Counter-intuitive though it may seem, even when the photographer’s subject is an unwilling participant, copyright law falls squarely on the side of the person who captures an image in a public setting.

That inconvenient truth has ensnared celebrities in tussles whose legal nuance often is overshadowed by a feeling that a person can use any image taken of themselves – even those snapped without their permission – as they see fit.

“If I was walking into the National Gallery in London and started stealing images off the wall, like, this happens to us constantly – it’s an actual violation,” said Jesal Parshotam, a photojournalist based in Los Angeles. “I actually see my images published in places and I’m like in shock, I’m like, ‘Wait, this is my image.’”

These copyright cases have been thrown back in the spotlight thanks to a recent suit against US actress Lisa Rinna.

Instead of settling out of court, the star is swinging back on another lawsuit filed by BackGrid, “one of Hollywood’s largest celebrity-photograph agencies”. The firm is seeking as much as US$1.2 million in damages for Rinna’s posting of eight unauthorised photos of herself and her daughters.

In an October 1 filing, Rinna’s lawyer claims that BackGrid’s allegations are barred because the agency “has effectively ‘weaponised’ the Copyright Act in an effort to augment its income”. The ability of photographers to profit from images of celebrities, “and then turn around and sue those same celebrities for posting their own images on social media”, Rinna’s lawyer wrote, is “anathema to what the Copyright Act is intended to protect”.

Julie Zerbo, a lawyer and the founder of website The Fashion Law, keeps a running list of copyright cases involving paparazzi and celebrities on her website, which covers the retail industry’s legal and commercial challenges.

Many stars will use paparazzi shots overlaid with text to guide their followers to buy merchandise – such as one of Ariana Grande’s “Sweetener” sweatshirts, as alleged in the second of two lawsuits photographer Robert Barbera filed against the pop star and her company.

Barbera, who settled with Grande in April 2020, claimed she posted an Instagram story that included his shot of her leaving her New York flat in August 2018 “to promote” her “brand and clothing by saying, ‘My Merch Is So Cute and Comfy, Swipe Up To Get Da Look’ on the photograph”.

Paparazzi generally describe themselves as reacting reasonably upon noticing a lifted image, so long as it isn’t being used to endorse a product or brand. In that case, a luxury brand like Gucci might pay anywhere from US$500 to US$3,000 to license a photo for use on social media – a pittance compared to the going rates for an official endorsement deal with a star.

Celebrities and paparazzi have always had somewhat of a symbiotic relationship, at times benefiting from each other; at other times accusing the other of exploitation.

For example, Parshotam, the Los Angeles-based paparazzo, says it isn’t unusual for him to be out for dinner with his wife when he gets a phone call from an A-list celebrity tipping him off about an imminent appearance at a particular restaurant or luxury retailer. He bristles at the stereotype of the too aggressive and invasive paparazzi that persists more than 24 years after Princess Diana died in a Paris car crash while being pursued by photographers.

“The kind of photographer and sort of animal that existed in Diana’s time doesn’t exist any more,” Parshotam said. It’s “a misconception that we are harassing”.

Still, some find it difficult to grapple with this nuance of copyright law, particularly when they did not consent to a photo in the first place.

Ratajkowski, who was sued in July for allegedly posting to Instagram three copyrighted images of herself, published a first-person story in New York Magazine last year describing her relationship to her own image.

“I’ve become more familiar with seeing myself through the paparazzi’s lenses than I am with looking at myself in the mirror,” she wrote. “And I have learned that my image, my reflection, is not my own.”

Among the contested photos is one of Ratajkowski squatting on a pavement, clad in white, her right hand inside a blue plastic dog-poo bag, which she posted with the caption “Living the dream”.

When Parshotam goes to a newspaper with his images, he said he has to fill out a memo attesting to “every intricacy” of how he obtained his photos.

“‘Were you on private property or public property? Did the subject ask you to stop taking pictures? Were you hidden? Did you photograph them in one location?’ Because if you photographed them in two or more locations, it can be deemed harassment,” he said.

That symbiotic relationship, he said, is worth more than mere gratitude for a celebrity having shared an image with millions of followers.

“Their brand,” Parshotam said, “is increasing tenfold because of these images.”