Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit

from the the-power-of-the-internet dept

Tue, Jun 24th 2003 12:32pm — Mike Masnick

One thing seems clear these days. If you want to hide something from the internet - you're only likely to make it more widely available, so you're often better off not stirring the hornet's nest. Barbara Streisand is apparently finding that out the hard way. Earlier this month we had the story about how she was suing to have a photo of her house removed from the internet, because she felt it violated her privacy. Of course, the photo was one of 12,000 photos documenting the entire coast of California - all taken from public airspace. Now, as the case gets closer to trial, it's pretty clear that there's no way the photo will ever disappear from the internet - as everyone is checking it out and downloading their own copy (you can see the infamous photo yourself). In the meantime, the photographer in question has filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed.

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

17 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Oliver Wendell Jones, 24 Jun 2003 @ 12:47pm

Two questions
From the countersuit article:

The lawsuit asks the defendants to stop disseminating the photographs, saying they use "enhanced technology" and deprive the 61-year-old Adelman of the economic value of the use of the images of her property and residence."

1) Did they use his name by mistake? Should it say '61-year-old Streisand' instead?

2) What "enhanced technology" are they using? Since when did digital cameras become "enhanced technology"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2003 @ 6:31pm

sometimes...
...it's just better not to draw attention to yourself on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ken, 5 Jan 2005 @ 4:23pm

Internet <> Tabloids?
So, it's ok for the tabloids to publish this information ... it's expected and, possibly, wanted. But if someone posts it on the internet, suddenly it's a breach of her privacy? How about, if she doesn't like her privacy being invaded, she should be famous. It seems mainly famous people are the ones who complain about the internet publicity and they are all over the tabloids and never say a word about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 25 Feb 2005 @ 2:14am

publicity
I'd say that if she doesn't want the outside of her abode photographed, she shouldn't present it to the public, including those flying above the coastline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cove favorite, 26 Apr 2007 @ 8:35pm
  
  Re: publicity
  I cant help wondering about the publicity and how they located her home. I know a fan didn't seek it out and actually find it. My assumption all information has come through the press has readily educated the fans. Streisand fans will find the house and drive around until they find it once the info is out. The press has violated her basic right to privacy in her own home. Her sense of safey and comfort in her home or even sitting by the pool. And because of that one picture had he not mentioned her name not many would have put it together. It's so clear now and anyone can just climb the hill, bluff or whatever it is.
  What happens when you get to the top? Anyone get to the top? How did you feel about yourself once you violated her privacy?How do you think she felt about you?
  As curious as I am to see the roses I will never violate privacy knowing how paranoid she is. i also know if our paths cross I certainly want her to know I have a good character. That man needs to be sued-- Don't back down B. Besides Jim is a sharpshooter and he will shoot you in the leg then make you walk down the steep bluff.
  With respect,
  pinkrose
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedro Machado, 22 May 2006 @ 8:34am

Sue happy
I had a friend from California wich I meet in Lisbon a few years ago. She used to say everybody is "Sue happy" in the US.
Knowing the 70% of the world's lawyers run their business in the US, theres no wonder that these kind of things happen. If theres nothing to litigate they just invent it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- barbara, 3 Feb 2009 @ 5:05pm
  
  Re: Sue happy
  people who sue people are the greediest people in the world. B.A.M.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
frank, 10 Jun 2006 @ 8:20am

another farewell concert by Streisand?
Dear all,

Let's sue this artist. Her "last" concert in LA we spent
a fortune as that would be her last concert and
now we hear, she is going on tour again.

Join force and let's sue her and her Sony money
machine.

Frank
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- david, 1 Dec 2006 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re: another farewell concert by Streisand?
  i'd suggest that you get some real talent of your own. perhaps, throw a concert in your back yard or something. just don't call it 'one voice'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- barbara, 3 Feb 2009 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re: another farewell concert by Streisand?
  all the sweet boys wanna be you,
  sold our children just to see you,
  we're all broke now, who can blame us,
  here we are now, entertain us
  B.A.M
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dollface, 4 Aug 2006 @ 1:09pm

Stupid people
You know, its not illegal, its not ruining her privacy, that could be ANYONES HOUSE and ANYONE can see it if they wanna go for a drive, so whats the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pam, 2 Dec 2006 @ 1:38pm

Opinion
The reason for the lawsuit was the labeling of the photograph on the site with her name. Other homes can only be found by coordinates, not the owner's name. When she initially protested, he could have simply removed her name and avoided all the legal trouble. Looks to me like he has gained a lot of publicity for his site and his business. And what exactly is his business doing to help the environment? After looking at his site, it looks like he has enjoyed every minute of antagonizing Streisand. How has that helped the environment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snarl Greywolf, 19 Jan 2007 @ 1:23pm

The Streisand Effect
If she really wants to stop the web author from showing her house photo to the world, she doesn't need lawyers, she just needs to threaten to come sing in the lobby of the website author's office. That photo would come down so quick, it'd make your head swim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin Corrent, 10 Dec 2007 @ 11:56am

Not a violation of privacy
First of all nothing viewable from public airspace is private. Second, Streisand's estate is NOT the only picture that has the owner's name in the caption. A simple search for locations with the word "estate" will show this.

"a Los Angeles Superior Court issued a 46-page opinion on December 3, 2003 holding that Barbra Streisand, the well-known entertainer and Hollywood celebrity, abused the judicial process by filing a lawsuit against aerial archivist Ken Adelman, his Internet Service Provider Layer42.NET, and Pictopia.COM."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
martin g, 18 Jan 2011 @ 5:41am

Nosey?
Perhaps Barbara just doesn't like 'nosey' peole? (for some reason)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soundy (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:27am

Since it's now almost 10 years later, and the link to the photo still works, I guess it's safe to assume the lawsuit has failed? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2020 @ 1:21am

The picture is still up in late 2020. It's been ~18 years since the photo was taken and the effect of the term is still seen around the world on a daily basis; if anything, this case gave that behavior a name (and an understanding of an appropriate internet-wide response) that will stick with society far beyond her lifetime.

That's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]