Streisand sues Kenneth Adelman

[Jonathan Wienke]

F*** Streisand. She might as well sue the NRO, CIA, DIA, and numerous other public and private entities that traffic in satellite images too. There are several public web sites you can use to get fairly decent satellite images of almost anywhere on earth; I bet you could get Streisand's property from there if you knew the GPS coordinates. See my house as an example. It's not like this guy is in a tree in her back yard taking pictures through her bedroom window.

[d2frette]

So if I see Michael Jordan walking around Chicago after he (hopefully) buys the Bulls, do I need permission to print a photo (print = publish on web or in a newspaper)?  

Seems photojournalists would have a tough time printing images of arrested felons being escorted in orange garb!! It seems to me that releases aren't always needed.

I was just at a Cubs game yesterday.  If I had taken a decent image of Sosa, couldn't I sell it?

[Jonathan Wienke]

I find this whole thing incredibly funny. Adelman is an environmentalist, taking the pictures for scientific research purposes, to preserve the California coastline. Normally an eco-wacko like Streisand would be all in favor of that sort of thing, but I guess the NIMBY factor trumps all.

[d2frette]

Thanks, that helps clear some things up.  

Now we'll wait and see how long this court battle lasts.

[dlashier]

> but to index and label them by name in such a precise manner than any person with bad intentions and the intent to find a celebrities precise address can easily do so

There's a whole street corner industry in SC/Hollywood, 'Maps to the stars homes' and tours (drive-bys), or at least was when I lived there decades ago.

- DL

[d2frette]

This article on cnn.com sparked my interest:

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html.  

Streisand is suing Adelman because he is taking photos of the CA coastline (which include her estate and secret access roads and la la la) and publishing them on the web and selling them.  

My thoughts:
* First of all, she should just get a gate and stop worrying.  I mean how many people are out to see her place!?  
* Secondly, is it legal for us to take a photo of anything in public view?  Is the question then publishing(?), and to publish do we then need the owners permission?

So if I'm in a chopper flying around the Chicago Skyline (and Mayor Daily doesn't have me shot down for terrorism  ), can I take a sunrise city skyline photo and sell it?  Or do I need to contact every building owner and get permission?   And what if I'm just taking one of the Sears Tower?  Do I need permission then?


Another scenario, more people than landscape related:
What if my neighbor is out in his back yard playing with his kids and I decide to take photos from my rooftop... do I need permission to publish?  What if I'm standing on the city street and take photos of him?  What if it's his dog?  Do dog owners  have rights over them?    

Any sarcasm, experience, and legal knowledge welcome!!

Thanks,

Dave

[Eric]

I'm not sure about properties. But for people, the law says if the person is identifiable in the photo then a model release is need for commercial prints. I suppose there are some legal arguments with properties as well ...

[Thom Dyson]

Printing in the newspaper is "fair use" because one is reporting an event, so no release is needed.  Posting to a personal web page is probably also fair use.  Selling a photo is what makes it commercial use.  I've wondered where the line is between "Art" and "commercial use".  I solve the problem by mostly shooting landscapes, but some of those also have commercial restrictions.  For example, one cannot take commercial photos at the top of Mauna Kea and the Kek observatory without a permit.

What most American's forget is that under our legal system anyone can sue anyone else for anything.  That doesn't mean that the suit has merit.  I'm guessing that Babs is out of luck on this one, but we won't know until the lawyers make some money.

[Howard Smith]

I understand that "celebrities" are more accessible than ordinary folks.  You can photograph famous people if you like without a model release.  I also understand you may publish these photos as long as it is not used as an endorsement by the person or defames them in some way.  So Michael Jordan walking down the street is fair game, as long as you don't try to sell shoes with it or show him in an unfavorable way.

As for houses and such, my personal experince is that as long as you are on public land or private land with permission, there is no presumption of a right to privacy on adjoining property and you can shoot away.

[Dennis hill]

If the US legal system takes into acount some of the rulings of the British Common Law then things have already been sorted out.
In a case (Bernstien v Skyviews) the Brits found that it was quite legal to take photographs of the land and property fron the air and sell them. There could be no case for trespass as we do not own the airspace above the land we own, just the land itself.
As this is a view that anyone can see if they were a pasanger in an aircraft....... the good lady is going to be feeding lawyers for a while. Still, I guess she can afford to.

[Brad Hiltbrand]

I have been using the coastal records web site from time to time to scout landscape photography locations in the SF Bay area. I use it as a database resource, much like tide and sunrise/sunset tables. It is is indexed several ways and the photographs are arranged sequentially along the coast according to their coordinates. You can easily track up or down any section of beach or cliff and locate access routes and good photography locations.

I have little symapthy for Streisand in principle. However, after checking the site, and finding the photogaph in question searchable only by the use of her name, I can sort-of understand her frustration. I do not understand the need to identify the photogaph with the name of the property owner. There are other private properties visible in that photograph and those adjacent. These properties are not identified by name. Does the photograph of Streisand's property need to be identifed with her name? It makes me wonder if simply searching for other famous peoples names would turn of the exact location of their property? That use does not seem to be in accordance with the stated ecological record purpose of the Adelman's californiacoastline.org web site.

Postscript: It just took a moment to find Olivia Newton-John's 'Famous Enivronmental Home' on Adelman's site. Evidence suggests you might be able to find the locations of all sorts of Hollywood types this way. Hmm. I wonder if folks privacy rights are not some what at issue here. Not the right of folks to take photographs of property, but to index and label them by name in such a precise manner than any person with bad intentions and the intent to find a celebrities precise address can easily do so with the photographs provided. I think people have a right to unlisted addresses, if not the right to prevent being photographed by helicopter, or satellite.

I support the California coastline records project, and find it to be a tremendous resource, but am uncertain about the need to identify particular properties of famous people by name.