Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: RFPhotography on May 17, 2013, 11:20:27 am
-
An NYC photographer is coming under fire for an exhibit of a series of images he shot of people in neighbouring buildings through their windows without their knowledge. Put me in the 'just plain creepy' vote column.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/new-york-artist-faces-backlash-over-voyeuristic-photos/article11987801/
-
I'll share that column with you. Clearly an attempt to get the 15 minutes of fame.
-
Merry Alpern, Windows 1994
Shot covertly (http://www.walkerart.org/archive/5/B27381AD36946BD76165.htm) across an air shaft, through a bathroom window on Wall Street, Alpern's photographs of female prostitutes and high-powered businessmen are strange and indistinct. Captured yet elusive, these images are more startling in their voyeuristic magnetism than they are shocking. The viewer must try to make sense of them, to cull stories from blurred lines and sheds of fabric.
-
Svenson is a terrific artist. His sense of color and composition are amazing.
His photographs of his neighbors are tasteful and quite beautiful. And he was more respectful of their privacy by not showing their faces than he needed to be for any legal reason. The law is completely on Svenson's side here. If his neighbors didn't want the world to see what they were doing they should have kept their curtains drawn.
-
Svenson is a terrific artist. His sense of color and composition are amazing.
That, of course, is a matter of opinion.
His photographs of his neighbors are tasteful and quite beautiful.
That, too, is a matter of opinion. Frankly I don't particularly find the image of an anonymous woman from behind with her ass in the air to be overly tasteful or beautiful.
And he was more respectful of their privacy by not showing their faces than he needed to be for any legal reason. The law is completely on Svenson's side here. If his neighbors didn't want the world to see what they were doing they should have kept their curtains drawn.
Did I say anything about his legal position? Irrespective of the law, there should be an expectation of privacy in one's own home. Curtains/blinds open or not. One should not have to live completely shut-in out of fear of someone getting his/her jollies or taking commercial advantage through photographic spying. What happened to the concept of respect? He's shown none, despite not showing any full faces (although some partial visages are seen).
-
Whether legal, moral, or whatever, cast me in the creepy camp, no matter how good the pictures (which I have not yet seen) are.
Having said that, a while back I saw a simply teriffic series of photos that were taken of people inside airliners through the windows as they were taking off at night. Very atmospheric. Those didn't strike me as creepy. If you know the series what I'm talking about please post a link.
[EDIT] Story has just been picked up by the L.A. Times http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-art-or-voyeurism-20130516,0,3656405.story
[FURTHER EDIT] Having been to the gallery's website and looked at the photos posted their, this is visually very nice work, very evocative images. But for me it's ruined by the creepy voyeuristic aspect.
Maybe it's time for some topic drift into snatching unconsented photos on the street. ;)
-
Your home should be a safe haven, off limits to anyone not invited in. You shouldn't have to live your life with the curtains drawn all the time. There is an expectation of privacy in your own home and it has been violated by the photographer who in my opinion is nothing but a "stalker" trying to make money off a controversy not art.
-
That, of course, is a matter of opinion.
That, too, is a matter of opinion. Frankly I don't particularly find the image of an anonymous woman from behind with her ass in the air to be overly tasteful or beautiful.
Did I say anything about his legal position? Irrespective of the law, there should be an expectation of privacy in one's own home. Curtains/blinds open or not. One should not have to live completely shut-in out of fear of someone getting his/her jollies or taking commercial advantage through photographic spying. What happened to the concept of respect? He's shown none, despite not showing any full faces (although some partial visages are seen).
Art is always about opinions. And with regards to Svenson, yours clearly differ from mine.
As far as the legality is concerned, first of all, I wasn't addressing you specifically. I was talking about the controversy. And with regards to privacy, the expectation of privacy does not extend to things that are on public view, whether they're in your home or not. In the U.S., where this occurred, the law is quite clear on that point. As to whether people in their homes should have an expectation of privacy when they are clearly visible to the outside world, that is another matter entirely.
In my opinion, if these people didn't want strangers looking at them and possibly photographing them, they should have kept their curtains closed. Their outrage is all the more puzzling given the design of their building--it's almost a fishbowl. They might as well have been sitting in a department store window, for christ's sake.
-
C'mon, it's Art! And very good art at that.
Oy vay.
-
Your home should be a safe haven, off limits to anyone not invited in. You shouldn't have to live your life with the curtains drawn all the time. There is an expectation of privacy in your own home and it has been violated by the photographer who in my opinion is nothing but a "stalker" trying to make money off a controversy not art.
I agree 100%.
It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state. The law has little to do with morality, and probably makes a pig's ass of it when it tries to get involved in moral matters.
The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right.
It's a part of the amateur snapper psyche, especially the amateur/art one, that everyone is fair game. They are not - if you want to shoot people, go hire models.
That, however, doesn't exclude people from taking the common sense route and drawing their blinds if they are about to do anything compromising. Both parties carry a responsibility. I can tell you this: if I found someone had been spying on my wife, I'd settle the matter out of court, and not with money. I feel a hatred for these types of photographer. They besmirch all of us; just like pornographers, of which this is but a thin, chicken-livered branch.
Rob C
-
I can tell you this: if I found someone had been spying on my wife, I'd settle the matter out of court, and not with money. I feel a hatred for these types of photographer. They besmirch all of us; just like pornographers, of which this is but a thin, chicken-livered branch.
Rob C
What Svenson did wasn't spying. He was photographing people on public display.
-
I think the idea of having your blinds open to allow in natural light means you're on 'public display' is more than a bit of a stretch.
Certainly there's a long history of this sort of thing. The article mentions, perhaps, the most well-known in Hitchcock's "Rear Window". All sorts of TV programs and movies have played on the idea of the voyeur peering in with a telescope or binoculars. That doesn't make it right. And even if it may be legal (I'm still not completely convinced) it doesn't make it morally acceptable.
The images are on the photographer's website (http://arnesvenson.com/theneighbors.html) for those who are interested.
-
I think the idea of having your blinds open to allow in natural light means you're on 'public display' is more than a bit of a stretch.
Certainly there's a long history of this sort of thing. The article mentions, perhaps, the most well-known in Hitchcock's "Rear Window". All sorts of TV programs and movies have played on the idea of the voyeur peering in with a telescope or binoculars. That doesn't make it right. And even if it may be legal (I'm still not completely convinced) it doesn't make it morally acceptable.
And where would you draw the line? If a woman is standing naked in the open window of her bedroom, would it be okay for passersby on the street to stop and stare at her? How about if a crowd gathered to gawk at her? And at what point do you tell the public that they can't photograph what they see in public?
I think people have a responsibility to safeguard their privacy. If you're going to put yourself on display to strangers, you don't have a right to complain if strangers stop to look at you. And if people can look at you, they can photograph you.
-
None of the pics actually show anyone's face recognizably, correct? I enjoyed looking at the photos not in a voyeuristic way but because they depict an interesting aspect of life in the city.
Rob C, your comment on the motive of people not supporting your point of view couldn’t be more far off, IMO.
-
It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state. The law has little to do with morality, and probably makes a pig's ass of it when it tries to get involved in moral matters.
The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right.
It's a part of the amateur snapper psyche, especially the amateur/art one, that everyone is fair game. They are not - if you want to shoot people, go hire models.
I think the world would be a poorer place without the work of photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand.
Jim
-
Both artistic and a bit creepy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Without knowing anything else, the photos are evocative and well composed. Creepy isn't always bad. I like them.
I think he could get in trouble, and what he has done is a bit unethical. I don't think it is a terrible crime, but it is a bit of a violation of pulic trust, something like trespassing. I wouldn't want the artist to be jailed, but if he were fined I wouldn't think it inappropriate.
-
I think the world would be a poorer place without the work of photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand.
Jim
Roger that. For me the thing with these pictures is that a line of sorts has been crossed. If I'm out on the street, I expect to be observed by those around me. If I am in my front yard, I expect to be observed by those passing by on the sidewalk. If I live in a high rise, do I expect to be observed by people in neighboring buildings? Perhaps, but I certainly don't expect to be photographed. The thing that tears me up about the present situation is that all of the images are very well seen IMO.
-
I think the world would be a poorer place without the work of photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand.
I think the world is a poorer place when we need to be concerned that someone may be recording what happens inside our home with a telephoto lens.
-
I think the world is a poorer place when we need to be concerned that someone may be recording what happens inside our home with a telephoto lens.
