| magicalfreddiemercury 20.05.2013 06:23 |
A photographer in NYC’s Tribeca Village used a telephoto lens to capture images of his neighbors in a building across the way from his while they went about their daily lives in their own apartments. Those images are now featured as part of his art exhibit in a NYC gallery. The images are also all over the internet and they will be available for sale as prints with prices, for each, in the thousands. The subjects in the pictures have not been notified directly from this photographer that they are in his pictures, nor have they had the opportunity to opt out or sign any form of release. They’ve learned of this through TV, print and internet news segments. The photographer insists it’s art, not voyeurism or stalking as many have complained, and he’s insisting none of the subjects are identifiable (except that he has released the address of the building in which they reside). Detractors say this was and is nothing more than an invasion of privacy and while these people may have had their windows uncovered, they had a reasonable expectation to privacy within their own homes. He’s dismissed the idea of ‘privacy’ with this statement: “For my subjects, there is no question of privacy. They are performing behind a transparent scrim on a stage of their own creation with the curtain raised high. The neighbors don’t know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs. I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or a movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within.” So, your opinion... does a person have the right to expect a certain level of privacy within their own home regardless of whether their windows are covered or should whatever they do that can potentially be seen (with a telephoto lens, for example) be considered available for public consumption – and sale – without their knowledge or consent? (The subjects have threatened a lawsuit, btw. I have no idea how the law sides on this.) |
| The Real Wizard 20.05.2013 10:51 |
As long as they're not minors, I don't believe it is illegal. It's not illegal for you to sell a photo of Paul McCartney, so why should it be illegal for you to sell a photo of me peeling an orange? Any lawyers here? |
| YourValentine 21.05.2013 01:47 |
I do not know about other countries but in Germany it would be illegal to poke a lens into a private home and publish the photos - be it Paul McCartney or any other person. Privacy laws differ from country to country - here you have a right to ask Google Streets to remove your photo from their street photos. Art would not be an excuse I think. While I think that the Google Street issue is exaggerated in Germany I also think that in your home you must be safe from intruding cameras. I think in France they have good privacy laws, as well. I remember that not long the English crown princess won a law suit against paparazzi shooting her photo in a private vacation residence. |
| thomasquinn 32989 21.05.2013 04:21 |
Would be illegal here in the Netherlands too, unless you could prove (in a civil suit, if it ever came to that) that your violation of others' privacy was serving a "public need". However, people would have to press charges for any action to be undertaken, and it would always be a civil suit and not a criminal suit. As far as my views on TS question: I think it's art, but I do think it's unethical art. |
| catqueen 21.05.2013 14:15 |
I certainly don't like the idea of anyone using a telescopic lens to look at or photograph anything in my house, whether it's for art or anything else. I haven't seen the pictures, although i'd imagine they are pretty cool, but it's still not really acceptable to poke your nose into someone else's life like that. And especially not to release their address. |
| Thistle 23.05.2013 20:03 |
I *think* that it is illegal to take a photo of another person, with the intent to print/publish, without their permission (it definitely is here in the UK). The fact that the "artist" is now about to make money from that is highly immoral into the bargain. It would be different if you were taking a photo of a landmark in a busy place - obviously, someone is bound to make their way onto the film, but, as they are not the subject matter, this is absolutely fine. No permission would be needed. However, as the people in the flats ARE the subject matter, they should have been asked first, with the option to opt out. I'm sure they should also be entitled to remuneration from any sales. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.05.2013 07:24 |
The Real Wizard wrote: It's not illegal for you to sell a photo of Paul McCartney, so why should it be illegal for you to sell a photo of me peeling an orange?I would think the difference lies in whether you’re a public figure or a private citizen. People like Paul McCartney put themselves out there purposely. They are a brand, a product. They certainly deserve, and have the right to expect, a level of respect and privacy, but not nearly as much as a private citizen who is sleeping in his or her own bed, in his or her own apartment. YourValentine wrote: I do not know about other countries but in Germany it would be illegal to poke a lens into a private home and publish the photos - be it Paul McCartney or any other person.Exactly. Private space vs. public space. If these people were photographed while exiting their apartment building, I’d still understand how they could feel violated, but once you’re out in public, you have no choice but to lower your expectation of privacy. It reminds me of Prince Harry’s escapades in his hotel room in Vegas not long ago. No matter who he is, he had the right to his privacy while in that room. YourValentine wrote: I remember that not long the English crown princess won a law suit against paparazzi shooting her photo in a private vacation residence.The paparazzi doesn’t (don't?) know when to stop. They hunt down people like her – because certain elements of the public want these kinds of shots. Think about it, there are some who are willing to pay thousands of dollars for the “Neighbors” images this thread is about, and the people in those pictures are just your average folk. Without a market, the paparazzi would be out of business. Without a market, I doubt this guy would even been considered an artist. