Dave-
This case has important free speech implications. If Streisand wins,
it is a vast blow to any watch-dog who dares pick up a camera.
-p
Streisand goes coastal over Web photo effort
Maria Alicia Gaura, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, August 31, 2003
>2003 San Francisco Chronicle |Feedback
>
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/31/
MN305247.DTL
When Ken Adelman retired several years ago -- for the second time, at
age 37 -- he and his wife, Gabrielle, decided to spend some time in the air, photographing the entire California coastline from their helicopter and posting the images free on the World Wide Web.
They assumed the barriers to such an ambitious project would be technical. But the Adelmans got some unexpected turbulence: Barbra
Streisand. Ken and Gabrielle Adelman, who live in rural Santa Cruz County, came up with the idea for their California Coastal Records Project in 1996 when Ken volunteered to fly while friends photographed San Simeon on the Central Coast. (They were fighting a planned development by The Hearst Corp., which owns The Chronicle.)
>
The San Simeon photos were taken on 35mm film, as were a previous series of coastal photos taken by the government that ended up stacked in hundreds of slide carousels.
>
But advances in digital photography, an Apple Powerbook and a
jury-rigged connection to his helicopter's global positioning unit
allowed the Adelmans to shoot the entire coastline and post the
results on the Web in less than a year's time.
>
With Gabrielle at the rudder of a Robinson R44 helicopter and Ken
leaning from the door with a Nikon digital camera, the two documented
every nook and cranny of the coastline, with the shutter clicking away every three seconds and the GPS documenting latitude and longitude for each shot.
>
>"We thought we could start at the Oregon border and just fly our way down the coast," Gabrielle said, adding that fog and other troubles often meant they had to reshoot areas.
>
While the state's coast is officially about 840 miles, the Adelmans say they have shot roughly 1,100 miles, including every cove and
promontory.
>
The more than 12,000 images they have posted on
www.californiacoastline.org are not the first to document California's
Pacific boundary. But the digital technology, free access and
user-friendly Web site design are unprecedented.
In addition to scenes of spectacular loveliness, the project also
documents illegal seawalls, sewage outflows, erosion and masses of new development.
>
>Now that the kinks have been worked out of the technology, the Adelmans plan to update the photos every five years or so, and have been approached to do similar projects in Washington state, around
Vancouver Island, in Hawaii and Mexico and even in Cuba.
>
They also plan to take thousands of coastal slides shot in the 1970s, scan them into the computer, and display them on the Web site for comparison.
>
>But not everyone appreciated their efforts. Vandenberg Air Force Base -- which launches satellites -- has refused to allow the Adelmans to take photographs.
>
But the reaction from the military was nothing compared to the wrath of Streisand.
>
One of the 12,700 digital images posted on the Adelman's Web site
depicts a glorious stretch of beach in Malibu -- and a lavish
bluff-top estate belonging to Streisand.
>
Arguing that the photograph violated her privacy, Streisand filed a $50 million lawsuit in May demanding that the photo including her house be removed from the site, along with the caption reading "Streisand Estate, Malibu."
>
>According to her suit, and property owners concerned with the privacy
of homes along the coast, projects like the Adelmans' must be nipped in the bud.
>
"A self-appointed vigilante of the skies," according to court
documents, "Adelman might next want to swoop down and . . . take
pictures of homes in the vicinity of public parks . . . lakes, rivers, hillsides, reservoirs and highways, all under the pretext that he is documenting the environment. No one would be spared.''
>
Streisand attorney John Gatti insists the lawsuit is not an attempt to
shut down the Web site, but an attempt to protect the privacy of a
celebrity who has been harassed in the past by stalkers and obsessive
fans.
>
>The Adelmans rejected the diva's demands, arguing that the photos
constitute free speech, were taken from public airspace and are part of a historic public document.
>
>"The biggest reason not to comply is that what we do for Barbra we
would have to do for everybody else," Ken Adelman said. "If we took
down her photo and caption, we'd eventually have to take down the
whole thing. We don't feel we can make exceptions for the people who
are wealthy enough to sue us." A technology entrepreneur with a passion for the Internet, the 40-year-old Adelman promptly posted every legal document in the case on his site, as well as letters, phone messages and flaming e-mail rants.
>
>Adelman argues that his own wealth makes him the logical person to
fight a deep-pockets plaintiff like Streisand.
>
While Streisand's wealth has been estimated at $100 million by People
Magazine, Adelman sold his first high-tech company to Cisco Systems in
1996. He retired but soon got back in the technology game.
>
He sold his second company to Nokia in 2000. While he kept only a
portion of the $450 million from the two sales, he did retain enough
to retire early, he said, and absorb legal costs that have totaled
$250,000 to date.
>
While no people are visible in the contested photo, it does show the
arrangement of furniture on the star's lanai, and the placement of
windows and balconies on her three houses, the lawsuit notes.
>
"This case has nothing to do with restricting anyone's freedom of
speech or expression," Gatti said. "I think it's a step in protecting
privacy in an age when advancing technology begins creeping into private lives."
>
As a result, the lawsuit over privacy has generated worldwide publicity -- a good thing for a fledgling Web site but a problematic consequence for a publicity-averse celebrity.
>
>According to Adelman, the Malibu photograph in question was downloaded only six times in the three months before the lawsuit was filed. But once the story hit the media, visits to the site surged. An average of 108,000 visitors per day viewed the photograph in June.
>
The Adelmans have filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Streisand has asked the Los Angeles Superior Court for an injunction ordering the removal of identifying information from the site until the case is
settled. Both sides are anxiously awaiting a ruling, which will
determine whether the case proceeds to trial.
>
The legal costs are five times what he spent to document the coast,
Adelman said, and a less wealthy person might have given up for lack
of money.
>
"I think fighting her is really a public service," Adelman said.
"Someone has to stop her.''
>
E-mail Maria Alicia Gaura at mgaura@sfchronicle.com .
>
>©2003 San Francisco Chronicle |Feedback
>
> Page A - 1
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:32:24 -0400
From: Barry Ritholtz
Subject: They'll never learn (Streisand versus Coastal Photo Effort )
To: Dave Farber
.....
Her home has been identified, and reposted around the internet. I'm proud to post Streisand's home at my blog (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2003/09/photography_als.html), and I suggest other people do so also. Even if she wins the case, she will ultimately lose, because her goal -- rmoving the photo -- will be widely disseminated. You can't just put the toothpaste back in the tube . . .
2:04:53 PM 