Then don't make the inside of your home visible to strangers. People need to learn that being in their home doesn't make them invisible to people on the street or in the building across the street if they don't have anything covering their windows. These people live in a densely populated city. They're not living on a farm miles from nowhere. You'd think they'd learn to close their blinds if they don't want people to see them.
-
People need to learn that being in their home doesn't make them invisible to people on the street or in the building across the street if they don't have anything covering their windows.
Maybe it does make them invisible to people on the street or in the building across the street -- who don't have surveillance equipment.
-
What Svenson did wasn't spying. He was photographing people on public display.
Your definition of 'public display' leaves me aghast.
No wonder there are lawyers buying Leicas. And yachts.
Rob C
-
Then don't make the inside of your home visible to strangers. People need to learn that being in their home doesn't make them invisible to people on the street or in the building across the street if they don't have anything covering their windows. These people live in a densely populated city. They're not living on a farm miles from nowhere. You'd think they'd learn to close their blinds if they don't want people to see them.
Peeping Tom's only come out at night? People should remain in hiding behind drawn curtains all day long because a snoop has some right to snoop?
Rob C
-
I think the world would be a poorer place without the work of photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Robert Frank, and Garry Winogrand.
Jim
Pretty significant difference, Jim. There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window.
Doug, you're making a pretty big leap. If, as in your example, someone were displaying themselves in front of an open window, that's likely fair game. That's not what's happening here; however. People should be able to open their curtains to allow natural light into their homes without concern for peeping toms. Or, in this case, a peeping Arne. Your concept of 'public display' is, I'd have to think, far outside the norm.
-
Pretty significant difference, Jim. There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window.
Bob, look at the quote to which I was responding, the one that said, "It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state."
I wasn't commenting on the peeking in windows, but on the much more sweeping assertion about all non-consensual photography, which includes most street photography and much photojournalism.
Jim
-
Bob, look at the quote to which I was responding, the one that said, "It's my opinion that shooting people without their consent is intrusion, however you write it or whatever the law might state."
I wasn't commenting on the peeking in windows, but on the much more sweeping assertion about all non-consensual photography, which includes most street photography and much photojournalism.
Jim
I understand that, Jim. My point is that context matters. PJ, again, is a different animal. By its very nature, PJ is often going to capture people at their most vulnerable. Again; however, there's a difference between PJ/editorial/documentary and art, or artistic voyeurism.
-
I actually like the work and don't find it creepy. As creepy would be if he didn't put the images in a gallery or as a body of work and one were to stumble upon them.
I keep my blinds closed while changing or in the morning etc. I can completely understand the frustration of the subjects but in this day and age I feel its more of a modern day lesson for them look at the royal family they were photographed naked and so have many celebs they can't even go to the grocery store without being photographed so anything you don't want others to potentially see you must be conscious of.
15 minutes of fame I really don't feel that was the artists intent or original goal with this body of work thinking to himself "What can I do to get 15 minutes of fame" maybe "if I am a 'Peeping Tom' I will get famous". Unfortunately I don't think its that black and white.
Now I see both sides of this "debate" but remember the media tends to twist things and when the game of "telephone" is played by the time it reaches our ears the story is near opposite that of the original.
-
You'd think they'd learn to close their blinds if they don't want people to see them.
Precisely.
Having just returned from the photographer's website, I must say that, without exception the images are lovely. They also do not invade egregiously invade the privacy of the subjects.
Just my opinion.
-
I actually like the work and don't find it creepy. As creepy would be if he didn't put the images in a gallery or as a body of work and one were to stumble upon them.
I keep my blinds closed while changing or in the morning etc. I can completely understand the frustration of the subjects but in this day and age I feel its more of a modern day lesson for them look at the royal family they were photographed naked and so have many celebs they can't even go to the grocery store without being photographed so anything you don't want others to potentially see you must be conscious of.
15 minutes of fame I really don't feel that was the artists intent or original goal with this body of work thinking to himself "What can I do to get 15 minutes of fame" maybe "if I am a 'Peeping Tom' I will get famous". Unfortunately I don't think its that black and white.
Now I see both sides of this "debate" but remember the media tends to twist things and when the game of "telephone" is played by the time it reaches our ears the story is near opposite that of the original.
So because what the royal family has to put up with or what celebrities have to put up with and that this is 'mild' by comparison, that makes it all right? In point of fact, there are now laws in place preventing paparazzi from doing just what this guy did. So the fact that it's legal undef Sharia law for a man to kill his wife over some trivial matter, it's all right for a man in the U.S. to beat his wife because by comparison it's less egregious?
-
Your definition of 'public display' leaves me aghast.
No wonder there are lawyers buying Leicas. And yachts.
Does it? And whose responsibility is it to protect your privacy? Does it fall to strangers who can easily see you through your open window, or is it yours?
-
Pretty significant difference, Jim. There's a difference between street photography and peeking in someone's window.
Doug, you're making a pretty big leap. If, as in your example, someone were displaying themselves in front of an open window, that's likely fair game. That's not what's happening here; however. People should be able to open their curtains to allow natural light into their homes without concern for peeping toms. Or, in this case, a peeping Arne. Your concept of 'public display' is, I'd have to think, far outside the norm.
Bob, it's hardly "outside the norm", as you call it, if the law agrees with me. You're talking about the intent of people who are going about their daily lives in full view of strangers. I'm talking about peoples' responsibility for their own privacy. If you throw open your windows to the outside world in a densely populated city, all sorts of people are going to see you. That's a fact. You may not be intending to put your private life on display, but that's in fact what you're doing. People need to be aware of that, especially in a big city.
A peeping Tom is someone who violates the privacy of others. If I have my curtains drawn I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone is trying to peer inside my home through the edges of my curtain, that's a peeping Tom, and that's against the law. But that's not what Svenson has done.
-
There's a difference, Doug, between being able to be seen - yes, people can see into my living room as they pass by on the sidewalk - and taking the time to compose a photo, perhaps take multiple photos. Big difference.
Someone stopped in front of my house a few weeks ago, proceeded to get out of his truck and start taking pictures of my house. I went out to ask why he was doing so and he became very belligerent. I took his plate # and called the police. The police took my statement and said they would go to his house and speak to him. So I guess it's not necessarily OK. At least not in my jurisdiction.
You say the law is on our side yet you've cited no case law supporting that statement. As I said earlier, even if it is legally all right, that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Svenson has shown a complete lack of respect for these other people.
-
How about if these were painted. Would it matter? Edward Hopper made quite a few master works on this very theme and was an innovator.
Peter
-
Scroll down to the bullet 'You violated my human rights', http://photorights.org/faq/is-it-legal-to-take-photos-of-people-without-asking.
Scroll down to the 4th bolded point, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2008-04-17-public-photography_N.htm
See the definition of objective privacy, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
Peter, Hopper also worked in a time of different laws.
-
I am talking about ART and always will. The tittle is "Art or Plain Creepy", i did not see LAW mentioned. Time moves on, Art Remains.
I will ask again, would it matter if they were painted?
Peter
-
There's a difference, Doug, between being able to be seen - yes, people can see into my living room as they pass by on the sidewalk - and taking the time to compose a photo, perhaps take multiple photos. Big difference.
Someone stopped in front of my house a few weeks ago, proceeded to get out of his truck and start taking pictures of my house. I went out to ask why he was doing so and he became very belligerent. I took his plate # and called the police. The police took my statement and said they would go to his house and speak to him. So I guess it's not necessarily OK. At least not in my jurisdiction.
You say the law is on our side yet you've cited no case law supporting that statement. As I said earlier, even if it is legally all right, that doesn't make it morally acceptable. Svenson has shown a complete lack of respect for these other people.
Oh come on, Bob. Do I really have to Google it for you? Here you go: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976).
"Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. "
There it is in a nutshell. What you knowingly expose to the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy". The Supreme Court has spoken.
Furthermore, I would take issue with your assertion that Svenson showed a "complete lack of respect for these other people." Take another look at his photographs. How many of his subjects could you pick out in a police lineup? Answer: none. Svenson never shows the faces of his subjects. They're anonymous. I think your definition of "complete lack of respect" is most definitely "outside the norm."
-
Furthermore, I would take issue with your assertion that Svenson showed a "complete lack of respect for these other people." Take another look at his photographs. How many of his subjects could you pick out in a police lineup? Answer: none. Svenson never shows the faces of his subjects. They're anonymous. I think your definition of "complete lack of respect" is most definitely "outside the norm."
