Kim Kardashian Sued for Posting Photo of Herself, Hiring Own Personal Paparazzo to Avoid Future Legal Disputes

Kim Kardashian Sued for Posting Photo of Herself, Hiring Own Personal Paparazzo to Avoid Future Legal Disputes

Posting a paparazzi photo and being sued for it is becoming quite the trend in Hollywood. In what appears to be an increasingly common scenario, Kim Kardashian is the latest celebrity to be facing legal action after she posted the photo, with the photographer now suing for “any profits she made off the Instagram post.”

The photo in question – which we’re not posting for obvious reasons – appeared on Kardashian’s Instagram page in October 2018, racking up 2.2 million likes. But as per TMZ, the photographer behind the snap, Saeed Bolden, is now taking legal action. He claims she posted the image without his permission, and certainly didn’t compensate him financially for doing so.

Bolden is seeking any profits she made on the back of the Instagram post, and also wants "punitive damages." Interestingly, he is also suing Skims Body, Kardashian’s shapewear clothing line, despite the fact the company’s Instagram account never posted the image in dispute.

The increasing likelihood of celebrities landing in hot water for posting a photo of themselves clearly hasn’t gone unnoticed, as Kardashian recently hired her own paparazzi photographer, so as to avoid any further legal battles. It comes after fan accounts were being shut down for posting unauthorized photos. “Btw [sic] since the paparazzi agencies won’t allow the fans to repost, all of my pics are taken by my own photog and you guys can always repost whatever you want,” she said.

Jack Alexander's picture

A 28-year-old self-taught photographer, Jack Alexander specialises in intimate portraits with musicians, actors, and models.

Log in or register to post comments

I tend to be on the side of the photographer in these matters as it is their work, their copyright, regardless of who is in the photo. But I question why it took this photographer so long to sue KKW? I'm unaware of their location and do not know their statue of limitations, but I imagine a judge might see the near two years of waiting to be an issue. Especially given that KKW is such a big name, it's not like the photo was hidden. It could just be that they're jumping on the bandwagon and try to get a slice of the pie. That said, it is still his work, his copyright, and right of publicity doesn't apply here.


I'm never hiding in bushes or bum-rushing some celeb to get a shot but this story (if true) should be handled strategically.

If a celeb is willing to use a photo shot by one of these photographers without attribution and or compensation then they technically give up the right to complain about privacy or compensation themselves...etc. Fair game.

Paparazzi are about the lowest form of life imaginable.

Edward, do you honestly mean that? Lowest form of life... Come on... this is a photography website and community.

Once again, I’m astounded by the inability to be respectful and constructive.

I don’t personally know any Paparazzi, and I’m betting you don’t know all of them, am I correct? How can you make that judgement and completely baseless comment without knowing all of them personally?

The reason I’m passionate about this is that I also run a property business. Comments like yours are often thrown about in a generalised fashion in that industry too, without a single thought for the individuals who are in the job. I’m no snow flake, but to make unintelligent generalised hits against a profession is just plain stupid and misguided.

Having spent decades in LA being actually hired by celebs and seeing the way they get treated by paparazzi makes me have very little sympathy for anyone that chooses that career. Of course there are a few respectable paparazzi.... But, they're few and far between.

And that few are ‘the lowest form of life’?

No, those few aren’t. But a concerning amount of them are willing to put other people’s lives and safety at risk for a shot.... and not even a particularly good shot. Which is why I have little sympathy for paparazzi.

Okay, then that’s a different thing all together. My reply was to the initial comment that Edward made regarding them as ‘the lowest form of life’.

I try not to overgeneralize or use too much hyperbole. I will say that far too many paparazzi have questionable values. My advice to up and coming photographers would be to think very seriously before choosing that path.

Unfortunately their behaviour in the past means they often get tarred with the same brush. Princess Diana is the immediate one that springs to mind.

I’ve only come across one personally and it was on a large Facebook photography group, the guy was an arrogant prick who had far too much of an opinion about his own abilities.. and his ‘street’ photos that he posted included pictures of the homeless seeking shelter from the elements and people staring at his camera normally with some accompanying story about getting into a scuffle with said subject... so as far as I’m concerned all he did was promote the ‘lowest form of life’ tag. Not somebody I’d ever want within 5 miles of my personal space.

Diana is one of the best examples but that behavior is all too common. I witnessed paparazzi actually cause an accident with Maria Shriver at her kid's public elementary school. I've seen professional photogs that were hired to cover a private event be physically shoved out of the way by uninvited paparazzi. I've also been on closed sets where paparazzi have managed to take photos from bushes or other hiding spots and sell them for a profit.

Pretty shady, if you ask me.

You are right. His comment was actually offensive to the new Chinese virus...

Hey, you know what, next you can defend people who photograph people raping children; because we're all photographers.

Wow, Edward. Just.. wow..

In your world every piece of shit gets a pass because they are a photographer.

That’s not what I said, but keep it coming Edward...

Yeah, now you backpedal.

Edward... Go on, you can have the last word 😊

What about those who would take advantage of them? Where do they rank?

Did you just attempt to justify stalking by means of an appeal to hypocrisy?

Stupid or immoral? You decide, audience.

Ummmm... Nope. Not justifying anything. Simply pointing out that taking advantage of the lowest of the low establishes a new low. I'm not attempting to elevate the paparazzi. I'm chastising celebrities.
Call me whatever you want but I have a question while you do so... Do you only don warpaint behind the safety of your keyboard?

STFU and go learn logic.


And btw, your feeble attempt to bring my masculinity into the conversation says far more about your insecurities than anything about me.

There are female warriors. Adding misogynist to your list of personality traits.

I think you may be reading just a little much into my response - indeed, you have alleged misogyny in the total absence of evidence. I'm sure there are many more completely irrelevant ways you can try to personalise your pathetic responses.

Good luck in life. You're gonna need it.

Funny, because life is pretty good.

But once again, your attempt at a personalised rebuttal is absolutely pathetic.

Will people please stop feeding the troll.

I don't think the word "troll" means what you think it means.

Thank you Edward for a completely irrelevant comment. Well done.

Edward, while you wait in the supermarket line getting your weekly case of depends do not EVER look at any magazine in the rack EVER. In fact, do not go on the web or even leave the house. You might see the product of the "lowest form of life imaginable" exercising their 1st amendment rights.

Since I never look at such magazines, viewing them as pure shit consumed by morons (indeed, I have zero interest in celebrities at all), it would seem your implied appeal to hypocrisy is a complete fail.

Don't look at tv or newspapers or any magazines either. Also seek some therapy as you seem to have some unresolved anger issues. Let people be.

1. Again, I don't consume news about celebrities; all of my news consumption is military; political; environmental; and scientific/technical - people simply are not that intetesting.

2. You responded to my comment with a (incorrect) appeal to hypocrisy, and now you want me to "let people be".

Once again, I am reminded the average photographer is an idiot.

At the same time, I think the law is too lax with taking peoples photos. I know the benefits the law gives photographers but, I dont think that we should be able to take photos of people without their knowledge or consent, for profit. Shes a brand herself, shoudlnt using a brands image without their consent mean something?

But if you're out in public, why should we not be able to take photos of you, especially if you're out promoting yourself or your brand or a movie, etc. That said, I think it's quite trivial that these photographers want to sue a celebrity each time they post a pic of themselves. I can see maybe if it was in a private photo session or something, but one taken in public? And with that said, I don't understand why these celebrities don't do what she did and just hire someone to go out in public and take their pics so they can use them how they wish, kinda like a designated driver concept.

Many do hire their own personal photographer. It's a growing trend.

So it's basically a win-win. A professional actually gets paid, the brand has content to use for marketing.


She might be a brand, but without photographers and video, she would not be that brand. I think this is especially true for these specific attention seekers type of people.

Just because someone is an attention seeker, doesnt mean she doesnt have the right to control her image in her way. You shouldnt be able to ambush people in public for monetary gain. And its not necessarily true that she needs us to keep going. She needs a smart phone ans how to work her own camera. Loads of people in the beauty community are learinig how to be their own photographer and film maker, because of crazy photographers taking advantage of them

Normally I would agree with you, but phonies who "ambush" young teens in dreaming of their artificial life style is totally taking them for a ride. I made my daughter stop watching their show more than once. "Not needing us to keep going" - Possibly but did they need the free service and the use of those paparazzis work to get to that point, do they now enjoy it financially? Do real artist need paparazzis? no, they don't enjoy being spied on. Does Kim need paparazzis? well, the answer is in the story, she hires her own.

dear eresa, "you shouldn't" have so many control issues. take a chill pill because there is nothing you can do or say for people who are exercising their first amendment rights even if it bugs you. if you have a problem with photography in public spaces call your congress person and see what they say about your concerns.

Dude, i smoked a joint and rammbled on here. You are over thinking and a joke.

Jokes on you, Tomerosa.


A neurotic narcissistic female wants to control her images. Those encroaching creases and the spreading wobble need photosshopping or they hurt sales. I am still not convinced that sick females are covered by any kind of amendment and pursuing happyness it ain't. She is driven. Understand the difference between pursuing and driven? Not covered by the All-State promise.

she's apparently too cheap to license the images. if i am hungry and go steal some food from a store i hope some of you guys will come to my defense as you do with KK. Maybe you can bail me out, too.

More comments