Streisand Suing Over Environmentalist's Aerial Shots Of Her Home

from the get-a-grip dept

Sun, Jun 1st 2003 7:13pm — Mike Masnick

I could have sworn that I posted a story a few months back about the guy who was photographing the entire California coastline from a helicopter, to put on his website for the sake of environmentalists trying to document coastline erosion. However, now, I can't find the story, so it's possible that I read it, and never got around to posting it. In the meantime, it appears that Barbara Streisand (who, like so many famous people, claims to support environmental causes) is suing the guy for $10 million saying he violated "anti-paparazzi" laws, by photographing her house along the way. I'm not quite sure how she could justify $10 million in "damages", but she says it's an issue of privacy. The photographer claims she has no clue what she's talking about, and since he took the photo from public airspace. I wonder if she's going to go after all the various online satellite image databases as well. Hell, maybe I should sue them too. I can easily dig up an aerial photo of my house without too much trouble. Those people must be violating my privacy? Where's my $10 million?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

3 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

mike, 8 Sep 2006 @ 9:08am

BABS and PRIVACY
This is really old news, of course, but what the hell... If a pic of my home with my name attached to it appeared on the net, I'd freak out, and yet, no one knows who the hell I am. I get really tired of the idea that celebrities should not have a right to privacy. We don't own them--okay? The question overlooked is this: why did he place names to celebrities' homes and not the unknowns' estates? And, how much money did he make using celebrities' names affixed to his photos? Loads--but would he have made a nickel otherwise? Maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rc, 27 Sep 2006 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: BABS and PRIVACY
  I totally agree!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jakerome (profile), 8 Jan 2015 @ 11:59am
  
  Re: BABS and PRIVACY
  "why did he place names to celebrities' homes and not the unknowns' estates?"
  
  Geeze, hate to point out the obvious, but it seems pretty clear why he didn't place the names of the unknown owners.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]