Photographer who secretly snapped neighbours goes to court

[Surrealplaces]

Photographer who secretly snapped neighbours goes to court. Interesting article surrounding photographers rights as well as the rights of the people who are photographed.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../20884316.html

[flar]

I've always thought you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home or yard. On the other hand, my rule of thumb is generally anything visible from the public street or sidewalk is fair game. I wouldn't have taken these photos.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by flar

I've always thought you had a reasonable expectation of privacy in your own home or yard. On the other hand, my rule of thumb is generally anything visible from the public street or sidewalk is fair game. I wouldn't have taken these photos.

Yeah, if he was on public property photographing into someone's house or yard, I think there would be no problem. They are already in public view, the photographer doesn't change anything.

But to photograph someone's private space from one's own private space, and then exhibiting those photographs publicly, the photographer is taking something that is private and making it public. I think that is not ethical.

[glowrock]

This douchebag gives a bad name to all photographers who actually have a sense of ethics, morals and common decency. Honestly, I'm somewhat sickened by what this photographer's subject matter, the way in which the photos were taken as well as the fact that they're for sale in a gallery without the subject's permission or even knowledge. Not cool, not cool at all.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[volguus zildrohar]

Common sense - if you keep your curtains open people can and will look in. However I was always under the impression that a person has an expectation of privacy once they cross the threshold of their home. Looking in is voyeurism - you aren't invited, there's nothing for you there. The photographer might have a legal leg to stand on but morally, ethically he's dead wrong.

[Surrealplaces]

I'm of the opinion that pictures of someone inside their home should require a release from that person, on the other hand if you take a picture of a building and happen to capture someone in a window, I don't think it should require a release.

Here's my thoughts on how to set some guidelines. The criteria for what constitutes invasion of privacy could be determined by the percentage of window or doorway that is part of the invasion of privacy, or maybe a percentage of the actual person. It could be say....5% or less, and if that was the case it would be hard to get a closeup picture of someone.

[Surrealplaces]

Here's a couple I have taken that taken that show people in their private space Those people are really just a small part of the pic, but it borderlines on invasion of privacy. Some people might think it is.


New York City by Surrealplaces, on Flickr


New York City by Surrealplaces, on Flickr


And then there's this one..... You can't even make out anyone in the pic, but I still got an annoying message on Flickr from someone saying that I was a peeping Tom, and a pervert lol!.


Urban Windows by Surrealplaces, on Flickr

[arkitekte]

1. If you have to ask yourself "Should I be taking this photo?", you probably shouldn't.

2. Don't leave your curtains and blinds wide open and think that no one will take a look.

3. Don't try to justify taking a photo that invades someone's private space.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Here's a couple I have taken that taken that show people in their private space Those people are really just a small part of the pic, but it borderlines on invasion of privacy. Some people might think it is.


New York City by Surrealplaces, on Flickr


New York City by Surrealplaces, on Flickr


And then there's this one..... You can't even make out anyone in the pic, but I still got an annoying message on Flickr from someone saying that I was a peeping Tom, and a pervert lol!.


Urban Windows by Surrealplaces, on Flickr

All of these are reasonable because:
1st image is an exterior shot of a building, not technically showing a person on the interior.
2nd image is of a business that clearly advertises its purpose with an unobstructed window...very simlar to what is considered a window display
3rd image is a cityscape shot. It's what anyone would see and not focusing in on anyone's unit in particular.


The artist is a jerk. He crossed the line of ethics. It's beyond a quick snapshopt but very calculated intentions. It's like looking through the view peephole of someone's door. He's spending time watching these people. Good photographers typically spend time setting up shots. I'm sure he's probably got tons of photos of stuff that couldn't legally make it into a gallery.

I live in a highrise next to other highrises in Chicago and I've gotten used to that common courtesy that you just don't stare into other buildings. For those of us in older buildings with windows inside our showers this behavior is even more unsettling.

Originally Posted by Surrealplaces

Here's my thoughts on how to set some guidelines. The criteria for what constitutes invasion of privacy could be determined by the percentage of window or doorway that is part of the invasion of privacy, or maybe a percentage of the actual person. It could be say....5% or less, and if that was the case it would be hard to get a closeup picture of someone.

I believe any sort of written criteria centers on enhanced photography. Use of a high power telephoto lens to get close up photos of a building across the street is a major intrusion of privacy. Snapping a photo with minimal zoom, in a fleeting moment not so much. Anything that would be caught in the image would be totally by chance. As i mentioned before, carefully setting up a shot and watching these people for what I imagine to be...hours...is totally different and very creepy.

[diskojoe]

There is nothing wrong with what this guy did. People might not like it but there is a reason that curtains were invented. They are used to ensure privacy and if you want to be private then use them.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I believe any sort of written criteria centers on enhanced photography. Use of a high power telephoto lens to get close up photos of a building across the street is a major intrusion of privacy. Snapping a photo with minimal zoom, in a fleeting moment not so much. Anything that would be caught in the image would be totally by chance. As i mentioned before, carefully setting up a shot and watching these people for what I imagine to be...hours...is totally different and very creepy.

If you can see it from what would be a public location then it is acceptable. Now if you have to be in another private home to see it and it is in no other way visible then you are indeed invading someones privacy. So if Im in a hotel and can see in your condo then its fair game but if Im in my condo looking in your condo then it is not.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

There is nothing wrong with what this guy did. People might not like it but there is a reason that curtains were invented. They are used to ensure privacy and if you want to be private then use them.

Legally or morally? I think it's messed up and I really question what else he photographed that didn't make it to the gallery.

