Star Watch: Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas are suing in an English court because paparazzi took their photos after their wedding: " The couple are suing for 500,000 pounds ($815,000) for loss of income, stress and damage to their careers because of the poor quality of the shots." Apparently, they had contracted with one magazine, and are upset that another magazine scooped the one with which they contracted.

Does the previous quote mean that, had the photos been better quality, there would be no case? Or, to carry on this ridiculousness, what would happen if the photos from the authorized magazine had been of poor quality. Do the Douglas's have a breach of contract action against them?

Now this is a silly case.

UPDATE: Here's CNN's take on the same story. It doesn't mention the quality of photos factor. I still think it's silly.