Jump to content

Interesting Case


Recommended Posts

<p>Found this decision rather interesting. I personally would not feel comfortable photographing someone in their own home much less displaying the works, but I'm surprised this judge found it an acceptable practice. Seems to leave the door wide open to invasions of privacy. Drone snaps a few shots of you naked bathing in your hot tub, too bad for you!</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/family-loses-legal-battle-against-photog-who-took-their-pics/ar-AAaEQij?ocid=iehp">http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/family-loses-legal-battle-against-photog-who-took-their-pics/ar-AAaEQij?ocid=iehp</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Maybe I interpret things different, and I base myself only on the link provided (i.e. did not check other sources), but to me it seems the judge quite understood the complaint of the family, but found that within current legislation, the actions of the photographer were not against the law.<br>

Reading:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the judges noted however that their decision should not be taken as an indication that they have given “short shrift” to the family’s concerns but they said the families should take their objections to the legislature .“<br />In these times of heightened threats to privacy posed by new and every more invasive technologies, we call upon the Legislature to revisit this important issue as we are constrained to apply the law at it exists."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>leads me to think the judges found it unacceptable practise (on an ethical/moral level), but find themselves bound by the current legislation. Which isn't a bad thing in any way - a justice system isn't about the opinion of a judge, but about applying the law. That doesn't make it easier to feel compassionate about sentences, at times, but in those cases, if the law is that way, the problem is the law - not the judge (assuming they didn't misinterpret things massively of course).<br>

So, the way I read it, this case doesn't leave a door open that wasn't already open, it would just underline the fact that it was open all along (with a limitation put on the use of the images as well).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't disagree Wouter, but our judges are often called upon to interpret the law, and one might interpret it differently than another. I think it's a bit disconcerting that the law would allow for an interpretation that permits someone to photograph people in their own home without permission then display those shots publicly. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not saying the judge did anything incorrectly, but the problem is that some morally indignant legislator will want to "fix" the problem by bludgeoning it with a sledge hammer, rather than simply tapping in a tiny nail. So instead of introducing a bill that says people can't be photographed in circumstances where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (which I thought was already the case), he/she will introduce a bill that people can't be photographed without their written permission (anywhere, anyhow, PERIOD). Brace for it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sarah, indeed that's where I'd feel this would also head. In between the cry for more security, versus a protection of privacy, a lot of laws have been either changed to re-emphasised in ways that gives the right media sound-bite, without realising that this is an incredibly fine balance where we should all be ultra careful. Happens on both sides of the ocean, we all have our share of populists in the end.<br /> Bill, I did not mean to imply I agree that this behaviour is (or should be) deemed OK - art or no art - I think it's been an invasion of privacy where privacy was to be expected. Indeed interpretation of the law might be the problem here, rather than the law itself, I am not familiar enough with the laws to say anything useful about that. But as said in response to what Sarah wrote, it is a thin line, full of exceptions - I doubt it will ever become a whole lot better defined and strict than "reasonable expectation of privacy" or similar. So, rewriting the law might even not solve a single thing either, even if done with care.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not the finding of one judge. The case had gone to trial, the plaintiffs (the family) lost and they took it up to the

next stage, an appeals court (the article doesn't say whether this is a state or Federal case). An appeals court panel

(multiple judges) ended up ruling against them, based on the merits of the case and the facts presented by both sides.

 

Keep n mnd that what the appeals court differentiated between artistic and commercial use. If it had been commercial use

the photographer would have lost. Also it might have helped that the individuals were not identifiable (no faces).

 

I am not an attorney and do not know what their next step is. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment. I

guess they can take it up to the Supreme Court if it's a Federal case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The trial court decision reported here: <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/photos-nyc-family-shot-window-art-judge-article-1.1421959">http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/photos-nyc-family-shot-window-art-judge-article-1.1421959</a> (linked to in article in Bill's post). Trial court said: "She said it was within Arne Svenson’s artistic rights to promote his show by sharing with the media some of his photos of Martha and Matthew Foster and their children — which were taken without their permission." Which apparently is the decision the appellate court affirmed. The trial court was a New York court: "Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eilee [sic]Rakower"</p>

<p>So it <em>sounds</em> like the plaintiffs had in whole or in part argued that promoting the show via photos shared with the media was commercial use and the trial court disagreed, that decision affirmed on appeal?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This seems to be in direct opposition (180 deg) to a case that took place in NYC appx 35-40yrs (?) ago. A photog was taking shots of a model from many stories up, and inadvertently this person, who was in a small garden and several floors below...minding their privacy, was photographed. Can't point to how the case ended, but invasion of privacy is real....so in essence I don't agree with the verdict (no matter which law or banner you choose). But, that's just me.</p>

