The singer’s lawyer says the court ignored the main issue regarding photo of her home on a Web site – her name is posted along with the photo, while everyone else whose home is posted is given anonymity.
By Massiel Ladron De Guevara/Special to The Malibu Times
Malibu resident Barbra Streisand’s invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman washed up in a Los Angeles superior court Wednesday.
Superior Court Judge Allen J. Goodman threw out the $10 million-dollar lawsuit, requesting Adelman to remove an aerial photo he snapped of Streisand’s bluff-top estate from among the 12,700 photos posted on his Web site, www.californiacoastline.org. In a tentative 46-page ruling, Goodman wrote Streisand’s privacy had not been invaded by the retired software engineer who began photographing the California coastline to aid in its preservation.
“The published image [of Streisand’s home] represents the exercise of Adelman’s First Amendment rights in connection with a public issue and an issue of public interest,” Goodman wrote. “The California coastline is far from a private place … The purpose and function of the photograph and its publication on the California Coastal Records Project Web site are examples of speech protected by the state and federal constitutions.”
Ordering Streisand to pay Adelman’s attorney’s fees, the judge also pointed out this case is not a circumstance in which a helicopter hovered over the plaintiff’s backyard in order to photograph her in that location. The photo in question, he wrote, is nothing more than a picture of her backyard, and the backyards of her neighbors by a passing aircraft.
Frustrated with the ruling, Streisand’s attorney, John Gatti claims the main point of Streisand’s case was never addressed.
“The decision ignored Ms. Streisand’s main complaint, that her name is used on the site to identify her home as hers, while tens of thousands of other home owners are accorded anonymity,” Gatti said. “The court did what it did, and focused on what it focused on, but the point remains, Ms. Streisand undertook this action because she sought to reaffirm that everyone should retain the right to preserve their privacy and security, even in this technologically invasive age.”
Claiming there is still a reasonable expectation to privacy on one’s private property regardless of celebrity status, Gatti called the helicopter used in photographing Streisand’s home more than just a passing aircraft.
“There is a big difference here,” Gatti said. “The helicopter wasn’t just a passing aircraft, it was used to snap photos where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press executive director, Lucy Dalglish, praised Goodman’s ruling. She said Adelman was well within his rights, assuming he acted within public airspace.
“The judge’s decision doesn’t surprise me in the least,” Dalglish said. “Typically, the line between privacy and First Amendment rights is not easily drawn and should be decided on an ad hoc basis, but in this case, all the facts were in Adelman’s favor.”
The facts in Adelman’s favor, as described by Dalglish, are that the photo in question was taken in a public location which is available to anyone, and that there is a lower expectation of privacy for public figures such as Streisand.
Dalglish also pointed out that the telephoto lens Adelman used is typically considered non-intrusive. Minus the development of a lens that can see through walls, Dalglish said she does not see
any changes in that assertion, even with the advancement of technology.
David 0Hudson, research attorney for The First Amendment Center, also agreed with Dalglish and Goodman.
“The fact that the photo Adelman took of Streisand’s home was taken on public property is very much in his favor,” Hudson said. “He did not trespass to obtain the photo, he was in a pubic place, within public view, and therefore, covered by the law.”
Streisand, who within 24 hours of the ruling found out she received a Grammy nomination for traditional pop vocal album, said, according to her publicist Dick Guttman, “Well, you win some, you lose some.”