In addition they are quite beautiful.
Peter
-
Doug, you're kidding, right? SCOTUS found in favour of Katz. In addition to that, Katz deals with government intrusion in the form of search and seizure. That's what the 4th Amendment considers. The 4th Amendment has no bearing in a matter such as this. Further, the quote you reference is out of context. SCOTUS referred to another case, Lewis v United States wherein Lewis invited the undercover government official into his home. A second case is referenced, U.S v Lee, and that case deals with probable cause.
I've never seen these people before so of course I couldn't pick them out of a line up. That's not germane. The people who were photographed know who they are. Their neighbours probably known who they are. That's the relevant test.
Doug, it's clear you really don't have a comprehension of facts or circumstances and will simply try to grasp at any straw, no matter how irrelevant or out of context. As such, I will expend no further energy in this matter with you.
Peter, purely on the basis of art: No.
-
Here's what the Zinc Building where the pictures were taken looks like. If these people wanted floor to ceiling windows and maintain their privacy, they could have gotten one-way glass and enjoyed the best of both worlds. Could it be that those who bought these apartments are exhibitionists in the first place?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.triplemint.com/photos/uncategorized/zinc.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.triplemint.com/triplemint/2006/08/zinc_building_t.html&h=255&w=250&sz=53&tbnid=sEkF8LUVSU9I4M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=88&zoom=1&usg=__-NugStAj6oHXkI1dfy8OVu0ZukU=&docid=UfgO6BD4MuJ8CM&sa=X&ei=uiqYUYGVKqaO0QGsiIC4DA&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAA&dur=282
-
Here's what the Zinc Building where the pictures were taken looks like. If these people wanted floor to ceiling windows and maintain their privacy, they could have gotten one-way glass and enjoyed the best of both worlds. Could it be that those who bought these apartments are exhibitionists in the first place?
I love big glass windows because of the light they let in and the views they afford. So why assume this then means I'm an exhibitionist, as it happens I like my privacy.
And residents replacing the windows with different types of glass in that sort of building isn't exactly going to happen, not too mention the rooms would need to be much darker than the outside for it to work. So at night it would simply fail to be one way.
-
And residents replacing the windows with different types of glass in that sort of building isn't exactly going to happen, not too mention the rooms would need to be much darker than the outside for it to work. So at night it would simply fail to be one way.
I guess they'll have to sleep with their clothes on!
-
Both artistic and a bit creepy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Agreed. Just as likely to be mutually supportive. But also, if we hadn't been told how he shot them, thus generating a conversation, would anyone be up in arms, or even particularly interested? To me many of them aren't obviously voyeuristic, unlike most street photographs they don't allow the subjects to be recognised (except maybe the dog), and while they are elegantly composed and coloured, I am not sure I would give them a second look (maybe make that a third look) if I didn't know the back story.
-
Does it? And whose responsibility is it to protect your privacy? Does it fall to strangers who can easily see you through your open window, or is it yours?
Here you show how you miss the point: the point is that you shouldn't have to protect anything. It should be a matter more simple: you should have the right to go about your business without fear of somebody spying upon you and making records of your personal life. It isn't a matter of being seen; it's a matter of being spied upon and recorded. Surely, you are able to differentiate?
Nobody is denying the fact that undrawn blinds allow visual access; that's not the same thing at all as undrawn blinds being considered carte blanche for the making of a graphic report of what's visible. However you choose to paint it, you simply can't escape the basic fact that photographing people without their being aware or even giving permission is a violation of their person. It might please you to think otherwise, allow you comfort in the execution of similar intrusions, but it don't make it right, regardless of legality.
But obviously, that matters not at all to you; in your argument, at least.
I spent much of my life photographing models with little on; it would never cross my mind to photograph a woman on the beach wearing as much/little without her consent; more to the point, why would I want to photograph her without a commission? And there lies the trouble: it's the desire to shoot people without their knowledge that is the unpleasant factor underlying the entire exercise, that gives the distaste of the Peeping Tom, the little man in the soiled Gannex, the thumping little heart and the damp finger on the shutter button.
There simply isn't a moral justification possible.
Rob C
-
Here you show how you miss the point: the point is that you shouldn't have to protect anything. It should be a matter more simple: you should have the right to go about your business without fear of somebody spying upon you and making records of your personal life. It isn't a matter of being seen; it's a matter of being spied upon and recorded. Surely, you are able to differentiate?
Here is the basic issue, I don't see this as spying but rather observation in a pure artistic sense. Spying implies a nefarious intent.
Not at all how i view these images. I think that tells us how viewers will bring their "baggage" to the party.
Peter
-
Peter, Hopper also worked in a time of different laws.
I mention Hopper as an artist that took an existing genre and brought it into the twentieth century. These photos are another take on the same. Art has and will always build on what went before.
Peter
-
An NYC photographer is coming under fire for an exhibit of a series of images he shot of people in neighbouring buildings through their windows without their knowledge. Put me in the 'just plain creepy' vote column.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/new-york-artist-faces-backlash-over-voyeuristic-photos/article11987801/
What about Philip-Lorca diCorcia's work in Times Sq back in 2000? Was he also creepy? And he got dragged into a suite for doing that but found not guilty.
http://youtu.be/bpawWn1nXJo
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7273/7756082444_f0015667e5_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8286/7756085242_0a5281784c_b.jpg)
-
Not Guilty!!! Otherwise there goes STREET.
Peter
-
Not Guilty!!!
Peter
Exactly.
What about Gustave Courbet's the Origin of the World?
-
Exactly.
What about Gustave Courbet's the Origin of the World?
Absolutely. Great painting!
Any infringement on Art could be considered a crime.
Peter
-
Street photography is different. There is no expectation of privacy when one is in a public place. I do street photography, but I wouldn't even consider doing what Svenson did.
Courbet's painting used a model, reputedly Joanna Hiffernan. It is in no way similar to what Svenson did. It would be the same as hiring a model to do nude studio photography. Entirely different situation.
-
privacy? what privacy? every single one of your email, phone call, text messages, online forum postings and social media postings, and etc is monitored and stored by the authority up to 75 years. the largest us gov's data center just newly built in Utah for this purpose is supposed to be live and running as we speak. And, of course, people are only worrying about their images viewed by others.
-
Street photography is different. There is no expectation of privacy when one is in a public place. I do street photography, but I wouldn't even consider doing what Svenson did.
Courbet's painting used a model, reputedly Joanna Hiffernan. It is in no way similar to what Svenson did. It would be the same as hiring a model to do nude studio photography. Entirely different situation.
If it make you feel better.
As an artist there is no need to equivocate.
Peter
-
Gulag, maybe in your country. Not mine. The simple fact is a right to privacy does exist in law.
Peter, that may well be the most arrogant piece of codswallop I've ever read.
-
Gulag, maybe in your country. Not mine. The simple fact is a right to privacy does exist in law.
Peter, that may well be the most arrogant piece of codswallop I've ever read.
Bob, I understand you are a commercial photographer and your concerns are appropriate.
However I am not. I make whatever I choose and how I choose. I am a painter and as an artist i won't edit my work nor worry about others opinions. Then I decide whether to show said work or not. But to edit yourself and create rules about subject matter is nuts. Thats not Art. I am open to explore. The entire world in blank canvas, including the darkest side.
Peter
PS. You keep saying it's the LAW. However, your original post asks whether It is ART or Creepy. I am telling you it is ART not creepy. That is the narrative you bring to his work.
-
Peter, I also do artistic photography so I understand that side of things as well.
WRT the legal aspect, I didn't bring that in initially but others have chimed in on that so that's where the discussion has gone. But, on that, simply labelling something as art doesn't obviate its legality. By that measure, child pornography would be acceptable because some people consider it art.
Even putting legal considerations aside and coming back to simple respect and morality; which I have tried to do repeatedly, I don't find this type of work remotely acceptable. And whether you want to admit it or not there is a massive difference between a photo or painting or sketch done with a model, where the model has full knowledge of what's happening and has given consent and surreptitiously recording the private and personal actions of others without their knowledge or consent.
As far as working under the concern of what other people think, look at my sig line. Pretty self evident. I wouldn't do this type of work, not because of concern of what other people would think but rather because I think it's objectionable and offensive. Masking it as art doesn't change that. I wouldn't want someone doing it to me so I wouldn't do it to someone else.
-
Street photography is different. There is no expectation of privacy when one is in a public place. I do street photography, but I wouldn't even consider doing what Svenson did.
