The Price of Fame: Do Stars Give Up Their Right to Privacy?

By Jo Piazza Posted Mar 19th 2010 08:00PM

What exactly is the price of fame? We know that celebrities are very well paid. Jennifer Aniston commanded a salary of $27 million last year. That's 843 times the average American's salary of around $32,000 a year.

That's a pretty nice premium to get for being famous. But what should that increase pay for? Is it enough to cover the complete lack of privacy afforded famous folks today, the media scrutiny and sometimes the inability to drive to the gas station without the paparazzi tailgating their BMWs? Maybe it is. It's hard to put a price tag on privacy.

We raise these questions after reading your comments in response to our post about the ethics involved in releasing Corey Haim's 911 call.

Jojo posted: "Just because a person is a celebrity does not mean we should have access to EVERY part of their life. How sad that a mother's anguish can be played over and over for all the world to hear."

Keith posted: "When you make money from celebrity, you cant deny celebrity... you go as you came in...."

Samantha posted: "These people chose to have public lives when they went into showbiz. Are we just supposed to ignore them once they die? If they CHOSE the public life, it goes for in death too. Air the tapes. If you don't want to hear it... PLUG YOUR EARS!"

Our commenters represent two sides of this quandary. Jojo and heaps of others say that the public should not be given access to every part of a famous person's life, but Keith and Samantha (and again, plenty of others) believe that celebrities sign those rights away when they start accepting fat paychecks.

There is an argument that back in the good old days (before the Internet, a 24-hour celebrity news cycle and a variety of celebrity tabloid magazines), celebs were still able to exist in their pretty and famous bubbles without such enormous intrusion into their private lives. While that is true, it is also true that the rise of more celebrity news outlets has managed to create more celebrities. Oftentimes, there is a direct correlation between how often we hear about a certain actor, actress, singer or reality star and how much money they bring in at the box office, in album sales or through endorsements. The continued intrusion into their lives also serves to raise their salaries.

Would 'Mr. and Mrs. Smith' have made $186 million at the box office if it hadn't been for speculation over Brad and Angie's romance? Would that same couple have been able to sell off pictures of their subsequent three offspring for tens of millions of dollars if it hadn't been for the celebrity media's interest in them? Would Paris Hilton ever have risen above the status of banquette dancing socialite if it hadn't been for all her gossip column coverage?

It's give and take, plain and simple, but that doesn't mean it's always fair. Now we want to hear from you. Do you think celebrities sign away their privacy because of their big paychecks? Tell us in the comments what amount you would have to be paid to offer the public full access to all your personal garbage.

Tags: Corey Haim, jennifer aniston

Comments

(21)

Friday 19 March

By hooey1

Highest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Just because someone is a celebrity does not mean he/she or their family is fair game to the press or the general public. The problem with our society is that most people don't have lives. They watch soap operas and actually think the actors are THOSE people the portray. They develop a like or dislike for that person based on the character. They love to follow celebrities lives and most intimate secrets. For example. The Tiger Woods thing. It is absolutely no ones business nor does he have to apologize to any body other than his wife and family. Those who think he does, are sick voyeurs, who thrive on gossip and innuendos. I am not saying he didn't do anything wrong, all I am saying is it his life, his problem. Get a life people

Tuesday 25 May

By Neuromancer

High Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Except that is exactly what it means... if you willingly make your name a public symbol, you can't be a private person anymore. That's why paps can do crazy, invasive thing to celebs and aren't in prison - they are no longer private citizens. Their name and likeness is a business element now.

You didn't think those massive paychecks came without cost did you?

I really don't care what celebs do when they aren't working. But you can't claim they are the same as private citizens. They aren't.

By Max the Midget

Lowest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Everyone loves a horrible accident or train wreck! Who doesn't slow down at the sight of an accident? Besides I have a nice 8X10 glossy of Brittney Spears crotch hanging on my wall! Thanks Paparrazi!

By leon

Vote down Vote up Report this

John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Yule Brenner worn't in the public light like some actors and actresses are now. That is because they chose not to.

Saturday 20 March

By Paul

Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne were able to go to dinner in many public restaurants without having a dozen photographers flashing their cameras in their faces. How about a star going to a private villa and then having their pictures taken by the media with the use of LONG distance lens. They sought out the privacy that you mentioned Jimmy and John Wahne lived by. This world is so crazy that people want to see their "stars" eating and stuffing their faces with food. What is news worthy about that? NOTHING. That is the key.
IS it "news worthy"?????
Sandra Bullock's marital woes unfortunately is.....pictures of Kate Winslet on a yacht in a bikini is NOT. She paid for the privacy by paying for the yacht but WE the people still want pictures of her in a bikini.

By bellaluna

The spotlight on celebrities does go too far. However they also use publicity, witness the recent alleged Butler-Aniston fauxmance all for publicity for their movie which some critics are saying is rubbish. here are fake romances with them all the time for publicity for their movies, they are obsessed with their careers and use the media for that purpose. They can't switch the media spotlight on and off as they please. It doesn't work like that.
However out of respect for their families I don't think it is appropriate to have all details of a loved one's death or any health issue for that matter all over the internet and tv etc. There has to be some boundaries left.

By Dlg

They choose this profession knowing total lack of privacy is a consequence of this choice. Celebrities want to have their cake and eat it too. While many people are struggling to pay mortgages and bills celebrities flaunt their wealth in the most vulgar manner. And they want the public to feel sorry for them because they don't like the inconvenience of being photographed????? Sorry but if it is so unbearable then they should find another profession and stop whining.

By Marcia Womack

The only thing any celebrity personality owes the public is a good performance.

By John Bellamy

There are astronomic COSTS that go with celebrity such as higher fences and sometimes even "island" homes, 24hr home security systems, legal fees to protect themseleves from the predatory media and their enemies and boarding schools in far-away lands for their offspring which can easily run into millions of dollars.

By Ann

With the money they make they should be on call 24-7 and yhey still wouldn't be earning their paychecks

By elljaybee

As in any job, if you don't like the lifestyle that goes with it, change careers. I am sure if Jennifer Aniston dropped out of films and started waitressing, it wouldn't be long before she could have all the privacy she wanted. Everyone knows what being a celebrity means so decide and then shut up about it.

By Happygolucky

Celebrities are where they are because of the infatuation this country has with these so called artists. Look at how many award shows they have to simply aggrandize themselves. Wake up people you think their poop don't stink, they're just human beings folks we do not have to worship them like gods.

By Gail E. Cooper

The public arena is a fairly level playing field. Celebrities have to be prepared to deal with the pros and cons that go along with the public's generous patronage. The public does not own a celebrity's life; however, it's up to each celebrity to manage his/her public image wisely. Too many of them are so "over the top" and it's no wonder that when they crash, the whole world takes notice. Sometimes a person's greatest enemy is himself and his deluded belief in his own hype. I suspect that many of them live way above their means and in the real lean years, they make very risky choices that only magnify their personal woes and hasten their decline.

By bobm3434

All have a right to privacy. Being a "star" does not change the fact. Does the prom king and queen "lose" theirs the night of the prom? privacy that is?but what you were thinking is to the point. That is THEIR buisness, not the whole schools. They are "stars that night? The only people who should live under a microscope are ELECTED OFFICIALS. If american society spent MORE time watching what goes on behind the scene in politics america would not have officials destroying the country. This is for both parties,national and local.

By Rick

I have to agree here. Even in other areas of the world, people are so fascinated by stars that they forget the really important things: what elected officials are going behind closed doors. Major issues in Washington like health care and the war in Afghanistan would be so much closer to being resolved if people kept better tabs on the officials THEY elected than they do if the stars' personal lives...

By daisy

I think they are fair game except being photographed with the huge lenses when they are in private situations, not out in public. Also, I think it is wrong for the paparazzi to chase them down in cars and on motorcycles for photos.

By Prathap Rajamani

Publicity should never invade Privacy. Period.

By steve e.

No privacy for celebrities that make 100-500 times more than the average person. When the world is a cornucopia and there's plenty for everybody and not just table scraps, celebrities can then have privacy. But I'm not holding my breath for that because life is brutally random which will always result in 1% of the populace controlling 95% of the wealth, with virtually none of the megarich having earned it.

Sunday 21 March

By Diana

I wouldnt want to live the life these people live, all for huge pay checks. They give up all of their privacy, and the risk of their families safety as well. These people cant sleep unless theres security guards at every corner of their property. They cant go out to eat, or to the movies, or the mall. I cant imagine how they really live with out privacy.
I would rather be dirt poor, than to be hounded by people wanting autographs. Or the paps taking pictures from a mile away. There does need to be a law to protect these people. Theres way too many mentally challanged people walking the streets, these celebrities are not safe. And their families are not safe either. I would rather be anyone else than to be anyone of these rich and famous people,, any day. Theres more important things in life than money.

Monday 22 March

By Penni

JUST becuz a STAR is a STAR(even for a MOMENT) doesnt give a Journalist the RIGHT to SMEAR ..its Like the old SAYING if you arent going to say something NICE then by all means ..Dont SAY Anything AT ALL. I Like to Use the Tactic ~Would U like it if that were U !

Page 1 of 2