Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

In defense of Justin Bieber

By Dean Obeidallah, Special to CNN
updated 8:37 PM EDT, Wed May 30, 2012
 Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez watch the San Antonio Spurs play the Los Angeles Lakers in Los Angeles.
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez watch the San Antonio Spurs play the Los Angeles Lakers in Los Angeles.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Justin Bieber allegedly lashed out at a photographer trying to get pics of him and girlfriend
  • Dean Obeidallah says the issue is whether paparazzi should stalk celebs and their families
  • He asks: Why should paparazzi profit off images of celebrities without their consent?
  • Law should provide that celebs must give consent, with exceptions for news, he writes

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) -- "Justin Bieber accused of roughing up photographer." When I read this headline, my initial reaction was: Who would admit to being beaten up by Justin Bieber?

I think most of us would take that secret with us to our grave.

For those unfamiliar with Bieber -- if that's even possible -- he's an 18-year-old international pop sensation who stands at an imposing 5 feet 7 inches and probably weighs about 135 pounds. But on Sunday, Bieber was accused of channeling his inner Alec Baldwin, lashing out at a member of the paparazzi who was trying to snap some photos of him and his famous girlfriend, Selena Gomez, as the two exited a movie theater.

To me, however, the real issue is not this incident. I predict this matter will be quickly resolved, possibly with a transfer of funds to the photographer's bank account.

Dean Obeidallah
Dean Obeidallah

The issue that truly needs to addressed is this the paparazzi's daily pursuit of celebrities as if they were contestants in "The Hunger Games." They stake out hotels, restaurants, schools, homes, trying to snap a photo of a celebrity or their families. The obvious reason is that the photographers sell these photos, and often for big bucks.

Did Bieber brawl with photographer?
Bieber accused of engaging in fight

But why should these photographers be allowed to profit off the images of celebrities without the celebrities' consent? If a corporation wants to use an image of celebrities in an advertising campaign, they must first obtain their approval and typically pay them a fee.

This is because our copyright laws provide that if you take a photo, you own the copyright to that picture. Consequently, members of the paparazzi who snap a photo, even over the objections of the person, are awarded the full bundle of rights afforded by the federal copyright laws, including the right to sell the photo for a profit.

This is simply wrong. Our nation's copyright laws were enacted to protect original works. One of the goals of the law is to foster creativity, so people will invest the skill and effort needed to create works to which they will own exclusive rights, such as books, paintings, music and movies.

No one can argue that people who snap a photo of George Clooney as he exits a Pinkberry eating strawberry frozen yogurt or, worse, hang around outside grammar schools taking photos of someone's children deserve the same legal protection as those who create a movie, music or other work of art.

Our laws should be revised so that the copyright owner would no longer be the photographer who took the photo. Instead, the owner should be the person whose appearance in the photo makes it valuable: the celebrity.

Let's be honest, media outlets aren't buying these photos from the paparazzi because of the photographer's great talent for lighting. It's because the photo contains an image of a celebrity. Why shouldn't the person giving the image its value own the rights to it?

Indeed, our legal system has long recognized that we all have a "right of publicity," which means that we each have the right to control the use of our name, image and likeness. And obviously, this is a bigger issue for well-known people because their images yield a monetary value. To me, the unauthorized taking of person's photo and selling it for profit is akin to stealing a valuable asset from that person.

This statutory revision would remove the financial incentive for the paparazzi to stalk celebrities, because the photos could not be sold or distributed to any third party without the celebrities' consent, with exceptions for occasions that are newsworthy, such as a court appearance or arrest. But walking down the street, going to the gym or taking your children to school should be off-limits.

The definition of "celebrity" and what constitutes a legitimate photograph would be defined by statute and the court decisions interpreting the law. Although this would create a different legal standard for celebrities versus private citizens, our legal system makes a similar distinction in defamation cases, holding public figures to a higher standard of proof than the average person.

I know some people have zero sympathy for stars. True, they have chosen this life, and there are certain consequences that accompany fame. And some have achieved fame with the least talent possible: I'm looking at you, cast of "The Jersey Shore."

