To film or record someone's performance and publish it without their permission is a breach of copyright. To photograph someone and publish that photo in a paper is not quit the same - though there have been various actions in the courts with celebrities taking action to protect their privacy. The view seems to be that taking photos of "famous" people, for example, while they're on holiday, is not justified and is an invasion of privacy. Taking photos of those same people while they're going about their business of "being famous" appears to be justified - otherwise there would be no photographs in newspapers!

It's worth noting that the copyright laws in the UK and the US are different. We have a concept of "fair dealing" in the UK which allows all or parts of a work to be copied within certain limits, and with special licenses for educational use. The ERA licence, for example, allows HE institutions to record TV programmes, and the CLA licence allows parts of books and journals to be copied (for a price) for individual research. Note - money changes hands every time! And if you were an author who made his/her living from writing, that's the way you'd want it.

It's interesting that some musicians are conspicuously absent from Spotify (music streaming site) and have not given permission for their music to be streamed - the Beatles being one group - and some tracks in compilations are unlinked for the same reason. It would seem that the stuff removed from YouTube is on behalf of those musicians/performers who feel strongly about their work being ripped off or mangled.