("bsalai" wrote)
There was a case a few years ago that you might be able to find that might
help you with these issues. I don't remember the parties names, but it
concerned aerial photography of the Calif coast, and particularly the
secluded homes of the very well off. One of them (the well off, not the
home) sued the photographer. My recollection is that the photographer won.


Babs.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?B23F11FFC
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200305%5 CCUL20030530e.html

[From the link]
(CNSNews.com) - Singer/actress Barbra Streisand has filed a $50 million
lawsuit against amateur photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting a
photograph of her Malibu, Calif., estate on his website. The site features
12,000 other photos of the California coastline as part of a project to
document coastal erosion for scientific and other researchers.

Adelman's website also contains photos of other houses along the coastline.
He told CNSNews.com that Streisand was the only one who took legal action
against him.

"Nobody climbed onto her property, nobody's showing her topless sunbathing -
in fact, you don't see any people at all," Richard Kendall, Adelman's
attorney said. "The case has no legal legs to stand on whatsoever."

The lawsuit names Adelman, his web hosting service and Pictopia, a
photography company that distributes his work. It claims the picture of
Streisand's house violates her right of privacy and a state law enacted to
curb paparazzi seeking celebrity photos. The suit seeks to have the photo
removed from the website and $50 million in damages.

"An important civil right of privacy is involved," John Gatti, Streisand's
lawyer, told the Los Angeles Times. "The lawsuit seeks to establish the
extent to which individuals are protected against technologically enhanced
encroachment into their private property."

Yet Kendall said the "anti-paparazzi statute," which is designed to prevent
trespasses on property and stalking of celebrities, has absolutely no
application to the long-range offshore photographs of coastline that
happened to include Barbra Streisand's house and many other houses.

"This is not someone who is focusing on Barbra Streisand, stalking Barbra
Streisand or doing anything other than an environmental study of the coast,"
Kendall said, adding that neither the paparazzi statute nor the U.S.
Constitution "immunize a celebrity mansion that happens to loom over the
coast from being photographed at long distance."

According to the suit, the quality of the photo is "staggering" as a result
of "enhanced technology," which caused Streisand "anxiety" ever since it was
published on the website in November 2002.


Montblack