Jennifer Aniston Sues Paparazzi

He's a member of the paparazzi swarm by name, Peter Brandt, and he did what all of his ilk like to do – catch celebrities in compromising positions.
After shooting photos of Jennifer Aniston in the nude, sunning in her backyard and e-mailing them to celebrity magazines Brandt added: “Please keep these pictures to your self...they must to find their way to the internet.
He claimed he used a very powerful camera and shot the photos from a perch a mile and a half away. The images have been deemed too clear and taken from a much closer place. Brandt denies trespassing to accomplish his photos.
A powerful attorney by name Lavely of the powerful litigation firm noted that Aniston had just filed a lawsuit claiming she suffered from shame, mortification, hurt feelings, emotional distress, anger, embarrassment, humiliation, feeling of being violated, and injury to her privacy and peace of mind as a result of Brandt's “despicable conduct.”
Typical of the above claim is its redundancy leaving no doubt that she was embarrassed, but come on, using a Thesaurus – is that fair?
Jeffrey Toobin a law suit analyzer says: “You'd think it's sort of straight forward, that there ought to be some rules about when you can take pictures and when and how you can publish them.
Courts have struggled with this for twenty years and still can't come up with clear rules to protect people's privacy.”
There is a big confusion about two simple words. One is “privacy”, the other is “publicity”. The first word celebrates desire and they can't get enough of the second, and the law makers can't make that leap of distinction to give punch to these kinds of lawsuits. They contend that in the movie business in order to get publicity it's almost necessary to learn to put up with loss of privacy.
However, whomever you are you should expect recourse in the courts when photographed (topless or not) when on your own property. Such violation should be punishable.
Frankly, no photo of ANYONE should be worth the six figure fees paparazzi receive by being sneaky and it's that money that gives celebrities all their privacy problems.
The fact that Aniston did nothing about the European magazines who first published the photos harms her case in the US. Apparently she didn't object to their first publishing.
The United States magazines claim she should sue the European magazines before she has any right to sue them. Aniston states that “Europe was slow, and publicity was low and none of her “Friends” fans saw them so there was no negative impact on me”
This will, no doubt, be a precedent setting decision when all is said and done, and the argument will be settled once and for all.