Do celebrities have the right to complain?

[BetteDavisEyes]

Britney, Brad Bash "Us"
Thu Feb 17, 2:15 PM ET Entertainment - E! Online Gossip/Celeb
By Sarah Hall

What do Britney Spears (news) and Brad Pitt have in common?

Besides the obvious--fame, fortune, obsessive fans, etc.--the stars share a strong distaste for Us Weekly.
Both A-listers have lashed out at the glossy in recent days over spreads awarding them unwanted attention.
Spears' beef with Us began when the mag published unauthorized photos of her honeymoon with hubby, Kevin Federline--or K. Fed, as he's been rechristened in the press--in its Feb. 28 issue.

The pop diva said she was "disturbed" to see the spread featuring pics from her "private honeymoon album," which depicted the newlyweds soaking up intimate moments at the Fijian resort where they vacationed.

"Kevin and I chose a resort location where we were promised absolute privacy and seclusion. Unfortunately, staff members took photographs of us, which we allowed them to take once we were assured they were being taken only for private use in a scrapbook they gave us as a souvenir of our honeymoon," a distressed Spears said in a statement.

"Other magazines, including the Star, contacted us when presented with these photographs and refused to publish them. Kevin and I thank those other magazines for respecting our rights of privacy."

It's possible that the higher-ups at Us Weekly may have a wee beef with Spears as well.

In a recent sitdown with Details magazine for a cover story on the new and improved K. Fed (not a dancer, not yet an A-lister), Spears didn't bother to pull any punches while giving her opinion on the publication.
"I need to create my own magazine," the "Toxic" singer announced. "People are just way too obsessed with celebrity. Look at Us Weekly. I think the same guy who does Rolling Stone does Us Weekly. He's this big old fat man."
(Note: Jann Wenner is the publisher of both Us Weekly and Rolling Stone.)
For the record, Us agrees with Spears that she should start her own magazine.

In response to Spears' statement regarding the publication of her honeymoon pics, the mag indicated that the pop tart has been less than reclusive in the past.
"Coming from a celebrity who sold pictures of both her wedding and her stepdaughter, it's unlikely the issue here is privacy," an Us Weekly spokesperson said in a statement.
"Could it be that Britney is seeing red after not seeing the green from these photos? Britney Spears should start a magazine if she'd like to dictate her own coverage."
Touche.
Meanwhile, Spears has competition for angriest celeb of the week in the form of Pitt, after Us published photos claiming to show the thesp strolling a beach in Greece, sans wedding ring, in the company of model April Florio while he was still married to Jennifer Aniston (news).

In the accompanying article, Florio, 22, who was reportedly introduced to Pitt when she auditioned for a part in Troy, tells the magazine that she met him three more times in 2003--twice in Los Angeles and once in New York--but that nothing improper occurred, at least on her end.
"He tried to kiss me, but I shied away," Florio said, stating her disdain for getting involved with someone "in the industry."
The model also dished on Pitt's opinions of Aniston ("He hated his wife's chain-smoking. He also hated the fact that she liked to hang with her friends or just stay at home. He liked to go to parties more.") and Angelina Jolie ("He talked about her like she was a goddess.").
However, in a new interview with rival Star magazine, Florio denies making any of the remarks attributed to her by Us, claims she is not the woman pictured with Pitt and states that she met the big-screen hunk "only once, very briefly, at a party."
On Pitt's part, the Ocean's Twelve star categorically denied Us Weekly's version of events through various reps and is generally loaded for legal action.
"Brad has never been in Greece, and is not the person in those photographs in Greece. Brad does not know April Florio. He has never had dinner with her. He is not acquainted with her," the thesp's lawyer told Star. "Could he possibly have met her at some time? Maybe, because he meets so many people, but he does not ever recall meeting her. And he has certainly never had dinner and drinks with her.
"We don't really know who is responsible for these stupid, absolutely untrue, fabricated stories. For now, Brad is exploring all his legal options."
Us Weekly, unlike Florio, stands by its story.

After reading this article, I started to wonder about celebrities & their constant complaints about the press. They chose to go into this career knowing full well that the paparrazzi (sp?) would forever hound them as well as fabricate stories about them. When does it go too far? Do they have the right to complain or is it just part of the job?

