Monday, AUGUST 11 – 2:08 P.M.

-Given that today is the six month anniversary of Dot Net, I want to congratulate Jason on his success thus far and thank all of you readers for your continued support.

-The recent incident involving Maryse and members of the paparazzi at WWE Summerfest prompted me to weigh in on topics regarding this issue. It completely baffles me that in the United States, where copyright and likeness laws are extremely strict, that this sort of thing remains legal. It makes absolutely no sense.

Although I may touch on the moral issue regarding what the paparazzi do, the meat of this blog will stick to common logic. With myself and everyone reading this blog being wrestling fans, I am sure we are all aware of how WWE trademarks the various names of their wrestlers and does not allow them to use said names outside of WWE. However, this does not apply to actual names. For example, John Cena has property rights over his own name and likeness. Thus, if he left WWE, he would obviously be able to take his name with him. Everyone else has this same ownership of their own name and likeness.

Photographers, and I use that term loosely, make a lot of money taking and selling pictures of unwilling and unaware celebrities. The two main problems here are that the celebrity did not agree to pose for the pictures (or is not aware that the picture is being taken) and the celebrity is not paid royalties for the pictures.

The last time I checked, people who purchase magazines with these pictures in them do so because of the celebrity in the picture, not because of who took the shot. If the celebrity did not give consent for his or her likeness to be used, and they are not being paid, then how is this legal? It is ridiculous.

I read Lance Storm's Q&A yesterday and he was asked about receiving a royalty for being included in the recent DVD release for The Rock. I doubt anyone bought the three disc set in order to see Storm; however, he received a royalty check, as he should have.

On top of all of that, why does being a "photographer" give someone the right to harass and/or stalk people while they are working or in their homes? What happened to Maryse yesterday, while she was trying to work, was harassment. If I was eating in a restaurant and a creepy girl kept trying to sit at my table and grope me, she would be removed from the restaurant. I do not know why having a camera makes someone exempt from this.

I know the usage of the First Amendment is a common argument, but it is a bad one. Photographers who get paid to create sets and complete actual shoots are artists. A guy hiding in the bushes to get pictures of Carrie Underwood or Emily VanCamp while they are sunbathing in their own backyard, is not an artist. As so eloquently put by Stewie Griffin,"I hate how every hot girl who can point a camera thinks she is a photographer. Oooohh, look at this lawn chair and its shadow." Enough said.

RECOMMEND THIS ARTICLE: