INTRODUCTION
The flash of a camera does not only capture a candid moment; it often captures a storm of legal and moral debates. In the developing social media era, the photographs of celebrities have become very common and this shape the public narratives and add on to the billion-dollar entertainment industry. However, the question that arises is "Who owns the copyright on such photographs?". Do celebrities have the right to control the commercial use of their persona or whether the photographer/paparazzies have the exclusive rights as the author of the photo?
Though the major debate revolves around the Copyright Law, it also includes the dilemma of the right to freedom of expression and right to privacy. While paparazzies often argue that the celebrity's photograph is the outcome of their creativity and being the author to it they shall have exclusive rights over it, the celebrities on the other hand argue that such photographs and their social use without consent violates their privacy, autonomy and dignity.
To understand this better, suppose a top-notch Bollywood celebrity steps out of her Bandra home, without makeup, unsettled hair and clutching a coffee mug. Before she even reaches her car, camera clicks in unison and just within few hours, her photos are everywhere on social media including fan pages, public accounts and even as part of memes. Each 'like', 'share' or 'tweet' enhances her visibility on the platforms, benefiting NOT her but the paparazzies.
According to the law, the person clicking is the author and the first owner of the photograph unless clicked under a contract of employment or the celebrity themselves. Therefore, paparazzi holds right to the photo and not the celebrity.1
The celebrities receive no credit, no benefit and no control. Yet without her face, that photograph is worthless. This is the paradox here that the law gives power and control to media houses while, the society favors celebrity in the name of moral values.
But, should the copyright ownership be absolutely with the paparazzi photos when the subject in consideration is unwillingness and harassment?
THE LAW: COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOS
Under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 the term "artistic work" is defined as "a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph," under section 2(c). This definition includes the scope of photographs under the Act.
Now, under the ambit of section 17(b) and 17(c) of the Act, if a photograph is taken for a valued consideration of any person, then such person will be the first owner of the photograph. And if the photograph was clicked under a contract of service or employment, then the employer will be the first owner of the photograph.
Both these principles clearly imply that paparazzies are independent photographers and own the copyright to the images they click, and have the authority to gain benefits from those photos. Thus, the copyright legislation, leans heavily in favor of paparazzies. However, this is where the personality and privacy rights intervene with the copyright framework.
CASE STUDIES
· Gigi Hadid Allegations
The absolute rights of the paparazzies allow them to gain profit from celebrity images, while celebrities risk copyright infringement if they report these photos on social media platform without the media house consents. The celebrities are not allowed to even use their own photographs because they were shot by someone else.
Global stars like Gigi Hadid and Emily Ratajkowski have faced similar lawsuits showing how deeply the issue runs in the world.
In 2019, Gigi Hadid was sued for posting her photograph shot by the paparazzi, on Instagram. The agency claimed that the unlicensed photograph was shared without any proper credit to the agency and that they had the copyright over the photo.2
It was highlighted that the U.S. Copyright law provides photographers exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their work, even if the subject of the image is a public figure. Reposting such copyrighted images without credit or authorization is a violation of the law unless used under the Fair Use Doctrine.
In India, however, while the courts have recognised privacy and personality rights, there's still no clear statutory provision to apply to such cases because of the intervention of moral rights.
· Emma Watson's Birthday Clash
The actress, Emma Watson highlighted the darker side of paparazzi culture. On her 18th birthday, the actress faced a swarm of photographers who attempted to capture her upskirt photographs as she exited her birthday venue. The actress condemned the paparazzies for the act and alleged that they waited for her to be 18 to sexualize her images.3
This incident highlighted that the fact that for media houses only publicity and number of likes and shares matter instead of the privacy and dignity of a person. Watson did not consent to such photos, but the law at that time, the Copyright Act, left no control to her and felt exploited. The tabloids and gossip blogs profited well from the sales, likes and clicks.
From an Indian point of view, the case resonates with Article 21 of the Constitution that protect the right to dignity and privacy. Had this been in India, she could have had the right to claim recourse under this provision because Constitution is supreme. However, globally, Copyright Law was given more preference.
