Zoomed or doomed?
2002-08-14 13:56
Screen star Jennifer Aniston is facing the humiliation of having revealing photographs of her discussed openly in court - after she launched a legal battle against two magazines that published paparazzi pictures of her sunbathing topless in her backyard.
The fiercely private Aniston, 33, Rachel in the popular sitcom Friends, was gutted when the photos of her wearing nothing but white panties appeared in the pornographic magazines Celebrity Skin and High Society.
The pictures were taken by a "steal photographer" who scaled a neighbour's fence and zoomed in with a telephoto lens while the unsuspecting actress was sunbathing topless in her backyard.
The set of revealing pics appeared alongside the headlines Friends Star X-Posed - Rachel, Monica and Phoebe Get Naked! and Rachel Gets Raunchy!
She filed a lawsuit in California saying the publications caused her "shame, hurt and embarrassment and distress."
Now a judge has ordered her to produce evidence of each time she has appeared "partially nude" in print or on film for hearings in the lawsuit. The case is to be heard in July.
Same goes for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Brad Pitt (married to Aniston), Naomi Campbell and Halle Berry. They have all gone to court, looking for a little bit of privacy.
New York attorney and legal analyst Julie Hilden says this is not only a case of criminal, but also civil liability.
"Jennifer Aniston has not only a claim for invasion of her right of privacy, she also has a claim for invasion of what's called the right of publicity. Which is the right to control her image, and to control the instances in which her image is used to sell a commercial product," she told ABCNews.
In it's defence the magazines argued that the 33-year-old mega-star is far from innocent. With provocative poses on magazine covers and advertisements, the publishers challenge Aniston's claims that the pictures caused "shame, hurt, embarrassment and distress."
Anita Allen, a Yale University law professor who specializes in privacy and ethics, said that the defense could chip away at Aniston's claim to privacy.
"If they can show she was frequently scantily clad in public, and many shots of her like this have been published, her claim is less strong that the photos in question invaded her privacy," she said.
Aniston's lawyers however will argue that there is a big difference between those magazine shoots, and the photograph taken of the actress when she was behind an 8-foot-high fence with foliage on it. Being in your own back yard is different than standing on a street corner, or in a studio for a photo shoot, Allen said.
British supermodel Campbell won a similar case. She argued that although she is a public figure, the press had no right to run a photo of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting last year. A London court agreed.
Pitt, Aniston's husband, sued Playgirl after it published nude photos of him and ex-fiancée Gwyneth Paltrow. Playgirl was ordered to recall the issue.