Streisand Suing Over Environmentalist's Aerial Shots Of Her Home
from the get-a-grip dept
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?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: BABS and PRIVACY
I totally agree!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment