'Peeping Tom' atist wins privacy case

<p>I get tired of the ever stretching blanket which people label "art". Just because you can do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it and it certainly doesn't mean the rest of the world must accept it, because you slap the word art on it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex, I take it back.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone with floor to ceiling windows who doesn't know people can look in as well as out is distressingly "innocent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Hah, when I was a teenager, we always knew whose apartment to go to to watch women undress and even people have sex in front of open windows. I seriously doubt anyone would be surprised that surveillance was going on.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I get tired of the ever stretching blanket which people label "art".</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />So you must know where the limit is. Where is it?</p>

<p><em>Being a jerk is not illegal ...</em></p>

<p>Exactly. As one very glib former lawyer (caught in a scandal) used to say, "The thing about America is that you have the right to be an a$$h01e." The photographer appears to be one of those.</p>

<p><em>... but I am surprised he was able to publish and sell photos of a persons image without their consent.</em></p>

<p>Not a bit surprising if you know U.S. law. As long as the pictures aren't being used to market another product, the sale of the pictures themselves--as art, journalism, or whatever--is generally legal in the U.S. You simply do not need the subject's consent.</p>

<p>Also, that they're in their homes doesn't matter if they stand in front of windows without curtains or blinds and they're visible from the next building or whatever. If you want privacy in your home, you need to close the curtains, or go to an interior room, or something like that. You may not like that, but generally, that's the law in the U.S.</p>

<p><em>New York needs some better laws to protect kids.</em></p>

<p>If the pictures would qualify as child pornography or something, even taking them would be illegal, but otherwise, child versus adult is not a legal distinction.</p>

<p><em>The good news is that "charges filed" are the same as a conviction on your background check. His employment opportunites are virtually none at this point.</em></p>

<p>Totally incorrect. Generally speaking, for an employer or prospective employer to take averse action (e.g., not hire somebody) based on charges being filed, without there being a conviction, would be illegal employment discrimination.</p>

 

<p>There has never been a better time for exhibitionists. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex, I take it back."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh-oh. It was the Minority Report wisecrack, right? My mom hates Tom Cruise too.</p>

<p>Nothing to do with you...</p>

<p>Am I the only one here cynical enough to see this whole thing as the publicity stunt that (I think) it is? C'mon folks, everyone knows nothing sells as fast as scandal and there is no such thing as bad publicity. The photographer in this case Arne Svenson knew exactly what the fallout would be when he was taking these pictures with the intent to exhibit and sell them. He did it anyway so to me it makes it a business decision on his part. Did anyone know who this guy was before this story broke? I didn't but now I do. Let's face it: Photography is an extremely competitive field to be in; I know so many people who after they bought a DSLR and Photoshop suddenly decided they would become wedding photographers, fine art photographers, product photographers and so on in their spare time. These days it's not enough to be a good photographer i.e. to be able to take good pictures on a consistent basis. One needs to be a savvy business person as well, some people would say this is even more important then the artistic/technical side of photography. Svenson knew he would get a lot of free press out of this controversy and from the looks of things he was correct.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Am I the only one here cynical enough to see this whole thing as the publicity stunt that (I think) it is? </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

So the photographer paid the irate parents to raise a fuss and instigate a lawsuit? The gallery that showed the photos called the papers to report the show? That's a pretty bizarre conspiracy theory.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Svenson knew he would get a lot of free press out of the this controversy and from the looks of things he was correct.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Show some evidence, any evidence, that he made this happen.<br>

<br>

</p>

The lack of evidence is what proves the conspiracy! ;-)

<blockquote>

<p>The right to privacy is the cornerstone of abortion law, trumping right to life. Now we see that "art" trumps privacy under the guise of free speech</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its well and good if you disagree with the decisions you reference here but it should, at least, result from actually understanding them. The term privacy discussed in the comparative decisions you raise are completely different concepts you are confusing as the same.</p>

<p> Contextualizing photography with abortion... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jeff, my point is that he wouldn't have to pay anyone to react the way that they did. He's an experienced enough photographer to know what the fallout of such a body of work would be. Furthermore I pointed out the fact that we are discussing this in this forum whereas prior to this story I had no idea who this photographer was. Like I said, there is no such thing as bad publicity; he threw caution to wind on a calculated risk that this body of work would be controversial and it was and he is getting his name seen far and wide because of it.</p>

<p>""""An appalling thought. A justice system that convicts without a fair trial bad news, not good. I'm sure Ross Allen would think differently were he ever to have charges filed against him for a crime he never committed.""""</p>

<p>I did not invent the system. But I live in it. If somebody accuses me of something I did not do then they would get an opportunity to defend themselves in court. It's how we live. Hopefully they have equity and income to transfer to me. That is the risk of false accusations. But I am going to retire in January anyway. Instead of applying for jobs I am going to travel. Hawaii is first on the list.</p>