[33girl]

I think it all depends on how the celebrity conducts themselves and how much they use the press.

Brad Pitt has a right to be pissed. Britney most emphatically does not.

[TupacLives]

Hell yeah, bee-yatch! Why do you think I faked my death? I came close to poppin' some of them negroes and pink people.

[DeltaSigStan]

HEY DUMBASSES....YOU'RE BOTH PUBLIC FIGURES, DEAL WITH IT.

How the fuck can an attention whore like Britney complain about this?

Oh yeah, she's seeing no $$$ from this.....

[RUgreek]

That's the price you pay for fame, your level of privacy is practically lost to the media...

[ASUADPi]

I think the it depends on the star.

Britney has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to complain because the girl is a paparazzi whore. Seriously, let's think about it if she was willing to sell her WEDDING PICTURES. She loves the paparazzi and you can see it, I think she's pissed that she didn't get any $$$$$$.

As for Brad Pitt, I think he has a right to bitch. The moment he and Jennifer announced their seperation, suddenly he was having an affair with Angelina Jolie and that was the cause of the break-up. The paparazzi took their chemistry on the set of Mr & Mrs Smith (I believe that is it's name) and ran with it. Just because people have chemistry they aren't having an affair.

Let's face it stars have no reason to bitch about "invasion of privacy" when the paparazzi snap pictures of them on the beach, walking the street, shopping, etc...

But when it comes to stating "so and so is having an affair" or "so and so is on drugs" or "so and so is gay". That is going way to far.

Stars need to realize they gave up a respectable amount of privacy the moment they signed on the dotted line giving them more money than most of us will make in our life time. The moment they became famous they should have realized this.

But anyone else notice the stars that bitch about their privacy are the ones who A) live in LA or NY B) go shopping in those pricey stores C) go partying in the trendy clubs and D) go to the ritzy restuarants. They don't make their lives PRIVATE because they are always out and about. So they have absolutely no reason to bitch.

[ms_gwyn]

I think yes people who choose a high profile career deserve privacy....but here is the thing....if they conduct themselves in a way that there privacy is not anyone's business, that is how it will be seen and people (i.e. paparazzi) and the gossip mags will respect it (sort of).....

Lets take actors and movie stars (in my mind, completely two different breeds), if you go do your job and then do press junkets to sell the movie and keep the questions just about the movie, you will appear in less gossip mags and paparazzi photo and you keep your private life private. It really is no one's business what you do beyond your job. For instance you rarely see gossip about Robert De Niro or Jamie Fox, unless a relationship goes bad, but they don't talk about it....I bet Naomi Campbell is still hitting herself over the head when let the public know about her and Bobby (he immediately dumped her for it).

I do have less sympathy for Britney Spears, because as previously stated, I believe she does things that would bring the paparazzi and gossip mags to her front door, but she also deserves privacy, but she gave it up.

We all deserve privacy, but its our actions that will dictate if we keep it or not, even it you're a celebrity (in the many definitions of the word).

[AOII_LB93]

While I think they don't have a real reason to bitch about it as it is what they chose to do, it is the public interest that feeds the paparazzi. If no one gave a rat's ass about any of them, the paparazzi would be out of jobs, and rags like Us, People, Star, etc...would be non existant.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by ASUADPi


Britney has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to complain because the girl is a paparazzi whore. Seriously, let's think about it if she was willing to sell her WEDDING PICTURES. She loves the paparazzi and you can see it, I think she's pissed that she didn't get any $$$$$$.

I don't think this is very fair. Many, many stars choose to sell rights to their wedding pictures because they know that the paparazzi will get the pictures one way or another, and if they sell them, at least they have a degree of control over the pictures and the media is going to use less intrusive methods to get them. Allowing the media to be involved in the wedding means that it's much less likely the ceremony is going to be ruined by some overzealous reporter. I don't think that's the issue here.

I agree with the assessments that our culture is sickeningly celebrity-obsessed. I can't even imagine why people buy US Weekly, to be honest. The amount of worship that people heap on stars is pretty disgusting, and I definitely agree that the media goes too far in obtaining celebrity gossip. That said, tough luck. You decide to become a celebrity, that's part of the deal. Nobody goes into this not knowing what they're getting into, and if Britney or Brad want to live low-profile lives, they can just stop putting out albums and movies and retire.