In Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (9th Cir. 1971) 449 F.2d 245, two Life magazine reporters surreptitiously gained entrance to Mr. Dietemann's home under the guise of seeking medical treatment. ( Id. at p. 246.) They were preparing an article entitled Crackdown on Quackery. ( Id. at p. 245.) The reporters, in Mr. Dietemann's den, used hidden camera and audio equipment to record the treatments that were accomplished with the use of " 'equipment which could at best be described as gadgets.' " ( Id. at p. 246.) The pictures appeared in Life's magazine article. ( Id. at pp. 245-247.) Dietemann was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. ( Id. at p. 246.) Dietemann sued for, inter alia, invasion of privacy. ( Id. at p. 247.) The Dietemann court concluded "that clandestine photography of the plaintiff in his den and the recordation and transmission of his conversation without his consent resulting in his emotional distress warrants recovery for invasion of privacy in California." ( Dietemann v. Time, Inc., supra, 449 F.2d at p. 248.) The court noted that "concurrently with the development of privacy law, California had decided a series of cases according plaintiffs relief from unreasonable penetrations of their mental tranquility based upon the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . . We are convinced that California will 'approve the extension of the tort of invasion of privacy to instances of intrusion, whether by physical trespass or not, into spheres from which an ordinary man in plaintiff's position could reasonably expect that the particular defendant should be excluded.' " ( Id. at pp. 248-249.) Dietemann performed his alleged quack healing in his home. He did not advertise his services or charge for them. ( Dietemann v. Time, Inc., supra, 449 F.2d at p. 246.) The Dietemann court determined that "plaintiff's den was a sphere from which he could reasonably expect to exclude eavesdropping newsmen. He invited two of defendant's employees to the den. One who invites another to his home or office takes a risk that the visitor may not be what he seems, and that the visitor may repeat all he hears and observes when he leaves. But he does not and should not be required to take the risk that what is heard and seen will be transmitted by photograph or recording, or in our modern world, in full living color and hi-fi to the public at large or to any segment of it that the visitor may select." ( Id. at p. 249.)