I get that street photographers would want to draw a line between their practice and Svenson's, but I am not sure the distinction is all that clear. A street photographer who never published anything without the permission of everyone recognisably depicted would have some right to the moral high ground, but one who fell below that standard would be doing something Svenson actually doesn't do, because the people in his images, or at least those I have seen, are not recognisable. IMO, this makes a difference. Privacy inheres in people, not in unfocussed or partially hidden body parts. And while I share the disquiet about shooting unsuspecting people in their homes, I think the concept of a public place is a bit slippery. How about a couple having a private dinner in a restaurant, or someone sitting on the balcony of their home, or even a homeless person in their particular spot under a bridge? I think Rob C's position, that it is all intrusion, is consistent (which is not to say that I agree with it) and I feel exactly the same way about the "art justifies everything" line. But when I hear a street photographer denouncing Svenson, I wonder whether he or she might not be protesting too much and not paying sufficient attention to what is actually going on in his images and in their own.
-
Here you show how you miss the point: the point is that you shouldn't have to protect anything. It should be a matter more simple: you should have the right to go about your business without fear of somebody spying upon you and making records of your personal life. It isn't a matter of being seen; it's a matter of being spied upon and recorded. Surely, you are able to differentiate?
Rob C
No, Rob, it's you who doesn't get it. It's not spying if you look at a person in an open window in the apartment building across the street from yours. It's not immoral if you publish faceless and anonymous photographs of your neighbors who choose to hang out in full view of you. There's nothing in Svenson's photos that he and everyone else in his apartment building couldn't see with their naked eyes when they looked out their windows.
In your perfect world I suppose you'd arrest anyone who's ever taken a picture of someone standing in their window or lying on a public beach or even out on the street. It's everyone's responsibility to protect their own privacy and not naively assume that what they choose to show the world will remain unnoticed.
Svenson's neighbors were lucky that it was he and not someone like Eugene Smith or Robert Frank living in the building across the street. I doubt they would have been nearly as concerned about protecting their anonymity.
-
Well, Doug, it's your life perspective v. mine; I'll be happy to settle for the one I have.
As for making attemps at comparisons amongst utterly diverse snappers, it's also pointless and succeeds in proving zilch.
For me, this topic is closed. You have to live with what you are, and that defines what you believe and what you do.
Rob C
-
So what would your arguments be about Walker Evan's Subway Photographs? Was he being creepy or subversive? I don't think so.
Brian
-
Inevitably, it seems this discussion comes back to legalities and the inherent right to privacy. Evans' subway images were made in an environment where there is no inherent right to privacy.
Ken, I'll come back to what I said earlier. That we can't recognise the people in Svenson's photos isn't relevant. The people who the images are of know and, quite probably, their neighbours may know who they are. The shots are not 'unfocused'.
On the legal aspect, Svenson is apparently on safe ground (although no one has challenged that..... yet) because he didn't show any full faces (there are partial faces). I think if someone challenges they could stand a reasonable chance of success. But if not, it comes down to a moral question. It seems the majority of people in this discussion find what he's done to be morally objectionable.
-
I certainly don't find them morally objectionable.
Brian
-
A bit of levity for this discussion.
-
Now that IS offensive on so many levels. ;)
Peter
-
No, Rob, it's you who doesn't get it. It's not spying if you look at a person in an open window in the apartment building across the street from yours. There's nothing in Svenson's photos that he and everyone else in his apartment building couldn't see with their naked eyes when they looked out their windows.
Absolutely, but Svenson used a telephoto lens to focus in on his unwitting subjects, that changes things quite dramatically. I seem to recall in some places paparazzi can get into trouble for using telephoto lenses to capture celebrity shots of people on their own property.
It's not immoral if you publish faceless and anonymous photographs of your neighbors who choose to hang out in full view of you.
Being in your own home is not hanging out in full view though. It would be absurd to insist that people need to keep curtains closed 24 hours a day or put up with people taking photos or peering at you with a telescope. I easily could take photos of the vicar and his family in the vicarage opposite me if I wanted. I would need a long lens to do so and I'm pretty sure it would be seen as a bad thing by most people here in UK and not just because he's just happens to be a vicar.
And in California, these photos would probably fall foul of these laws. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2479_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf)
-
Ken, I'll come back to what I said earlier. That we can't recognise the people in Svenson's photos isn't relevant. The people who the images are of know and, quite probably, their neighbours may know who they are. The shots are not 'unfocused'.
Bob, I don't think you are reading what I wrote correctly. I didn't say the shots are unfocused - just that some of the body parts depicted in them are - which is the case. The fact that we can't recognize the people is relevant in the context in which I mentioned it - that of questioning the view that there is a black and white difference between what Svenson is doing and street photography. Invasion of privacy is surely diminished where people aren't recognizable to anyone (not just themselves or their neighbours) who sees both them and the photograph. I don't hold the view that you seem to be attributing to me - ie, I don't believe the fact that the people are unrecognizable in that sense is a complete defense of what Svenson did. As you say, his neighbors might still be unhappy, and I wouldn't presume to tell them that they shouldn't be. His behavior was certainly unneighbourly. But I still quite like the photographs.
-
If I painted these views from life by observation would that be a problem for anyone?
Peter
-
If I painted these views from life by observation would that be a problem for anyone?
Peter
That question was posed before, Peter, with some examples linked. From my standpoint, it would be problematic, yes.
Ken, I guess I misunderstood your point. Sorry for that. I still think we're on opposite sides of the debate.
-
That question was posed before, Peter, with some examples linked. From my standpoint, it would be problematic, yes.
Wow, I missed that point years ago in Art school. Very disconcerting, not for me, for you.
Peter
-
Absolutely, but Svenson used a telephoto lens to focus in on his unwitting subjects, that changes things quite dramatically. I seem to recall in some places paparazzi can get into trouble for using telephoto lenses to capture celebrity shots of people on their own property.
laws.
Context counts for a lot in these situations. You have to keep in mind the setting in which Svenson was shooting. This was Manhattan and his neighbors would have been about 200 ft. away. He could have taken those shots and shown just as much with a Nikon D800 with a normal lens and cropped the photos. At most he'd only need about a 135mm lens and do a small amount of cropping. We're not talking about paparazzi lenses here. These peoples' lives were in his face when Svenson looked out his window.
Being in your own home is not hanging out in full view though. It would be absurd to insist that people need to keep curtains closed 24 hours a day or put up with people taking photos or peering at you with a telescope. I easily could take photos of the vicar and his family in the vicarage opposite me if I wanted. I would need a long lens to do so and I'm pretty sure it would be seen as a bad thing by most people here in UK and not just because he's just happens to be a vicar.
Hanging out in your home is being in full view if people can see you with their naked eyes. I can't speak to the laws of the UK, but if your vicar lived in Manhattan and everyone could see him banging a church choir soprano through his open window I would encourage him to keep his curtains closed.
And in California, these photos would probably fall foul of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2451-2500/ab_2479_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf
No, they wouldn't. There was no assault, because given the close proximity of the street and other apartment buildings his subjects knowingly exposed themselves to the public. The U.S. Supreme Court has already defined the legal test for a reasonable expectation of privacy. No extraordinary means were necessary for Svenson to take his pictures. He was merely recording nearby scenes easily visible from his window.
-
Seems to me that if all this legalise were around in____________ (pick a date) a whole bunch of Art would never have come to fruition. How very sad for the world. But we would have the Law.
Peter
-
Does this guy have a valid point here?
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/8723273511_a5a3002fe2_b.jpg)
-
Does this guy have a valid point here?
He may think he has a moral point, but the law doesn't back him up. It's not up to him whether or not a trademark or copyright is valid.
-
Ken, I guess I misunderstood your point. Sorry for that. I still think we're on opposite sides of the debate.
No problem. I think where we differ is that I am prepared to "suspend" the moral judgement and value the photograph - and maybe that I think it is a similar moral judgement that has to be "suspended" in Svenson's case and in a lot of street photography. It is a bit like the "suspension of disbelief" that is necessary to enjoy a lot of fiction. I also think other kinds of artists can behave badly in the cause of their art - eg, writers who dump on their families or their exes. Some of this comes within the ambit of the law but most doesn't. If the "art" is not much good (as is the case quite a bit of "art", IMO), there is nothing left but the bad behaviour but if it is, (as in Svenson's case, IMO), then, up to a point, I am prepared to enjoy it.