<p>To those people who disagree with the judges decision, do not be disappointed. I'm sure when whack-job mayor Bloomberg is done banning 16oz soft drinks and elevators, he'll look for a way to ban photography as well.</p>

<p>I didn't find anything artistic in the photographs and would not walk across the street to view them let along spend money on them.<br /> Maybe the cat didn't break any laws although I do believe he violated people's privacy and if he would have taken shots like that where I live he would be working on removing his camera from his arse. People here don't take kindly to other people violating their privacy legally or otherwise.</p>

<p>Shame this didn't happen in the UK - he'd have crashed and burned with that bullsh1t "defence".</p>

<p>I'm a photographer by choice, but I make my living as a privacy and information law professional (not a lawyer, but lawyers come to me for help with implementing the UK Data Protection Act), and this case wouldn't last two minutes.</p>

<p>On a personal note, having seen first-hand the damage and distress that uninvited picture-taking can cause people (which is why I detest "street"), if I caught this pervert sticking his camera lens through someone's window... well, let's just say he'd need to know a very good proctologist if he wanted his camera back.</p>

 

"if I caught this pervert sticking his camera lens through someone's window"

 

He didn't stick his lens through someone's window; he took photos from his own window. But why let facts get in the way of internet trash talk?

<p><em>Utterly</em> irrelevant, Mike - a Straw Man if ever there was one. The fact is that he was still clearly and unequivocally invading the privacy of others in the most sleazy, crass, pervy way, in the name of (hah!) "art".</p>

<p>And he <em>did</em> shoot through other people's windows - that he might've done it from his own doesn't change that one little bit.</p>

<p>In fact, if anything, it makes him <em>even more</em> of a gutless scumbag.</p>

<p>The linked article actually says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a Tribeca artist who snapped pictures of their children through their apartment windows</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should have realised though, that my use of a bit of licence to make a point would be lost on some people.</p>

<i>Utterly irrelevant, Mike - a Straw Man if ever there was one. The fact is that he was still clearly and unequivocally invading the privacy of others in the most sleazy, crass, pervy way, in the name of (hah!) "art".</i><P>

It is very relevant. "Sticking his lens through someone's window" strongly implies that he has gained access to something that is not publicly visible. Climbing a ladder and sticking a lens (or peering under) someone's drawn shade <b>is</b> illegal. Photographing something that is plainly visible to many others through an uncovered window is, as the ruling indicates, not an actionable invasion of privacy. You may not like the ruling, but it doesn't mean that the location from which he shot and the visibility of his subjects are irrelevant.<P>

Looking out my window now, I can see into about three dozen apartments (which have their lights on) in the building across from mine. The police are not going to come knocking on my door for that. On the other hand, if I were on a ladder and scaling the building to peer through people's closed curtains, I could be arrested.

<p>Edward Hopper painted many pictures looking into the windows of offices, homes, hotels etc. The concept is the same but the medium is different. Does this matter? Is Hopper a gutless scumbag as well?</p><div></div>

<p>I used to live in Greenwich Village in a fourth-floor apartment. It was very easy for me to gaze into neighbours' apartments, and they into mine. Close the blinds, pull down the shade or close the curtains. Everyone who lives in New York and leaves the windows unobstructed knows they are there for all the world to see. Well, maybe not Donald Trump in his penthouse, but all the other normal people do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"he <em>did</em> shoot through other people's windows"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Windows. Aren't those the things that people have in the walls of their homes to be able to see through?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that he was still clearly and unequivocally invading the privacy of others in the most sleazy, crass, pervy way</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Being a "privacy and information law professional", I guess we should believe the claim that shooting ordinary activity made visible to the public is clearly and unequivocally the most sleazy, crass, pervy way" to photograph people unlike scenarios such as...</p>

<p>http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2012/04/04/news/doc4f7c55556007f720105905.txt</p>

<p>+1 for Hopper. A photographer's painter if ever there was one.</p>

I dispute the entire premise. The photographer is not a "peeping Tom" because he did not illicitly observe private nudity or

sexual activity for sexual curiosity or pleasure. Further, he committed no invasion of privacy because he did not publish

photos of people taken from a place where he did not have permission to be, or show them in a damaging false light, or

use their likenesses for commercial promotion, or publish embarrassing personal information. He's done nothing wrong at

all and broken no laws at all.

 

The commenter who I will not name, who seemed happy because the photographer's reputation may be damaged as a

result of his having done nothing wrong, is a very bad person who should be ashamed of himself, and his comment is

both morally perverse and unamerican.

<p>You can believe what you like, John - I have many years of professional experience to support what I've said here. Have you?</p>