<p>Les</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you leave your curtains open to the public at street level, you pretty obviously don't have any expectation of privacy, and in fact caused yourself to be in that position. <br /><br />If someone uses a 400 mm lens, or a drone, or a hidden camera to look into windows at people who would not be visible with the naked eye, then that's pretty obviously an invasion of privacy.<br /><br />Commercial use always requires a release, but artistic and editorial use do not require a release.<br /><br />Case law, tort law, and common sense dictate those three statements. <br />Not sure why anyone would think otherwise.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe I have not read enough about the case, but I believe the judge has taken the right decision and he should not hide behind the law proposing the law to be changed. The photos, that I have seen, all show images of unrecognizable individuals and interiors. Violation of privacy may indeed have occurred, but not by shooting the photos or by making an art show, but by publishing the news of the names and addresses of the people in question. </p>

<p>To compare this case of "privacy intrusion" with the massive snooping of privacy data of hundreds of millions of people across the world which Snowden has made known ti us all, must be a joke.<br>

By the way I like the photographical works of guy. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't see any problem with what the photographer did here. I like his work. I certainly hope this case does not compel legislatures, who are always looking for more laws to pass, to pass yet another "thou shalt not...". It seems to me the plaintiffs in this case had privacy, even during the photo exhibit that contained their photographs. Who knew anything about the subjects from the exhibit except for the building in which they lived? It seems to me it was the chance for a few bucks in the pocket that led them, the subjects who allegedly wanted their privacy, to willingly give up their privacy to press the case. Note the names are printed in the article.</p>

<p>As one who admires the work of the great street photographers of the last century, I think the pendulum has already swung too far in the other direction of making most every photograph of a person (and now even a thing) some invasion of privacy or threat to security or whatever.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plaintifs did have privacy with a peeping tom taking pictures of them in their own home? Violation of privacy has occured at that very moment.<br>And there is no need for new legislation to decide that it has. There is a need of a changed legislation if you can get away with it anyway 'because it is (a promotion of) art'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Violation of common sense took place when the plaintiffs alleged they thought they had privacy in an apartment in NYC with floor to ceiling windows and no curtains. Later, they were shocked to discover that gambling was going on in Casablanca!</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So, Q.G., if you build a glass house and stop wearing cloths, you can probably make a living out of going to court when "peeping toms" (and ladies) shoot photos from the outside. </p>

<p>Absurd and totally hypocritical ! - whatever "laws" of the place and the day happen to say.</p>

<p>As the article says, if you want privacy, buy stores.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophically I can understand the appeal of voyeurism. Jimmy Stewart has nothing to look at during his convalescence but his neighbors. He uses his long lens to do what used to do, look for interesting things to see ( and maybe to shoot). If Hitchcock In the film Rear Window recognized the voyeuristic tendency in our nature then it is a matter of drawing lines by some standard. One which has loosened more since Rear Window. Hitch justifies the voyeur by uncovering a crime and for which he almost loses his life....good luck window watchers! And try those binoculars in any neighborhood and watch out for the 911 calls...

 

Guess we have to leave it to such cases to sort some of this out. I say good luck. We don't want to expose ourselves to shame and peeping "artists" documenting their urban environment.... but actually we constantly expose ourselves. And we look for the ironies and odd ball stuff we do in private. ( Who will be the first to catch Ted Cruz picking his nasal passages in his van. You know what I mean)

 

So if a young aspiring model andactress took shots of her and her boyfriend that is private stuff,behind closed doors stuff....not for the press to press with. Although funny I got a video book that has a whole chapter on that subject with lighting and so on. I digress..but the right to not have someone climb the hedge, stalk the couple and then sell their romantic interlude to the Daily Mail or Telegraph. I see that as beyond the pale. If you have not seen the 2014 movie with Jake Guillenhall called Nightstalker I recommend it. It is both revolting and yet has a creepy fascination reflecting the culture of voyeurism. And bloody wrecks trumps the erotic by far it says. Why do folks slow down to watch a wreck. Oh sure, they may recognize the occupants one lady told me. Yes, the law when it gets its hands on this kind of thing is sure to have a hue and cry that will end up in some law. Which will try to do what venetian blinds were intended to do.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>The plaintifs did have privacy with a peeping tom taking pictures of them in their own home?</i><P>

I've lived in high-rise apartments for several years now. So, if I'm in my apartment looking out my window, and I see a person standing in front of their uncovered window in another building, that makes me a peeping tom? Should it be illegal for me to look out my window and see stuff that is clearly visible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Anders, "if" you assume something that is absurd the conclusion must be that it is something that is absurd. Well done!<br><br>Mike, did you take your camera, go lie in wait hoping to record those people? If your neigbour across the street stands in front of his window all day, looking in at your appartment, trying to keep up with what you are doing, would you feel comfortable with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taken photos out of my window, though I haven't been paying particular attention to what other people were doing in front of their windows at the time. If my neighbors spend all day looking at my apartment, they're going to be extremely bored. If I'm going to do something that I'm concerned about other people seeing, I close the blinds or move away from the window.