-
There is no expectation of privacy when one is in a public place. I do street photography, but I wouldn't even consider doing what Svenson did.
True, Bob, but when you're inside your house you have an expectation of privacy and if some turkey is outside on the street shooting through your windows and then shows the result, chances are you can sue him. On the other hand even if you won I doubt you'd end up on the plus side of the ledger with the suit.
Street photography is wonderful and fun, but you've got to be reasonable. Never, never, never take unfair advantage of anybody with your camera. I'm with you on Svenson.
-
Never, never, never take unfair advantage of anybody with your camera.
That is good advice. But would you say that all the great street photographers have reliably followed it? I would be interested in your take on some of the alleged counter-examples people have raised earlier in this thread.
-
Whether it's on the street or in people's apartments or where ever, It comes down to how you personally feel about it inside your gut. If you feel queasy about taking the picture, don't do it. In the end, you'll be hurting yourself more than the people you're taking pictures of.
-
True, Bob, but when you're inside your house you have an expectation of privacy and if some turkey is outside on the street shooting through your windows and then shows the result, chances are you can sue him. On the other hand even if you won I doubt you'd end up on the plus side of the ledger with the suit.
Street photography is wonderful and fun, but you've got to be reasonable. Never, never, never take unfair advantage of anybody with your camera. I'm with you on Svenson.
Fair points, Russ, and agreed.
Ken, you're right, not all street shooters do. I'm drawing a blank on the name but there's a famous street shooter who used to go up to people and blast a flash in their faces for his shots. You likely couldn't get more intrusive. As for the 'all for the sake of art' idea, as I mentioned earlier, I have a different boundary line,
-
. . .there's a famous street shooter who used to go up to people and blast a flash in their faces for his shots.
That's Bruce Gilden, and as far as I know he's still doing it. Here's a clip of his street photography "technique:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8. I don't understand how Bruce has managed to live this long.
-
That's Bruce Gilden, and as far as I know he's still doing it. Here's a clip of his street photography "technique:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8. I don't understand how Bruce has managed to live this long.
Great post! Thanks for the share.
Peter
-
I don't understand how Bruce has managed to live this long.
Gilden is about as aggressive a street photographer as one can be. Joel Meyerowitz's street photography is, in my opinion, more interesting and his approach is a lot less confrontational.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qjym5uliDw
-
Bruce Davidson always asks permissions first when he does street photography.
http://youtu.be/NXjJs6n3m2U
-
That's Bruce Gilden, and as far as I know he's still doing it. Here's a clip of his street photography "technique:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8. I don't understand how Bruce has managed to live this long.
Yes! Gilden.
-
Bruce Davidson always asks permissions first when he does street photography.
Davidson doesn't consider what he does as street photography, which is usually defined as candids taken in public places. He's really a documentary/editorial photographer.
Here's what he has to say about why he doesn't do "street", although he does say that he might like to try it someday.
His comment starts at around 40:15.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiKanHX6Eo
-
If he asks permission first it's not street photography. It's posed photography. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a long way from street.
-
If he asks permission first it's not street photography. It's posed photography. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a long way from street.
Agreed. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. When I do it's not 'street'.
Mark Cohen is a Gilden-wannabe who also uses flash up close.
-
Here's what he has to say about why he doesn't do "street", although he does say that he might like to try it someday.
His comment starts at around 40:15.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiKanHX6Eo
Great link, thanks. "I always felt that street photography was - you know - stealing a soul".
-
One lawsuit has been filed and there will likely be more (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hello_mr_peepers_bg9QEQ3MneptYPKx8dzotK). The lawsuit that has been filed is by the parents of two children (4 and 2) who are in some of the images Svenson took. And as one of the 'subjects' points out, what does he have that hasn't been seen by the public?
-
Svenson should have checked with his local attorney or with Bert Krages. Bert would have told him what he tells us in "The Photographer's Right": "Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes."
I predict that Svenson will lose in court but that financially the win will be a loser for Kravetz.
-
IMO, of the several links, only Bruce Davidson is a photographer. The others are people with huge ego and much to be modest about, to say the least. (Huge colour shots of Ground Zero don't count. Any snapper can do that if he knows how to work the camera and gets access. Even Annie L. has some later ones in her book - in b/white.)
It's so obvious (the quality or lack thereof aspect) in their photographs: you can see it even more clearly if you cover your ears (or just turn off the sound, of course) and let your eyes tell you the truth, and not your ears confuse you with the hype.
The Davidson images have a point, a raison d'être; the others do not.
Again, IMO.
Rob C
-
IMO, of the several links, only Bruce Davidson is a photographer. The others are people with huge ego and much to be modest about, to say the least. (Huge colour shots of Ground Zero don't count. Any snapper can do that if he knows how to work the camera and gets access. Even Annie L. has some later ones in her book - in b/white.)
It's so obvious (the quality or lack thereof aspect) in their photographs: you can see it even more clearly if you cover your ears (or just turn off the sound, of course) and let your eyes tell you the truth, and not your ears confuse you with the hype.
The Davidson images have a point, a raison d'être; the others do not.
Again, IMO.
Rob C
so you get put off by Philip-Lorca diCorcia's work?
-
Svenson should have checked with his local attorney or with Bert Krages. Bert would have told him what he tells us in "The Photographer's Right": "Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes."
I predict that Svenson will lose in court but that financially the win will be a loser for Kravetz.
Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.
-
so you get put off by Philip-Lorca diCorcia's work?
If I'm right in connecting him with the guy who does set-ups on LA streets (and in bedrooms and balconies) of male hookers and stuff like that, you are correct.
Anyway, the generous people of California appear to pay him to do it via grants, so it can't be all bad - for him. The whores get a buck without selling a f**k, and I feel no temptation towards either them or the piccies, so everybody wins. And then the galleristas cash in on top of that too, so the world spins merrily onwards to hell.
No, I don't rate that stuff at all beyond being masterful con.
Just my opinion, and as I'm not in the market it doesn't count. But you did ask.
;-)
Rob C
-
Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.
That's certainly a novel legal theory, Doug: that the extent of my expectation of privacy in my home is determined by the size of my windows. I guess if I were Kravetz's attorney I'd try to argue something like that, but I have an idea that that theory not only isn't going to fly, it's not even going to taxi fast. How small do my windows have to be before expectation of privacy in my home is restored? Is it a sliding scale? Do I have an expectation of privacy only for the parts of me that aren't observable from the window? Fascinating stuff. Wish I could be there for the trial.
-
Seclusion is one thing, being in full view of the public in an apartment with floor to ceiling glass walls is something else. Svenson will win. Kravetz should have consulted Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, before filing her lawsuit.
From this article (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/criminalizing-photography/):
"Q. A lot of nonprofessionals have walked by federal buildings and been stepped for taking a snapshot.
A. Absolutely. If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it.
There are permutations. I tell photographers, if you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort."
In this article (http://www.ibtimes.com/arne-svenson-neighbors-exhibit-it-legal-take-secret-photos-people-their-apartments-1267631), Osterreicher is very uncertain about the legality of Svenson's photos. He, by no means, says Svenson is on safe ground. In the closing comment he seems to side with the residents whose pictures were taken surreptitiously with his "your home is your castle" comment.
In this article (http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/nyc-photographer-skirting-legal-boundaries-by-secretly-photographing-residents-in-their-homes.7427/), Osterreicher makes much more firm statements in opposition to what Svenson did and in favour of the right of privacy of the residents.
-
From this article (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/criminalizing-photography/):
"Q. A lot of nonprofessionals have walked by federal buildings and been stepped for taking a snapshot.
A. Absolutely. If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it.
There are permutations. I tell photographers, if you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort."
In this article (http://www.ibtimes.com/arne-svenson-neighbors-exhibit-it-legal-take-secret-photos-people-their-apartments-1267631), Osterreicher is very uncertain about the legality of Svenson's photos. He, by no means, says Svenson is on safe ground. In the closing comment he seems to side with the residents whose pictures were taken surreptitiously with his "your home is your castle" comment.
In this article (http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php?threads/nyc-photographer-skirting-legal-boundaries-by-secretly-photographing-residents-in-their-homes.7427/), Osterreicher makes much more firm statements in opposition to what Svenson did and in favour of the right of privacy of the residents.
