outlets who, as with the first
example in this paper, ultimately wish to profit off their stardom at any possible opportunity. It

seems to me that no matter what Prince Harry and Meghan Markle do, the Duchess herself is

particularly criticized; to that end, she may as well do what she wants.

At the end of this directed study, I am left with many questions: what is it, exactly do media

industries and the public, believe we are owed when it comes to celebrities? Is it our right to

demand every detail of their lives – the good, the bad, the awkward or the ugly – even if are not

details we would be willing to give publicly ourselves? Who has more control, and who deserves

it? Whether we believe these images or personas to be authentically given, captured by

photographers, or strategically presented by any number of individuals on a celebrity’s personal

or professional team is up for debate, but I would ultimately argue if the wheel of celebrity culture

is going to turn continuously rather than completely break down, these individuals must be viewed

as they are, which is to say that behind their millions, their chart-topping records, box-office record

breaking films, or coveted brands, celebrities are simply people, who deserve to live with the same

respect and dignity as anyone else.

Works Cited

Barry, Ellen. “Scorned British Tabloids to Harry and Meghan: Show Us Your Baby!” New

York Times, 16 Apr. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/world/europe/harry-

meghan-baby-british-tabloids.html?searchResultPosition=1.

Cosslett, Rhiannon Lucy. “Good on Meghan and Harry for Letting the Curtain Fall on the

Royal Birth Media Circus.” The Guardian, 16 Apr. 2019,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/16/meghan-harry-birth-media-

circus.
Ferro, Shaunacy. “Daniel Radcliffe’s Clever Trick for Evading Paparazzi.” Mental Floss, 13

June 2017, http://mentalfloss.com/article/501844/daniel-radcliffe’s-clever-trick-evading-

paparazzi

Rosenbaum, Claudia. “Celebrities Are Being Sued For Posting Paparazzi Photos Of

Themselves On Social Media.” Buzzfeed News, 26 Dec. 2018,

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/claudiarosenbaum/celebrities-sued-paparazzi-

photos-social-media.

Seiter, Bill and Seiter, Ellen “Rights of Privacy and Publicity.” The Creative Artist's

Legal Guide: Copyright, Trademark and Contracts in Film and Digital Media

Production, Yale University Press, NEW HAVEN; LONDON, 2012, pp. 169–

191. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm7md.8.

Stack, Tim. “Taylor Swift Hilariously Walks Sideways to Avoid Paparazzi.” Entertainment

Weekly, Aug. 2016, https://ew.com/article/2016/08/04/taylor-swift-walks-backwards/.

Williams, Zoe. “Whatever Meghan Does, She’s Damned. Let’s Not Repeat History.” The

Guardian, 20 Feb. 2019,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/20/meghan-duchess-sussex-

damned-hate-figure.