 

Now, instead of evading my questions, can you actually answer them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evading? If i would stand in front of my window looking in at yours all day, would that make me a peeping tom?<br>If my intention is apparent, being that i want to see and record what you are doing in your home, you may think i will get bored (You said something about "evading" questions? ;-) ), but would that make me a peeping tom (whether bored to death or extremely satisfied)?<br>Or put the other way round: what would you say would make the difference between a peeping tom and someone who happens to catch a glimpse?<br>And where across that divide would you say the "artist" in question is situated?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no, you refuse to directly answer my questions. Putting in smiley faces doesn't make it cute or clever--it just shows your unwillingness to directly engage in a substantive discussion.<P>

<i>what would you say would make the difference between a peeping tom and someone who happens to catch a glimpse</i><P>

What makes a "peeping tom" is fairly well established: making a special effort to circumvent someone's efforts to ensure privacy (for example, climbing up a ladder to closely peer through a small gap in someone's closed blinds or curtains). The artist in question photographed things that were in clear view from his own apartment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, what i've given as answer twice now is that there is a difference between catching a glimpse and trying to get a good look. You brush what this photographer has done off as a case of accidentally catching a glimpse. What he actually did does indeed make him a peeping tom.<br><br>Not many people would be comfortable if their neigbour across the street would set up his equipment to record what they are doing in their homes. There is legislation in place that expresses that general feeling. And it would not be deemed o.k. anyway 'because' all you need to do to is board up your windows so your neighbour doesn't have an opportunity to do so. People will, i'm sure, think it better if that peeping neighbour's windows were boarded shut instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i> You brush what this photographer has done off as a case of accidentally catching a glimpse.</i><P>

That is clearly not what I did. I pointed out that he was not a peeping tom because he was viewing (and photographing) things that were in plain view (rather than scaling the wall and trying to peer past curtains). In the future, if you don't understand what I'm saying, please ask me to clarify rather than making up your own version.<P>

<i>There is legislation in place that expresses that general feeling.</i><P>

If that were true, his neighbors would have won their initial suit; instead, they lost that and an appeal.<P>

<i> all you need to do to is board up your windows so your neighbour doesn't have an opportunity to do so</i><P>

Boarding up windows is hardly necessary. Drawing a curtain or closing a blind so that things are not in plain view is quite sufficient when you want privacy. Seriously, it works quite well. I have years of experience on this matter. Drawn curtain = privacy; open curtain = other people can see in through the window I can see out of.<P>

<i>People will, i'm sure, think it better if that peeping neighbour's windows were boarded shut instead.</i><P>

Yes, of course. Why should I be responsible for maintaining my privacy? It's much more reasonable to expect others to be prevented from seeing what's in plain view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Mike, someone disagreeing with you is not the same as someone not understanding what you say.</i><P>

So you understood, and you consciously chose to completely misrepresent what I said. And, just to be clear, intentionally misrepresenting what I said is not the same as disagreeing with me. <P>

<i>Discussing an issue is not the same as saying people don't understand unless they agree with your version.</i><P>

Discussing an issue is also not the same as evading direct questions, ignoring the points I've raised, lying about what I said, making up facts (re legislation), and presuming to know what others will believe (re boarding up windows).<P>

<i>No point, is there?</i><P>

Obviously not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>If you leave your curtains open to the public at street level, you pretty obviously don't have any expectation of privacy, and in fact caused yourself to be in that position. <br /><br />If someone uses a 400 mm lens, or a drone, or a hidden camera to look into windows at people who would not be visible with the naked eye, then that's pretty obviously an invasion of privacy.</blockquote>

<p>I agree with those who indicated there is the danger here of over-regulating privacy, and perhaps 'visible with the naked eye' would be the deciding measure, though I still wonder why we should be expected to block all visibility to the inside of our homes to maintain privacy. Should opening my windows and blinds also open myself to being photographed. What if I'm only vaguely visible to the naked eye, but a 400 mm lens resolves that? What if my wife is sitting in a corner of the room breastfeeding my child, and can only be seen from the outside at a very specific angle that one has to make a concerted effort to achieve? Where exactly should the line be drawn?</p>

<p>I understand where this particular judge drew it, and that he did so based on his interpretation of law rather than his sense of decency, and that's ok because that's what judges are supposed to do (someone should tell that to Judge Judy), and while I don't think this necessarily goes to 'peeping tom' levels, I can't help but feel there was an invasion of privacy here. I mean honestly, what woman wants her rear-end photographed and put up for public display - well, other than the Kardashians?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...