It's not about Svenson being "on safe ground". Osterreicher also says that an argument can be made that people who live in glass walled apartments have a shaky defense if they don't draw their blinds. The point is, he would certainly have counseled Kravetz against filing a suit with such a poor chance of winning. Your points ignore the context of the situation. People who choose to live in a fish bowl, which is essentially what that building is, are inviting spectators if they don't draw their curtains. It's not your typical apartment building by a long shot. The outside is all glass. Everything is wide open to everyone on the street and in the facing buildings, unless you draw your curtains. Kravetz has an uphill battle against legal precedent. That, plus the fact that the people in Svenson's photographs can't even be identified means she'll probably lose.
-
It's not about Svenson being "on safe ground". Osterreicher also says that an argument can be made that people who live in glass walled apartments have a shaky defense if they don't draw their blinds. The point is, he would certainly have counseled Kravetz against filing a suit with such a poor chance of winning. Your points ignore the context of the situation. People who choose to live in a fish bowl, which is essentially what that building is, are inviting spectators if they don't draw their curtains. It's not your typical apartment building by a long shot. The outside is all glass. Everything is wide open to everyone on the street and in the facing buildings, unless you draw your curtains. Kravetz has an uphill battle against legal precedent. That, plus the fact that the people in Svenson's photographs can't even be identified means she'll probably lose.
Doug, you live in a fantasy land. Look at the closing comments of the second article I linked. Look at his other comments. In particular his comments about using a long telephoto lens. Look at the remarks in the third article about the law and the context of being visible to the naked eye. Having to use a very long lens certainly doesn't fit in to that necessity. If the people in the photos can't be identified then how in the bloody hell do the people who were photographed know who they are? How does Kravetz know it was her kids? You're spouting complete and utter nonsense. And if anyone doesn't think shooting kids in this situation clearly crosses a line then I'd have to seriously question their morality. Maybe actually do some research before you start tossing around Supreme Court cases and dropping names.
-
Doug, you live in a fantasy land. Look at the closing comments of the second article I linked. Look at his other comments. In particular his comments about using a long telephoto lens. Look at the remarks in the third article about the law and the context of being visible to the naked eye. Having to use a very long lens certainly doesn't fit in to that necessity. If the people in the photos can't be identified then how in the bloody hell do the people who were photographed know who they are? How does Kravetz know it was her kids? You're spouting complete and utter nonsense. And if anyone doesn't think shooting kids in this situation clearly crosses a line then I'd have to seriously question their morality. Maybe actually do some research before you start tossing around Supreme Court cases and dropping names.
Again, you miss the point. Of course Svenson's subjects know who they are. The point is that no one else does. It's called anonymity. Look it up.
And I've done my research. The Supreme Court case I cited is entirely relevant. But we will see. I predict that not only will Kravetz fail in her lawsuit, but the judge will toss it out before it's even heard.
For background info, here's a Google Earth shot of the buildings in question. The Zinc Building, where Svenson's subjects live, is on the right. Svenson's building is on the left. You'll note that they're only about 200' apart. That's an important thing to remember, because it means that there's nothing in Svenson's photographs that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. So all the harping about the focal length of his lens is, in fact, immaterial. He might have used a long lens to take his pictures, but he didn't need to in order to show what he showed. Another thing worth noting is that the side of the building facing Svenson's apartment is almost all glass and that some of the units in it are concealed behind shades, as one would expect in an all-glass residence in the middle of a densely populated city like NY. That's important to remember, because when Svenson's lawyer shows the judge a photo of that street the first question out of the judge's mouth will be "why the hell didn't you keep your shades closed if you didn't want people to see you, Mrs. Kravetz?"
-
Again, you miss the point. Of course Svenson's subjects know who they are. The point is that no one else does. It's called anonymity. Look it up.
And I've done my research. The Supreme Court case I cited is entirely relevant. But we will see. I predict that not only will Kravetz fail in her lawsuit, but the judge will toss it out before it's even heard.
For background info, here's a Google Earth shot of the buildings in question. The Zinc Building, where Svenson's subjects live, is on the right. Svenson's building is on the left. You'll note that they're only about 200' apart. That's an important thing to remember, because it means that there's nothing in Svenson's photographs that couldn't be seen with the naked eye. So all the harping about the focal length of his lens is, in fact, immaterial. He might have used a long lens to take his pictures, but he didn't need to in order to show what he showed. Another thing worth noting is that the side of the building facing Svenson's apartment is almost all glass and that some of the units in it are concealed behind shades, as one would expect in an all-glass residence in the middle of a densely populated city like NY. That's important to remember, because when Svenson's lawyer shows the judge a photo of that street the first question out of the judge's mouth will be "why the hell didn't you keep your shades closed if you didn't want people to see you, Mrs. Kravetz?"
Where's your law degree from?
-
Where's your law degree from?
Where's yours? One thing's for sure, you've demonstrated zero understanding of it.
-
WOW
What's that story about the pot and the kettle? ???
What happened to morals on Mr Svensen's part? It seems that this self centered putz has none, IMHO.
Rich
-
Where's yours? One thing's for sure, you've demonstrated zero understanding of it.
No I understand it reasonably well and have pretty effectively shot down your citations. But as it happens, I made a conscious decision not to finish law school for a variety of reasons, but was admitted, enrolled and attended. So, back to the original question: Where's your law degree from?
Your 4th Amendment argument has been shown to be irrelevant. Your references to Osterreicher have been shown to be off base, and based on the links I provided it's highly unlikely he would have provided the advice you suggest to Kravetz, in particular he specifically addressed your 'close the blinds' idea and spoke against it. What else you got? Nothing? That's what I thought. Done.
-
WOW
What's that story about the pot and the kettle? ???
What happened to morals on Mr Svensen's part? It seems that this self centered putz has none, IMHO.
Rich
That's the 'quality' that some here would defend. Probably stems from the belief that a camera bestows upon the owner the divine right of doing whatever the hell he/she - and it can be a she - wants to do, and the hell with anybody else.
An old fashioned punch in the nose would do some of these people the world of good. But of course, in this day's world, it's all about lawyers, money and a gawping spectator base willing to buy into the nonsense. Such a lot of nakedness in the royal households.
Rob C
-
Getting back to the lawsuit, I am interested to see how much of a distinction will be made between being watched and being photographed.
-
Getting back to the lawsuit, I am interested to see how much of a distinction will be made between being watched and being photographed.
Indeed, and there are other complexities that may come into play - visibility, "reconisability", focal length of lenses, and so on. The legal expert seems reluctant to predict the outcome of the litigation. Perhaps we should all take a deep breath and follow his example. The ethical and aesthetic issues are quite different, of course. One of things that interests me is that the photographer and the gallery seen to have chosen to draw attention to the ethical/privacy issues and hence deliberately bring about the controversy. Was that purely a commercial decision, or was it also aesthetic in some way? Was the photographer being deliberately "transgressive" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgressive_art)?
-
I suspect the suit is going to settle once and for all any question regarding whether or not a big a window eliminates your expectation of privacy when you're inside your home. The law isn't based on a question of window size. It's based on the founding idea that your home is your castle.
-
What will be interesting as the suit plays out is whether Svenson is compelled to produce all the images he took, if there are others - and there probably are - and what those other images show.
-
If I'm right in connecting him with the guy who does set-ups on LA streets (and in bedrooms and balconies) of male hookers and stuff like that, you are correct.
Anyway, the generous people of California appear to pay him to do it via grants, so it can't be all bad - for him. The whores get a buck without selling a f**k, and I feel no temptation towards either them or the piccies, so everybody wins. And then the galleristas cash in on top of that too, so the world spins merrily onwards to hell.
No, I don't rate that stuff at all beyind being masterful con.
Just my opinion, and as I'm not in the market it doesn't count. But you did ask.
;-)
Rob C
Banksy says, "Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.” But, this whole setup, I mean even if you want to slice it and dice it anyway you want, is extremely exploitative in nature, at least according to the 19th Century mega thinkers. Is there any exception to today's art world?
-
Only a coward points a tele into someone's house.
-
The problem is not about the images, but, as Rob pointed out, about the act of spying.
We may suppose of taking a picture of the entire front of a building with a super-duper ultra high resolution camera and there would be nothing objectionable in this, even if, thanks to the high resolution, we could enlarge the details and recognize the figures through the windows. It 's a completely different thing from pointing a telephoto lens on someone's window in order to spy on his private life.
I don't know U.S. laws, but in Italy, the act of pointing a binoculars or a telephoto lens to spy on the private lives through the window is an illegal act (technically "illegal interference in private life"), regardless of whether you do or not photographs.
