I would have think think that this would be legal

[zzyzzx]

Jennifer Anniston Settles Lawsuit Over Revealing, Topless Pictures
- September 4, 2006

No more fighting - Jennifer Aniston has settled a lawsuit over topless pictures of her.

The former "Friends" star, who launched her legal fight in December 2005, tried to sue Peter Brandt claiming he invaded her privacy by using a telephoto lens - a long lens used to take pictures from a distance - to photograph her inside her home when she was "topless or partly dressed."

However, Brandt said he took the pictures while standing on a public street about 300 yards away from Jennifer's home.

The actress' lawyer, Jay Lavely, refused to comment on the outcome of the case, only saying, "It's a confidential settlement. The matter was amicably resolved."

Meanwhile, Jennifer - who is dating her "The Break-Up" co-star Vince Vaughn - is reportedly on the verge of signing an advertising deal with Nike. The amount of money being offered to the former "Friends" star by the sportswear giant is rumored to be the most the company has ever paid for a celebrity endorsement.

Jennifer is apparently determined to make sure the campaign "brings focus to cancer research" with donations given to her favorite cancer charities.


Note: Article does not have topless picture mentioned, and neither do it.

[lumis]

I believe these are the photos.

Of course these are NSFW (that's why I didn't use the img tag).

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/3351/janixj0.jpg

[Conquest10]

I don't know. That doesn't really look like her.

My take on this: If you don't want nude photos of yourself taken and spread around, DON'T GO OUTSIDE NUDE!

[drewzor]

its not like she is the only one with boobs?? why does she care? why would you care? does it effect her financially? NO all these photos may have done is cure impotence....

Dont really understand her logic.. besides i agree with Conquest10

[adam]

Those photos look nothing like her.

Conquest10: The article says that the photos were taken of her while she was inside her house, and allegedly were taken with a telephoto lens. So its not like she was parading around. If the allegations are true then the guy was being a peeping tom.

drewzor: Actually photos like this often do affect a celebrity's career. Even if its a case like this where you didn't pose for the nude pictures, if everyone on the internet is swapping pics of your boobs than its not likely you're going to get a role in Disney's latest movie.

[zzyzzx]

Would it have made a difference legally if she were outside in her yard nude?

Now that I think about it, there is that other news article the Canadian Supreme court said it was OK to masturbate in your house with the curtains open in view of anyone. It was discussed here: https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=243372

[adam]

If she were outside it could have made a difference yes. It really depends on the "peeping tom" statute of the state where she lives.

Generally speaking though, you can't use any type of technological device (hidden camera, 2-way mirror, or zoom lens) to see what you couldn't see with the naked eye. If he could see her changing through her window, and he was on the public street, than its ok. Same thing if she was outside nude, but still on her property. But if he has to use a telescopic device to see her, than he is going to be considered a peeping tom in alot of states.

[adam]

I didn't exactly go out of my way with google but I'm pretty sure she lives in Malibu, California. So here is the relevant statute.

1708.8. (a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person...with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, blah blah

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=5585963684+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

This is a civil offense though. California's criminal "peeping tom" statute doesn't seem to make this type of invasion of privacy a crime.

[ViRaL1]

She's gonna be SO pissed when she finds that toilet cam.

[Conquest10]

adam, that looks like one of those laws passed for the famous. In a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person? That could mean anything.

You see a lot of talk about telefoto lenses. What if the shot was taken with a normal view lens on a large format back then the photo is cropped?

OK, here is another question. Can I get charged with indecent exposure if I walk into my backyard naked?

[ViRaL1]

That would depend on whether or not you can be seen (above the waist) in your backyard through reasonable means. If you have a wall / fence that obstructs normal view from a reasonable distance and reasonable areas (e.g. if a neightbor can see you from their upstairs window or while they're refinishing the roof. If you just have a chain link fence, I would say that would qualify as indecent exposure. They key is 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'

[Conquest10]

They key is 'reasonable expectation of privacy.'

Exactly. If people can clearly see you, do you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'?

[ViRaL1]

Clearly from 300 feet a way with a telephoto lens? I'm sure she's naked all the time at home. If it was such a clear and easy shot, her naughty bits would have been all over the internet well before now.

[adam]

Conquest10: You'll find the reasonable person standard applied up and down civil laws. The idea is that a juror is considered a reasonable person. So you present them the facts and its up to them to decide whether its offensive or not.

Also, you construe these things in light of past decisions in other cases. That's all stuff that would be presented to the jury.

Finally, this is a civil case so the plaintiff would have to show some damage so they've got to show why it offended them and why that offense hurt them.

As far as other types of lenses, I'm not familiar enough with the different technologies to know what each kind of lens does. But as the statute(s) says, the idea is that you cannot enhance your perception to a point where you are capturing images/sounds that you would otherwise have to physically trespass in order to obtain.

[Conquest10]

Another thing is that what is the common thought when a telephoto lens is mentioned? In 35mm, a telephoto is anything above 80mm. That can get a shot from the waist to up at around 8-10 feet from the person. Not quite what we think about from the movies, huh?