Yes, I believe it is true that hundreds of similar acts happen every day: people's images being used without their consent and/or their privacy being invaded by taking of such pictures.
However, instead of being angry that the high profile nature of *these* photos and *this* victim causes action where it does not with the average Joe/Jane, I think it might be viewed another way.
Like it took Diana to hug an AIDS patient to get the world to be more accepting and it took Gandhi to nearly starve to death to bring his issues to the world stage and Rosa Parks to decide she was going to sit on the bus to start the civil rights movement ... it sometimes takes a high profile incident/case/response to make the sort of systemic changes that DO affect the average Joe/Jane.
When someone with a public voice says "here is the line" and it causes increased protections or needed changes, it gives people without a public voice the same protections and changes. It has always been so ... that it takes people with influence to ... well, influence things.
It might not be "right" in a Socratic sense, but it is the way of it. We live in a world that is essentially trapped in a trickle down state and we must rely upon the goodness of those in positions of influence to trickle down the benefit.
So, to me, their standing firm on the issue and it getting treated with action and respect by the authorities makes it that much easier for Joe/Jane to ask for the same thing. A legal precedent is, in itself, classless and without variable weight, it is what it is and influences the application of the law. They have, essentially, changed the law - not in a huge, shift the world way, but in the same small way that Joe/Jane can under the same circumstances. I think it is a nearly perfect object lesson in people with influence using it properly.
YMMV.
So heres the question and you might not know the answer.