-
Context counts for a lot in these situations. You have to keep in mind the setting in which Svenson was shooting. This was Manhattan and his neighbors would have been about 200 ft. away. He could have taken those shots and shown just as much with a Nikon D800 with a normal lens and cropped the photos. At most he'd only need about a 135mm lens and do a small amount of cropping. We're not talking about paparazzi lenses here. These peoples' lives were in his face when Svenson looked out his window.
Have you ever used a camera? As you are talking utter tosh. He used a birdwatching telephoto lens that he was given, not a short camera telephoto lens.
I walked to end of road to get myself ca200 ft away from neighbour's house and shot this with a 200mm as it's the longest camera lens I have. And as some of Svenson's shots are about the height of the jogger's elbow off the floor, that a big lens needed to get his shots, maybe as much as 1500mm. And don't talk any more rubbish about cropping a high res sensor as that is no different from using a bigger lens.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7460/8866822890_238f431602_o.jpg)
Hanging out in your home is being in full view if people can see you with their naked eyes. I can't speak to the laws of the UK, but if your vicar lived in Manhattan and everyone could see him banging a church choir soprano through his open window I would encourage him to keep his curtains closed.
And I'm sure people do close curtains when they are shagging someone in living room, but why would they need to otherwise in their own home.
No, they wouldn't. There was no assault, because given the close proximity of the street and other apartment buildings his subjects knowingly exposed themselves to the public. The U.S. Supreme Court has already defined the legal test for a reasonable expectation of privacy. No extraordinary means were necessary for Svenson to take his pictures. He was merely recording nearby scenes easily visible from his window.
Furtively and quite possibly with a telescope! Not reasonable behaviour and this quote about/from (http://www.ibtimes.com/arne-svenson-neighbors-exhibit-it-legal-take-secret-photos-people-their-apartments-1267631#.UZdprnlJDGA.twitter) Svenson kind of sums up the situation as being being slightly dubious.
"Svenson did not return a request for comment. In press material he said privacy was not an issue for his subjects and likened himself to a bird-watcher: “[My subjects] 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.”
-
Have you ever used a camera? As you are talking utter tosh. He used a birdwatching telephoto lens that he was given, not a short camera telephoto lens.
I walked to end of road to get myself ca200 ft away from neighbour's house and shot this with a 200mm as it's the longest camera lens I have. And as some of Svenson's shots are about the height of the jogger's elbow off the floor, that a big lens needed to get his shots, maybe as much as 1500mm. And don't talk any more rubbish about cropping a high res sensor as that is no different from using a bigger lens.
Your example is ludicrous and your assumptions raise the question of whether you have any clue what a camera is capable of. The point was whether what Svenson photographed was visible to the naked eye and whether he could have revealed as much about about his subjects in a cropped photograph taken with a normal lens. The answer is, absolutely yes.
For proof I offer this cropped photograph, which I took with a 35mm lens on a Sony NEX-7. It's only a 24MP camera, but I didn't have my D800 with me so I went with what I had. The NEX has an APS-C size sensor, giving it a crop factor of 1.5. That gives a 35mm lens a equivalent focal length of a 52.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. That makes it a normal lens. This picture is of an office building across the street from where I work. It's about 200' from the camera--approximately the same distance that Svenson was working with.
Is the technical quality as good as his shots? Of course it isn't. It's grainier and lower resolution and the office window I was shooting was tinted. But all that is entirely besides the point. The point is that he could have revealed just as much about his subjects had he used my camera and lens combination.
-
Never thought I'd agree with JJJ, but here we are. The question has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not what Svenson photographed was "visible to the naked eye." Nor has the question anything to do with focal lengths. The question is whether or not you have an expectation of privacy when you're in your home, a concept that has nothing to do with window size. That's the question that'll be thrashed out in court, and unless the court decides to reverse hundreds of years of precedent in common law, Svenson will lose. For Kravetz, winning the suit may be a moral victory but I doubt it'll be a financial one. It ain't cheap to launch this kind of suit.
-
Never thought I'd agree with JJJ, but here we are. The question has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not what Svenson photographed was "visible to the naked eye." Nor has the question anything to do with focal lengths. The question is whether or not you have an expectation of privacy when you're in your home, a concept that has nothing to do with window size. That's the question that'll be thrashed out in court, and unless the court decides to reverse hundreds of years of precedent in common law, Svenson will lose. For Kravetz, winning the suit may be a moral victory but I doubt it'll be a financial one. It ain't cheap to launch this kind of suit.
Legal opinion is not on your side on this, Russ.
"According to experts contacted by the NYPost, there is likely no misdemeanor criminal case against Svenson due to the fact that faces in his photos “aren’t fully visible”."
http://petapixel.com/2013/05/16/new-yorkers-upset-over-photographers-secret-snaps-through-their-windows/
-
And of course we know that "experts" are always right! Unfortunately for the experts the question doesn't revolve around what body parts are shown but whether or not those body parts had an expectation of privacy.
-
Legal opinion is not on your side on this, Russ.
"According to experts contacted by the NYPost, there is likely no misdemeanor criminal case against Svenson due to the fact that faces in his photos “aren’t fully visible”."
http://petapixel.com/2013/05/16/new-yorkers-upset-over-photographers-secret-snaps-through-their-windows/
Criminal and civil cases are apples and oranges, he can still be civilly liable even if he did not violate any criminal statute. See the OJ Simpson murder and wrongful death trials, for example.
-
And of course we know that "experts" are always right! Unfortunately for the experts the question doesn't revolve around what body parts are shown but whether or not those body parts had an expectation of privacy.
Nice try, Russ. Given that it was a sensationalist tabloid rag like the NY Post that broke the story and contacted the legal experts, I think it's safe to assume they bent over backwards to find someone who could throw gasoline on the fire. The Post is in the business of yellow journalism, like the UK's Star. They jump at every opportunity to foment indignation among their readers. They have a vested interest in blowing this story all out of proportion. If they couldn't find a legal angle to go after Svenson, it's likely that none exists.
-
Well, Doug, considering some of the incredible judgments we've seen in the past few years it wouldn't really surprise me if, in spite of hundreds of years of common law, Svenson wins. But I'll hold out for a sensible ruling explaining to everybody who owns a big lens that the size of a window and your selection of body parts doesn't remove anyone's expectation of privacy in his home. We'll just have to wait and see. I really wish I could be there to hear what strained arguments the defense comes up with. It ought to be quite a show.
-
"According to experts contacted by the NYPost, there is likely no misdemeanor criminal case against Svenson due to the fact that faces in his photos “aren’t fully visible”.
Because the issue is not about the images.
None of the subjects could win a case contesting one of the published image, but if one of them could prove that his image is the result of hours or days spent watching his private life through the window, surely he would win the case, but this is almost impossible.
All the issue (legal and ethic) is about spying in private life.
-
It ought to be quite a show.
That much we agree on. I would prefer to see this come to trial, if only to help set a legal precedent for this unusual situation.
-
The NY Post may not have found that there was criminal liability - and I'd not put a lot of faith in what's in the Post. But no 'criminal' liability does not mean no 'legal' liability. Civil law is still law. He may still be found liable in a civil court. The one (so far) action that has been launched is a civil action. The one aspect of the law that may be on Svenson's side in this; and I'd rather it not be, is that artistic use - which this is - falls under the concept of editorial use rather than commercial and a model release isn't required in such instances.
-
The NY Post may not have found that there was criminal liability - and I'd not put a lot of faith in what's in the Post. But no 'criminal' liability does not mean no 'legal' liability. Civil law is still law. He may still be found liable in a civil court. The one (so far) action that has been launched is a civil action. The one aspect of the law that may be on Svenson's side in this; and I'd rather it not be, is that artistic use - which this is - falls under the concept of editorial use rather than commercial and a model release isn't required in such instances.
The plaintiffs in any civil suit would have prove injury. In the case of photographs which don't show any faces, that's going to be almost impossible.
-
The plaintiffs in any civil suit would have prove injury. In the case of photographs which don't show any faces, that's going to be almost impossible.
That is not really correct. The fact of the intrusion into privacy itself constitutes injury (the recoverable damages may be only nominal, however). So all the plaintiff would have to do is to proved that he/she was observed/photographed -- easy enough to do given the detail in the photos. Here is what the Restatement (2d) of Torts has to say (I have emphasised a couple sections). (For the non-lawyers, the Restatements are authoritative compendiums of various areas of the law. The common law of an individual state may or may not follow the Restatement, but generally it does.)