BOLLYWOOD IN THE SOPTLIGHT
Considering the case of Amitabh Bachan V. Rajat Nagi (2022)4 wherein the Delhi High Court tool a landmark step by recognising the personality rights of celebrities including their name, images, voice and attributes. The court highlighted that the unauthorised exploitation of Mr. Bachan's persona violates individual identity and deprives the rightful economic benefits attached to the identity.
Celebrities could argue that the unconsented photographs and subsequent monetization of such images amounts to unauthorised commercial exploitation of their persona. In essence, their identity is treated as a commodity without permission which directly impacts their identity.
This debate shifts the perspective beyond the copyright infringement to the personal rights of individuals.
PHOTOGRAPH AS ART vs. PERSONA PROPERTY
Throughout this blog we saw how paparazzi photographs carry two inseparable layers of value. One is the artistic perception and other is the identity/ persona one. Neither of these two perspectives thrive in isolation. No photograph is valued without the subject matter being a celebrity who being a human possess personal rights.
This tension raises a question that should such photographs be treated with a dual viewpoint? A possible solution, as a suggestion, could be a dual-right model wherein the paparazzi shall be restricted by creative expression under the copyright frameworks and the celebrities have enforceable protection towards their persona.
Any commercial exploitation of the photograph would require authorisation from both the stakeholders and this would balance the dignity of celebs while ensuring that the authors, paparazzies or media houses be rewarded for their creativity.
CONCULSION
The copyright ownership of paparazzi photographs may seem straightforward. The law vests in the photograph itself. As seen in the case studies above, paparazzi's practice can erode personal dignity under the excuse of lawful copyright acts.
Every photograph is not just a picture, rather a moral dilemma frozen in pixels. The law must reconcile the photographer's authorship with the celebrity's dignity to overcome this moral dilemma. The paparazzi should not be allowed to violate the fundamental rights of the individual and respect the persona.
The dual perspective as suggested above should be adopted, to prevent misuse and secure privacy concerns. Whike the paparazzi may hold copyright, public figures hold moral ground which in India at least, have a heavy legal edge.
REFERRENCES
Articles:
- Rights of Owner of Photograph Under the Copyright Act, 1957. (2011) PL January 10. © EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
- Who Owns Copyright in photographs- Rights of Paparazzi vis-a-vis Rights of Celebrities - https://iptse.com/who-owns-copyright-in-photographs-rights-of-paparazzi-vis-a-vis-rights-of-celebrities/
- Who would possess the rights over celebrity paparazzi photographs?, Mrudula Manappatt - https://www.puthrans.com/who-would-possess-the-rights-over-celebrity-paparazzi-photographs/
- Personality Rights Vis-a-vis Copyright Infringement, Tiyasa Banerjee - https://www.mondaq.com/india/copyright/1117606/personality-rights-vis-a-vis-copyright-infringement
- The Copyright Tussle between Paparazzi and Celebrities over Celebrity Photographs, Arunima Sharma - https://www.theipmatters.com/post/is-it-illegal-to-post-your-own-photograph-the-paparazzi-s-rights
- "Gigi Hadid Sued Again for Posting Paparazzi Photo of Herself without Permission" by Kaitlyn Frey- 29th January, 2019 - https://people.com/style/gigi-hadid-sued-again-posting-photo-without-permission/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- "Emma Watson was left 'violated' after what photographers did to her on her 18th birthday" by Jess Battison – 22nd June 2025
Case Law:
- Amitabh Bachchan vs. Rajat Nagi and Ors. S (25.11.2022 - DEOR): MANU/DEOR/195516/2022
Statute:
- The Indian Copyright Act, 1957
Internship Details:
Preferred Location – New Delhi
Preferred Month – 27th March 2025 to 27th April 2025
Footnotes
1 S. 17 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957
2 "Gigi Hadid Sued Again for Posting Paparazzi Photo of Herself without Permission" by Kaitlyn Frey- 29th January, 2019 https://people.com/style/gigi-hadid-sued-again-posting-photo-without-permission/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
3 "Emma Watson was left 'violated' after what photographers did to her on her 18th birthday" by
Jess Battison – 22nd June 2025 https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/celebrity/emma-watson-upskirting-violated-18-birthday-photographers-026919-20250622
4 Amitabh Bachchan vs. Rajat Nagi and Ors. S (25.11.2022 - DEOR): MANU/DEOR/195516/2022
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
