Why did a paparazzo sue Miley Cyrus? (Photo Credit – Instagram)
Advertisement
Once upon a scroll in 2022, Wrecking Ball singer Miley Cyrus found herself in a tight legal spot—over her Insta post. Pop paparazzo Robert Barbera had a bone to pick with Miley after she shared a candid pic he snapped back in 2020. This wasn’t just any photo; it was a shot of her leaving a building, casually posted to 182 million followers. The issue? Barbera, the man behind the lens, claimed copyright infringement.
Cyrus wasn’t alone in this type of legal run-in. Barbera had already called out big names like Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, and Dua Lipa for similar copyright “violations.” His argument was straightforward: Miley’s “impermissible use” of the photo erased any potential market for it. By sharing it with her massive audience, she’d, according to Barbera, killed its value in his portfolio.
The debate exploded as fans (Miley’s ever-loyal “Smilers”) hit social media. Why should a star need “permission” to post a pic of herself? For many, it felt like the height of unfairness. But legally, Barbera had a solid point. Under both US and UK copyright laws, the photographer is the copyright owner. He has exclusive rights to how that image is used, not Miley—even if she’s in the shot.
Interestingly, copyright law gives the photographer, not the subject, control over the image (with a few exceptions). That photo belonged to him unless Miley had signed a specific “Work For Hire” or licensing deal with Barbera. And while there are exceptions for press photographers working under access restrictions, these don’t apply to independent paparazzi like Barbera.
Miley’s posting of the pic could arguably have a commercial edge—boosting her profile and maybe even giving her music sales a bump. Barbera claimed she’d essentially removed his chance to profit from the image by posting it for free. And, in legal terms, Barbera’s stance wasn’t unusual. Copyright law favors the creator, not the subject, of an image.
Fans may be used to stars sharing snaps online, yet that culture of casual reposting can blur lines. Under US “fair use” law, there’s a little more leeway, especially if the use can be argued as transformative. However, UK law has stricter “fair dealing” rules, limiting exceptions to cases like criticism, review, parody, and just sharing for fans. That doesn’t quite fit.
This case touched on a long-standing ethical debate about celebrity photos. Some argue that paparazzi unfairly profit from stars’ fame without contributing to their brand. Others feel celebrities invite the camera’s gaze as part of their fame. Notably, some celebs even buy rights to images of themselves to prevent unapproved use. Rihanna fought a similar battle in 2015, stopping Topshop from selling shirts with her photo.
But unlike Bajan superstar Rihanna’s case, which hinged on merchandising rights, Miley’s Instagram post was personal, and the pic was taken in a public space. So, privacy claims were off the table here.
Despite the gray area, Barbera’s case against Miley put the spotlight on how image rights and copyright intersect. Celebs might be in the shot, but legally speaking, they’re not the shot-callers. Whether it’s fair or not, it’s a reminder that for stars—and fans—Instagram sharing isn’t as simple as it looks.