Legally with a point and shoot he might get a pass card. But it depends on they gray area of secret surveillance laws in New York and if that applies in this case. Typically it was meant for reporters that couldn't use enhanced equipment to collect information, images, or video of people inside their homes. Whether a telephoto lens counts as well as the duration of image shooting counts I don't know.

I think most folks out there would disagree this is morally OK. I think there is a consensus and public opinion does not tip in the artist's favor. People generally don't want to be photographed in the privacy of their homes and they don't want to have to draw the shades of their windows at all hours of the day. Fortunately, I would say most of society is respectful.



I should point out that some people find it frustrating when some rent-a-cop wants to know what they are taking pictures of, even when they are standing on public property. But it's people like this artist that ruin it for everyone.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I think it's messed up and I really question what else he photographed that didn't make it to the gallery.

NOw here you have a very very valid point.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Legally or morally? I think it's messed up and I really question what else he photographed that didn't make it to the gallery.

Legally with a point and shoot he might get a pass card. But it depends on they gray area of secret surveillance laws in New York and if that applies in this case. Typically it was meant for reporters that couldn't use enhanced equipment to collect information, images, or video of people inside their homes. Whether a telephoto lens counts as well as the duration of image shooting counts I don't know.

I think most folks out there would disagree this is morally OK. I think there is a consensus and public opinion does not tip in the artist's favor. People generally don't want to be photographed in the privacy of their homes and they don't want to have to draw the shades of their windows at all hours of the day. Fortunately, I would say most of society is respectful.



I should point out that some people find it frustrating when some rent-a-cop wants to know what they are taking pictures of, even when they are standing on public property. But it's people like this artist that ruin it for everyone.

I totally agree with you here, 100%. It IS people like this "artist" that ruin it for everyone when it comes to having any access at all for taking legitimate photos that most certainly do not border on any level of intrusion of privacy.

Originally Posted by diskojoe

NOw here you have a very very valid point.

Yeah, exactly. I have a feeling what this guy had photographed involved far more than simply what was displayed for sale in the gallery.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[vid]

He had a good idea, but it was poorly executed. If you're taking intimate photos of people, you need to ask for consent. Even in jurisdictions where you can openly take photos almost anywhere, if an individual is the subject of a photography, they must give consent if that photograph is sold or displayed.

In Ontario, even if you're on public property, it is illegal to take a photo looking into a person's home. That pane of glass, transparent or opaque, is where our rights as photographers end and an individual's right to privacy begins, and we have to respect that.

[Derek]

This is why I don't masturbate without closing the blinds first anymore.

[wrab]

My first thought was of "Rear Window". Voyeurism, binoculars at the ready, is a pastime for many NYC friends. But then I googled the building in question.


Here's the building - note the curtains for those who want them:

Zinc Building, 475 Greenwich Street

http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/03/20/55/46_big.jpg


Hayward, you are correct in so far as it goes - Chicagoans don't do as much window peeping as Manhattanites - but they've been living with floor-to-ceiling glass since 1951:

860-880 Lake Shore Drive, 1951

http://www.webflakes.com/architectur...ago-apartments


This arrangement is more novel in Manhattan:

173 Perry Street, 1999

by rpa2101 @ Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/3222417...n/photostream/)


.....and I'd posit that the Manhattan take on floor-to-glass living in also more theatrical. Part of the thrill is in being seen:

HL23, High Line

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...HIGHLINE2.html

[wrab]

.....And now that I've seen the fenestration on the Zinc Building, my sense of what a reasonable expectation of privacy would be for someone who lives there has shifted; I'm much more sympathetic to Arne Svenson.

Clearly, Svenson is pushing boundaries - he's provoking - but isn't provocation one of the attributes that we expect from real art? And Svenson has taken great care to obscure his subjects' faces.

There's a lonliness to the images, a stillness, that reminds me of Edward Hopper:




http://arnesvenson.com/Resources/5_w...G_0183.jpg?692




http://arnesvenson.com/Resources/11_...G_9049.jpg?411




http://arnesvenson.com/Resources/12_...G_1989.jpg?650




http://arnesvenson.com/Resources/8_w...G_1503.jpg?633




http://arnesvenson.com/Resources/4_w...G_3013.jpg?950



These images took my breath away. Even the butt. They are serene and beautifully composed, and not at all titillating.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by wrab

Clearly, Svenson is pushing boundaries - he's provoking - but isn't provocation one of the attributes that we expect from real art? And Svenson has taken great care to obscure his subjects' faces.

So real art is what pushes the boundaries of people's human rights to privacy in their own homes? I realize most of the shots in the gallery show people close to their windows, but no one should have to endure of what was potentially countless hours in front of the lens of a clandestine photography project. Again we aren't talking fleeting moments captured of an apartment building at full zoom. We really don't know how many photos were taken, or what exactly was taken. But the best photographers I've been around take lots of pictures and let a few go to the gallery.

I can agree with you that the photography in itself is quite beautiful, but let's not that distract form the real issue here. It carries undertones of ethical boundaries crossed.

[wrab]

^ Hayward, I more-or-less agree with you. Your posts are always eloquent and well thought out - how could I not! But I don't agree with the tilt of the article, which plays up the prurience angle. The pics aren't prurient.

I live in an old storefront studio with huge display windows onto a dense narrowish residential street, so I understand some of the compromises that come with this kind of setup. I've had to install a permanent shade on one of the transoms because I was getting too much attention from a unit across the street, and I have scrims at street level. But otherwise, I love to have the light pour in.

I was more sympathetic to the plaintiffs before I saw the building. Village, dense, residential, glass building - I'd kill to live there. But I wouldn't expect much privacy with the curtains drawn. I don't know the plaintiffs' back-stories, but I see it as a teachable moment for them.