The restaurant critic of the LA Times has been outed. An angry manager of a Beverly Hills restaurant snapped her photo and evicted her, along with three companions, before they even sat down to eat.
S. Irene Virbila, the L.A. Times’ restaurant critic for the last 16 years, was visiting Red Medicine restaurant in Beverly Hills when the manager took her photo and ordered her party of four to leave the restaurant. In Beverly Hills! An LA Times Reporter!
Noah Ellis [from the restaurant, Red Medicine] said he was intentionally trying to take away Virbila's anonymity because he does not like her reviews: “Our purpose for posting this is so that all restaurants can have a picture of her and make a decision as to whether or not they would like to serve her. We find that some her reviews can be unnecessarily cruel and irrational …"
Ellis posted her picture on the restaurant’s Tumblr site, explaining that she was not welcome there.
Kevin Roderick of LA Observed responds:
Geez, dude. Just shut up, man up and make your restaurant better. If you're afraid to have your place independently reviewed, that tells me all I need to know.
Some of us might disagree! An owner has every right to decide who goes to his restaurant and to toss out people who he feels might harm it in any way, even, or especially, if it's a review. On the other hand, to take a photo of someone and post it publicly is an invasion of privacy, even though Virbila herself reserved under an assumed name: Fred Snow. So this is a nice piece of drama for Hollywood no matter how it comes down. (The Times says she will continue as critic.)
Side note: I met Irene Virbila when I did the restaurant cartoon for the LA Times, called Daily Special (now running in many other papers). We met for lunch at a restaurant on Sunset, and that was probably the most excited I ever got to meet a reporter for the LA Times. By the time we got to dessert, we had plates of half-eaten food surrounding us, and I whispered to her, "What will they think of us?" I never forgot her reply: "They'll think we're ladies who lunch!" (More about our lunch at my Griffith Park blog.)
Should she have been outed? Can she continue to review restaurants now that LA, a restaurant town, knows her? It's quite a dilemma!
More cartoons about this item, and examination of privacy rights, in the National Political Cartoons column.
Be sure to hit the little orange Subscribe button at the top to get more news and cartoons like this.
Comments
Good for the Manager, we have the right to refuse service to anyone and that of course includes you mrs. critic lady.clap, clap, clap.........
It's not an invasion of privacy. They were in a place open to the public. If they were in an office with some expectation that they could not be seen or overheard as they engaged in a legal business transaction of some kind, that would fit the definition. But anyone in the restaurant could easily have done the same thing and anyone can overhear their conversation. Restaurants depend on business and a poor review can be detrimental to business. She is not objective if she is often cruel. I write rock reviews and have been at the same concert as LA Times critics. They didn't write a single helpful thing, slammed the opening act for being "boyish" and reminding him/herself of music that he/she listened to in high school.
Diana,
Yes, anyone could take your photo, but no one has the right to publish it in any form without your permission - even your school photos! That's why photographers always have to get releases - unless it's a public figure. I guess the Times will figure out if she's public - I don't think so.
Conversations are different, IF they weren't recorded, so yes, anyone could have written down what they said - but if they defamed someone, again they could be sued.
Since you're in LA, too, have you read her reviews in the paper? Do you think she's cruel? I'm curious.
I have been so turned off to the LA times from their rock reviews that I rarely bother. Their rock reviews of live shows seems to have been written by people who only write about how they felt at the concert and do not say much about the music itself.
She was in public--on private property which is open to the public-- and they posted a photo of her from being in public and said who she was. School photos are different because they are minor children.
In order for it to be an invasion of privacy they would have to take a picture through the window of her private home.
You might "feel" she was invaded, but this is not about "feelings." This is about law and facts. They had as much right to post a photo of her in their restaurant as she has to go in an buy food and services. She was not defamed or presented in a false light.
And if someone is sitting next to you in a restaurant, which is a public place and records your conversation, they haven't done a THING wrong. But if they wiretap your house, they have. At HOME you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Here is a link which explains photos and permissions:
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#3.1
I'll have to start reading the rock reviews and see if you're right, Diana!
As the link points out, you could photograph someone in many places - however, you can't PUBLISH the photo without permission. (note that it says check the country - like the US!) If the LA Times sued him on her behalf it would be because she was defined as a non-public person. Laws are different for all sorts of things if you are considered a public person.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!