CELEBRITY PICS

I just watched a blip on TV regarding George Clooney's mini-tirade on the paparazzi that were following him and his girlfriend and, in George's opinion, endangering them.
I have a thought about celebrity pics: I think a person's image should be theirs to own or sell. One's image should decidedly NOT belong to the person who 'steals' it via photo, video, whatever. Sounds a little primitive doesn't it? Native peoples around the world resist photo-taking believing it steals their soul, or rends it, or something, guess I should research that accurately. But how, in the name of sanity, did we ever come to such a state of paparazzi and tabloids with every star exposing their cellulite, nose-picking, bad behavior etal. as well as their beauty and finery of course to feed our voracious voyeuristic appetites and fill the paparazzi pockets?! I can't say it makes no sense. It in fact makes cents and dollars all the way around, but that does not make it correct, ethical, character-building etc. I think it should cease.I would love to see the strong-enough star to take it to the courts. You know, I can't take a magazine to the copy center and legally copy anything in it without copyright infringement suspicion. If I can't copy a magazine, how much more important is it to restrict copying someone's image? or taping their voice?
I can't see it happening right away if at all, as I guess the stars benefit in their own way from the publicity. Take George for instance. George. The name doesn't stand alone does it, needs Clooney with it to fully identify the owner. And would he be half so famous sans the publicity? I think so, but it's a loaded issue. I recall the shows about Diana. She had a very troubled relationship with the photogs, but they claim that she liked, needed and wanted them. Well, that's their opinion anyway. What if she had had to preview every shot they took before it could ever be sold? Don't you think that might cut down on the frenzy?
Anyway, that's my opinion and you're welcome to it.