CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Tuesday, December 6, 2005

Nude Photos of Jennifer Aniston

can't possibly be "illegal" if taken from a lawful vantagepoint with commercially available and commonly used equipment, can they?  At least, they cannot violate a "reasonable expectation of privacy", right?  But lawyers who filed a lawsuit described on The Smoking Gun say otherwise.  This matter is slightly reminiscent of a U Penn student who photographed some other students in flagrante delicto, and then distributed those photos.  At first the enterprising photographer was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, but the charges were ultimately dropped. [Jack Chin]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2005/12/nude_photos_of_.html

Search and Seizure | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00d83424389953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nude Photos of Jennifer Aniston:

» Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act from Concurring Opinions
Jennifer Aniston is suing a paparazzi who took nude photos of her: The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleges that photographer Peter Brandt must have observed Aniston "from a great distance through invasive, intrusive and unlawful measure... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2005 11:10:00 AM

» Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act from Concurring Opinions
Jennifer Aniston is suing a paparazzi who took nude photos of her: The lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleges that photographer Peter Brandt must have observed Aniston "from a great distance through invasive, intrusive and unlawful measure... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2005 11:10:27 AM

» Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act from Concurring Opinions
Jennifer Aniston is suing a paparazzi who took nude photos of her. In a complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Aniston claims that Peter Brandt took topless photographs of her from a significant distance from her home. He used... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2005 11:18:52 AM

» Public nudity and public sex are very private matters from Classical Values
Bureaucrats at the University of Pennsylvania have a fascinating new definition of privacy. If you take your clothes off and have sex on the street in public, apparently that's still private, and anyone who takes your picture is chargeable with... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2005 12:03:26 PM

» Why Didn't I Think of This Sooner? from A Blog For All
Naked photos of Jennifer Aniston cause great consternation [and some would say excitement] among legal circles. Yes, but they're real and they're magnificient. [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 7, 2005 2:09:38 PM

Comments

I love the classic rapist's defense: She asked for it.

"She's the one who went out there topless," he said in an interview with ABC News Radio's David Blaustein. "I didn't go looking for it."

Posted by: Max | Dec 7, 2005 8:06:59 AM

In case you need to examine the evidence more closely

http://savemanny.blogspot.com/2005/12/jennifer-aniston-warns-over-topless.html

Posted by: Chokey | Dec 7, 2005 8:07:06 AM

A real issue: who is that interested in seeing her nude when there are so many other babes of more interest...but that is an aesthetic rather than a legal issue, right?

Posted by: fred lapides | Dec 7, 2005 8:46:49 AM

What some won't do to drive up (effectively) their hits. Waiting for the sentencing...

Posted by: Jealous | Dec 7, 2005 9:13:00 AM

Be careful not to equate the test for what constitutes a search under the 4th am with standards for common law tort liabiilty. I don't think the factors you've enumerated above are necessarily dispositive. Someone climbing a tree on a public street to look through your window with binoculars may be tortiously invading your privacy even though they are in a public place using readily available equipment. The reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't turn solely on what is possible, nor I think would we want it to. If the photographer is right in claiming that she was readily visible to the unaided eye from the street this will certainly help his case, but just because you can make something out with the unaided eye doesn't mean it's not an invasion of privacy to take zoom lens photos of it. And I somehow doubt that Jen was blithely letting it all hang out in a place where casual passersby on the sidewalk couldn't help but get an eyeful. If she was, she'll rightly lose. Remember that she's also suing under California's specific anti-paparazzi statute (only in California...) under which she has to prove that he (1) attempted to capture (2) in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person (3) a visual image of the plaintiff (4) engaging in a personal or familial activity (5) under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy (6) through use of a visual enhancing device without which the image could not have been achieved without a trespass. Civ. Code § 1708.8.

Posted by: CMN | Dec 7, 2005 9:48:22 AM

Max: There are laws against rape, and against many of the things that lead up to it. (Assault, for starters.) There are no laws outlawing looking at things in plain public view, and damn few that prohibit photographing same.

Posted by: Shelby | Dec 7, 2005 10:37:18 AM

In the clothed butt shots here, she ends up by giving a bit of a bow. I don't think she could claim anything in that case, right? Because, I really care about the legalities of this matter.

Posted by: TLB | Dec 7, 2005 12:41:48 PM

The U.S. Government uses 'enhancing' photo devices to photo people in traffic (running a red light.) The U.S. spy service photo other countries military sites with 'enhancing' photo devices from great distances. The U.S. police photo inside other people's house windows while doing surveillance using 'enhancing' photo devices (and I doubt any warrant is issued for that or needed.)

Look, when you go out into your back yard and there are hills around you, don't be surprised if someone is looking or even photoing. It's not like he got a helicopter and buzzed her house.

Posted by: Paul | Dec 8, 2005 8:03:18 AM

Post a comment