Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit

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

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.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Photo Of Streisand Home Becomes An Internet Hit”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
17 Comments
Oliver Wendell Jones (profile) says:

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”?

Ken (user link) says:

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.

Cove favorite says:

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

Pedro Machado says:

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…

Pam says:

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?

Martin Corrent says:

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.”

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...