Quote Originally Posted by drg
I am going to add an additional twist or wrinkle to consider.

What of figures who have maintained or protected their privacy from the beginning of their careers? They were aware of and used that notoriety of facelessness to drive a mystique or for other reasons.

Thomas Pynchon comes to mind as does the contemporary graffiti artist Banksy as two who've been zealous in their lack of a public persona. Various authors over the years have presented themselves as being of the opposite gender or even androgynous as part of an effort to let their work stand on its own.

When or if that wall of anonymity disappears , it changes the original expectation of privacy I hope all would agree. Now come the 'but and however', if the individual pursues fame, uses publicity to garner attention and accepts awards and accolades based on that very interactive public stage, do they ever have the right or even practical expectation of returning to normal again?

By extension do they not thrust their family and friends into that same arena as it is part of their life and 'story' from which they have thus profited?

Should Rowling (aka whatever other nom-de-plume or alias she may choose ) even get a trial or is this a case of special privilege?
I think that's fairly inconsequential in terms of both the real legal and ideal legal argument. Everyone, famous or not famous, has both a public and private persona. You don't dress and act the same in private as you do in public. The video phone became practical in the 1980s. It never caught on. People can change from their private to public voice in an instant, but nobody wanted to have to shave twice a day, keep their hair done, and wear their 'public clothes' in case the phone rang.

Can you imagine if every photographer, in addition, apparently, to having to figure out when someone expects privacy in public, also has to gauge the level of fame each person seeks and to whether that photograph will conflict with it and possibly damage a career if a privacy seeker (for career advancement) gets careless and is seen in public and is then responsible for possible (but not provable) damage to the career? And what if it backfires and creates greater fame and career advancement, does the photographer get 'negative damages' (a paycheck) for helping with the career?

The plain truth, and I hope it eventually comes out, is that when you're in public you don't have any right not to be photographed or looked at, regardless of your level of fame. If you don't like it get the big sunglasses and floppy hat.