This has been the case for as long as photography has existed. It's particularly important for a free press and a functioning democracy to be able to take photos of unwilling subjects such as government officials in public.
Besides, it's not like they're breaking into her home to get shots. Everyone has a right to privacy in their home, but not in public spaces.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not making excuses for the excesses of paparazzi, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases -- particularly if the photographer sent a takedown demand and she didn't comply.
Finally, jurisprudence isn't at issue here. Maybe you meant legal rights?
I'm suggesting jurisprudence, because the law surrounding this issue doesn't seem to be in any way intuitive, and it looks like people appear to have quite different ideas about how transgressions of this nature should be addressed.
I think I'm using the word correctly.
In practice, the law is on the side of the photographer. Perhaps this is not entirely fair, and that argument seems to be a theoretical one.
Besides, it's not like they're breaking into her home to get shots. Everyone has a right to privacy in their home, but not in public spaces.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not making excuses for the excesses of paparazzi, but this doesn't appear to be one of those cases -- particularly if the photographer sent a takedown demand and she didn't comply.
Finally, jurisprudence isn't at issue here. Maybe you meant legal rights?