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.05.2013 07:29 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Would be illegal here in the Netherlands too, unless you could prove (in a civil suit, if it ever came to that) that your violation of others' privacy was serving a "public need". However, people would have to press charges for any action to be undertaken, and it would always be a civil suit and not a criminal suit.Public need – a few years ago, a woman took pictures from her apartment into another when she saw that two young children being abused there. She helped to save those children and put their abuser in jail. It was evidence. Not ‘art’. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: As far as my views on TS question: I think it's art, but I do think it's unethical art.He and the gallery owner say they’re ‘stunned’ by the anger his actions have created. They, clearly, see nothing unethical about it. catqueen wrote: I certainly don't like the idea of anyone using a telescopic lens to look at or photograph anything in my house, whether it's for art or anything else. I haven't seen the pictures, although i'd imagine they are pretty cool, but it's still not really acceptable to poke your nose into someone else's life like that. And especially not to release their address.He released his own address which, by extension, released theirs. As for whether the pictures are cool or not – I guess that’s a matter of opinion. I saw very little creativity in any of them. I guess it’s possible that if I didn’t know the story behind them, I’d see them differently. Thistleboy1980 wrote: I *think* that it is illegal to take a photo of another person, with the intent to print/publish, without their permission (it definitely is here in the UK). The fact that the "artist" is now about to make money from that is highly immoral into the bargain. It would be different if you were taking a photo of a landmark in a busy place - obviously, someone is bound to make their way onto the film, but, as they are not the subject matter, this is absolutely fine. No permission would be needed. However, as the people in the flats ARE the subject matter, they should have been asked first, with the option to opt out. I'm sure they should also be entitled to remuneration from any sales.I agree completely. In fact, the little bit of research I did on this pointed to an article dated 2009 that stated NYC’s “peeping Tom” laws do not prohibit people from looking in windows (which would be nearly impossible in NYC anyway) but DO prohibit the use of technology to do so. Technology such as binoculars and cameras. So, the civil suit the subjects are threatening just might have merit. I do hope so. |
| Thistle 24.05.2013 08:29 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: the little bit of research I did on this pointed to an article dated 2009 that stated NYC’s “peeping Tom” laws do not prohibit people from looking in windows (which would be nearly impossible in NYC anyway) but DO prohibit the use of technology to do so. Technology such as binoculars and cameras. So, the civil suit the subjects are threatening just might have merit. I do hope so.If it is a law in NYC, then the artist has clearly broken it. He deserves all that is coming to him in terms of civil action. However, if your research is correct, and this is LAW, then what stops it being a criminal matter? Either way, I hope he has to cough up one way or another!! |
| magicalfreddiemercury 24.05.2013 15:18 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote:Yeah, this has me confused, too. Some of the information I've seen suggests it's a felony ONLY when the peeping includes "private parts" or anything sexually explicit - which isn't the case with these images. It'll be very interesting to see where this goes.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: the little bit of research I did on this pointed to an article dated 2009 that stated NYC’s “peeping Tom” laws do not prohibit people from looking in windows (which would be nearly impossible in NYC anyway) but DO prohibit the use of technology to do so. Technology such as binoculars and cameras. So, the civil suit the subjects are threatening just might have merit. I do hope so.If it is a law in NYC, then the artist has clearly broken it. He deserves all that is coming to him in terms of civil action. However, if your research is correct, and this is LAW, then what stops it being a criminal matter? Either way, I hope he has to cough up one way or another!! |
| Thistle 24.05.2013 19:08 |
It certainly would! I'm sure the law of averages dictates that, at some point, he captured some gal coming out of the shower, or even a little hanky-panky between lovers. Even if not, the very idea of what he's done is perverted. Hiding behind the smokescreen of "art" is NOT license to intrude in the lives of others. |