But why should a talented singer, musician or actor be sentenced to a life with no privacy simply because of their success? Shouldn't we all have the right to a quiet meal with our family or the chance to walk our children to school without having cameras jammed into our kids' faces?

This doesn't put the paparazzi out of business. There will still be plenty of work taking photos of famous people who consent. Celebrities still need to be in the media and so do their projects.

It will mean only that in normal day-to-day situations, celebrities will be able to retain a shred of privacy and no longer have to worry about paparazzi chasing them as they go food shopping or trying to enjoy "date night," as in the case of the "mighty" Justin Bieber.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 12:41 PM EDT, Wed April 23, 2014
Robert Hickey says most new housing development is high-end, catering to high-earners.
updated 9:17 AM EDT, Wed April 23, 2014
Alexander Motyl says as Russian President Putin snarled at Ukraine, his foreign minister was signing a conciliatory accord with the West. Whatever the game, the accord is a major stand down by Russia
updated 8:29 AM EDT, Wed April 23, 2014
Les Abend says at every turn, the stowaway teen defied the odds of discovery and survival. What pilot would have thought to look for a person in the wheel well?
updated 6:47 PM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
Q & A with artist Rachel Sussman on her new book of photographs, "The Oldest Living Things in the World."
updated 3:58 PM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
Martin Blaser says the overuse of antibiotics threatens to deplete our bodies of "good" microbes, leaving us vulnerable to an unstoppable plague--an "antibiotic winter"
updated 1:37 PM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
John Sutter asks: Is it possible to eat meat in modern-day America and consider yourself an environmentalist without being a hypocrite?
updated 11:38 AM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
Sally Kohn notes that Meb Keflezighi rightly was called an American after he won the Boston Marathon, but his status in the U.S. once was questioned
updated 8:56 AM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
Denis Hayes and Scott Denman say on this Earth Day, the dawn of the Solar Age is already upon us and the Atomic Age of nuclear power is in decline
updated 4:36 PM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Retired Coast Guard officer James Loy says a ship captain bears huge responsibility.
updated 1:08 PM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Peter Bergen says the latest strikes are part of an aggressive U.S. effort to target militants, including a bomb maker
updated 9:45 AM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Cynthia Lummis and Peter Welch say 16 agencies carry out national intelligence, and their budgets are top secret. We need to know how they are spending our money.
updated 8:35 AM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Julian Zelizer says President Obama knows more than anyone that he has much at stake in the midterm elections.
updated 8:55 AM EDT, Tue April 22, 2014
Eric Sanderson says if you really want to strike a blow for the environment--and your health--this Earth Day, work to get cars out of cities and create transportation alternatives
updated 10:08 AM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Bruce Barcott looks at the dramatic differences in marijuana laws in Colorado and Louisiana
updated 4:47 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jim Bell says NASA's latest discovery supports the notion that habitable worlds are probably common in the galaxy.
updated 2:17 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jay Parini says even the Gospels skip the actual Resurrection and are sketchy on the appearances that followed.
updated 1:52 PM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Graham Allison says if an unchecked and emboldened Russia foments conflict in a nation like Latvia, a NATO member, the West would have to defend it.
updated 9:11 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
John Sutter: Bad news, guys -- the pangolin we adopted is missing.
updated 2:25 PM EDT, Mon April 21, 2014
Ben Wildavsky says we need a better way to determine whether colleges are turning out graduates with superior education and abilities.
updated 6:26 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Charles Maclin, program manager working on the search and recovery of Malaysia Flight 370, explains how it works.
updated 8:50 AM EDT, Fri April 18, 2014
Jill Koyama says Michael Bloomberg is right to tackle gun violence, but we need to go beyond piecemeal state legislation.
updated 2:45 PM EDT, Thu April 17, 2014
Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts say Americans are ready for sensible gun laws, but politicians are cowed by the NRA. Everytown for Gun Safety will prove the NRA is not that powerful.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT