I think that the problem is that, especially with the higher pixel rate cameras, is that it is easier and easier to sell a photo taken from a cell-phone camera. That, I think is where the concern is.
In the U.S., with one notable exception, even a famous person's image is protected. It is probably far cheaper to have a bodyguard offend someone by swiping their camera to delete the pics and hand it back than it would be to battle it out in court, should that photo have been sold for publication. (And it gets complicated when a person uses their image in a professional capacity.)
I disagree - he had no right to physically take someone else's property to delete the photos. He could have stood behind the woman while she deleted them but I do not think he had the right to remove the camera from her possession and delete the photos.
I wasn't saying that it was not
rude or even nice... just less complicated.
If there were some guaranteed way to ensure that a snapped celebrity photo wouldn't be sold, it'd be a moot point. Personal use isn't a problem. So I can understand why a celebrity or organization would be more forceful in making sure that the photos would be deleted.
Could the woman sue the bodyguard? Sure. But is she like to? I highly doubt it, and that's probably what the Heat and other celebrities are banking on.
Someone brought up the photos in the tabloids... Tabloids get sued all.the.time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they count that as the cost of doing business and budget appropriately. If anything, those lawsuits — especially the highly published ones — probably increase readership.
Is any of this nice or civilized? No. But it is reality.
So who was rude? In my book, everyone.
The woman was told that they didn't want their pictures taken, but did anyway.
The bodyguard could have accomplished the same thing in a nicer way.
The Heat hired someone and gave them license to abuse their fans.
ETA: I modified my original statement because I don't understand it as well as I thought I did.