Professor Goldman may be an expert but on IP law but his understanding of invasion of privacy law leaves a bit to be desired...Invasion of privacy doesn't require an actual invasion into a person's private life. It includes publicizing a person in a false light and appropriating their name, both of which would apply to deep fakes.

How then do paparazzi get away with photos of celebrities?

Almost all pictures of celebrities are in or from public areas where there is no right of privacy. (If a celebrity really didn't want to be photographed naked, they wouldn't undress in front of a public-facing window. There are decades of court cases on this point.) The pictures that aren't, i.e., Erin Andrews, resulted in massive court victories for the victims.

The appropriation cases are much rarer, as it generally applies to impersonation cases. It's usually in context of name appropriation, as most image appropriation cases thus far are pursued under different tort theories usually involving commercial harm. (Though since Catfish, image appropriation invasion of privacy cases are becoming more common.)