as the former content manager of xxxcash, I concur with rainey who was part of the team over there with me. Celebs and stars must have a newsworthiness in order for their image to be put on a website, newspaper or magazine without their permission. However even if it is newsworthy, a celeb can make a public "ask" that they not publish photos that were taken in a private setting. here are a few well known examples and the results of them.

Tommy Lee and Pamela Video: Taken on a lake, with a private camera, not meant for distribution but for private "home movies". Tape was allegedly "stolen" and then distributed, sold and given away online. Tommy Lee and Pamela contend the tape is a violation of their privacy since it was meant as a private moment. The websites and magazines say that since the tape was stolen, and was viewed by a third party, then it is newsworthy. So this creates a blurry line, and since the story itself is newsworthy, what is the story without the tape to view.

Paris Hilton Secret Sex Video: Taken in a bedroom, totally private, never meant for distribution. This tape will shut down most sites as Paris Hilton not only can afford to sue your site but has done it. The courts have said that this tape is private and not meant for public dissemination in any form. Most reputable celeb sites ie femalestars.com , mr.skin etc wont show this even though we used to get literally a hundred emails asking for it.

Anything Britney Spears: When you enter a concert of hers there are signs that say (basically) "take as many pics as you want but if we catch you using them on pay sites we will sue you for violation of copywrite". so her fans can use them for private use but not to make money off them. Brittney has spearheaded the privacy challenges against most celeb sites that show her. She has made public statements describing what pictures and when were newsworthy and which were private. She goes after sites like microsoft goes after hackers, with a vengence.

Celebrity Fakes: Anyone can make a celeb fake, this isnt protected or a violation of any privacy. Most celeb fakes are crude cut outs and head shots planted on other bodies. A face is almost never considered "private" unless *and this happened* it was from a makeup model or plastic surgeon site. So celeb fakes are dumb but allowed on most sites.

Reviews on movies are always considered newsworthy. So if britney spears or paris hilton was in a movie, television show, or some other public feature those images or videos(if obtained legally under copywrite laws) would be allowed to be displayed on websites, mags and newspaper. HOWEVER the already mentioned private pics/vids could not be merged with the legal stories, that would taint the entire process.

Most celeb sites arent in it for the long haul so they put up pics they know are illegal just to get the big hits and memberships. Any reputable celeb site has all legal images, the paperwork on all celeb photos taken and where they procured them from, and knowledge that they are legal.

I hope this helped a little