__________________________________
Sect. 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Comments:
a. The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man.
b. The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiff's room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff's objection in entering his home. It may also be by the use of the defendant's senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiff's private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the photograph or information outlined.
_____________________________
So you can see that the crux of the case (under the Restatement) is whether being observed/photographed as the occupants were would be (a) highly offensive to (b) a reasonable person. In this case the "reasonable person" will be a reasonable inhabitant of a glass-walled apartment.
-
A sympathetic jury, a lawyer who gets the jurors to put themselves in the plantiffs' (victims') position and it's not that difficult to see a verdict against Svenson. There's still the privacy issue as well which can't he ignored and which is outlined well above. And if a single person can determine who a single image is of, despite there being no faces - via what can be seen in the apartment in terms of furniture or decoration, then the lack of faces is irrelevant. There's also the fact that he photographed children. Adults are one thing but children takes the creep-factor to en entirely different level. If he's compelled to produce other images that he took and those are 'worse' than what he's shown publicly, it makes things even easier.
-
If he's compelled to produce other images that he took and those are 'worse' than what he's shown publicly, it makes things even easier.
And the first thing any plaintiffs' lawyer worth his salt will have done is to send a "document preservation demand" to put the photographer on notice that he should not delete any of his outtakes and then serve document production demands for the production of all the images (I'm using lawyer-speak, the electronic files are considered to be "documents"). A really rabid attorney would get a court order for the forensic inspection of the photographer's computers and CF/SD cards to recover any images that had been erased. One naughty snap and the guy is toast for sure.
-
Right Doug, and that's exactly why I suspect a win won't be a financial win for Kravitz. If I were Kravitz, though, what I'd be after would be vindication, not money. Unless I'm mistaken, violation of Kravitz's expectation of privacy is an injury whether or not faces are shown. I also think Bob's argument about the concept of editorial use doesn't fly. You certainly can exhibit street photography as art and get by on the concept of editorial use, but your street photography had better not interfere with a person's expectation of privacy. In other words you'd better be shooting from a place of public access and your subject had better not be in the john or a fitting room or in her home. Reporters can't get away with that either, even though use of their pictures unquestionably is editorial.
-
Russ, it's not my argument. I'm simply saying that it may be an argument that could work in his favour. I pretty clearly said I didn't support the position and also said later that the privacy issues couldn't be ignored.
-
And don't talk any more rubbish about cropping a high res sensor as that is no different from using a bigger lens.
Obviously Doug has reading problems as he ignored the technical demo which contradicted his assertions as well as the admission from Svenson that he used a birdwatching lens whilst he hid in the shadows to spy on his subjects before talking about cropping photos once more.
Your example is ludicrous and your assumptions raise the question of whether you have any clue what a camera is capable of. The point was whether what Svenson photographed was visible to the naked eye and whether he could have revealed as much about about his subjects in a cropped photograph taken with a normal lens. The answer is, absolutely yes.
For proof I offer this cropped photograph, which I took with a 35mm lens on a Sony NEX-7. It's only a 24MP camera, but I didn't have my D800 with me so I went with what I had. The NEX has an APS-C size sensor, giving it a crop factor of 1.5. That gives a 35mm lens a equivalent focal length of a 52.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. That makes it a normal lens. This picture is of an office building across the street from where I work. It's about 200' from the camera--approximately the same distance that Svenson was working with.
Is the technical quality as good as his shots? Of course it isn't. It's grainier and lower resolution and the office window I was shooting was tinted. But all that is entirely besides the point. The point is that he could have revealed just as much about his subjects had he used my camera and lens combination.
And it's no matter how often you trot out this silly line line of reasoning, it's still completely and utterly irrelevant. Cropping a high res sensor is the same as using a long lens, not to mention Svenson admits to using a long lens. And furtively at that.
-
Obviously Doug has reading problems as he ignored the technical demo which contradicted his assertions as well as the admission from Svenson that he used a birdwatching lens whilst he hid in the shadows to spy on his subjects before talking about cropping photos once more.
And it's no matter how often you trot out this silly line line of reasoning, it's still completely and utterly irrelevant. Cropping a high res sensor is the same as using a long lens, not to mention Svenson admits to using a long lens. And furtively at that.
And you still miss my point. Incredible.
(hint: I'm not disputing that Svenson used a long lens, nor did I assert that cropping is the same as using a long lens.)
-
For those who are interested, here's a link to one of the complaints that have been filed. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=xfy1AdVZ3RB8DWxeAVDt0g==&system=prod (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=xfy1AdVZ3RB8DWxeAVDt0g==&system=prod)
NY Civil Rights law 50 prohibits the use of a likeness for commercial purposes without consent (its a misdemeanor) and 51 allows injunctive relief or damages for a violation. The other legal theory is intentional infliction of emotional distress. I believe this is a weak theory, insofar as the cause of action as a practical matter usually requires a showing of "malice" -- some evil intent or ill will directed at the plaintiff by the part of the defendant -- although it is not technically part of the cause of action, and there does not seem to be any malicous intent here. I'm suprised that the plaintiff's lawyer didn't include a straight breach of privacy claim in the complaint, which would be a bulletproof claim given the facts alleged.
-
For those who are interested, here's a link to one of the complaints that have been filed. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=xfy1AdVZ3RB8DWxeAVDt0g==&system=prod (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=xfy1AdVZ3RB8DWxeAVDt0g==&system=prod)
NY Civil Rights law 50 prohibits the use of a likeness for commercial purposes without consent (its a misdemeanor) and 51 allows injunctive relief or damages for a violation. The other legal theory is intentional infliction of emotional distress. I believe this is a weak theory, insofar as the cause of action as a practical matter usually requires a showing of "malice" -- some evil intent or ill will directed at the plaintiff by the part of the defendant -- although it is not technically part of the cause of action and there does not seem to be any of that here. I'm suprised that the plaintiff's lawyer didn't include a straight breach of privacy claim in the complaint, which would be a bulletproof claim given the facts alleged.
I'm also surprised that the plaintiff's lawyer decided on this approach. If they're basing their complaint on that particular law, then it's an easy win for Svenson, assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the suit. By not showing the faces of any of his subjects, their likenesses are not identifiable by the public. They're merely anonymous human forms.
-
I'm also surprised that the plaintiff's lawyer decided on this approach. If they're basing their complaint on that particular law, then it's an easy win for Svenson, assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the suit. By not showing the faces of any of his subjects, their likenesses are not identifiable by the public. They're merely anonymous human forms.
I imagine this is an issue a number of people on the forum would be familiar with, for commercial use "do I need to get a model release if the person is not identifiable by the public?"
-
I'm also surprised that the plaintiff's lawyer decided on this approach. If they're basing their complaint on that particular law, then it's an easy win for Svenson, assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the suit. By not showing the faces of any of his subjects, their likenesses are not identifiable by the public. They're merely anonymous human forms.
Really? So you have to see a face in order to recognize your neighbour?
Clothes, body shape, rear views, hair, body language, all of these things are identifiers to people who know you; are they, these people who know you, and who may be shown the photographs and thus made privy to things you may not wish them to see, different from other members of the great unwashed out there? I doubt any lady on her knees, scrubbing the floor, for example, is any the happier to be seen by her neighbours than by anyone else; it doesn't have to be sexual to cause embarrassment.
A bad taste in the mouth is always a bad taste.
Rob C
-
Really? So you have to see a face in order to recognize your neighbour?
Clothes, body shape, rear views, hair, body language, all of these things are identifiers to people who know you; are they, these people who know you, and who may be shown the photographs and thus made privy to things you may not wish them to see, different from other members of the great unwashed out there? I doubt any lady on her knees, scrubbing the floor, for example, is any the happier to be seen by her neighbours than by anyone else; it doesn't have to be sexual to cause embarrassment.
You seriously think people can be identified by their clothing? Do all your neighbors wear only designer originals?
Few, if any, people, apart from the subjects themselves, would be able to be absolutely sure who is in those photos. That goes double for New Yorkers, most of whom have no idea who their neighbors are, much less how their backsides look. The public at large, and even more importantly, a jury, would have absolutely no clue. That's the important consideration here. If we were talking about a famous photograph of a celebrity like the one of Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway grating with her skirt billowing upwards, we'd all know who it was even if her head was cropped off, but we're not.
-
1. You seriously think people can be identified by their clothing? Do all your neighbors wear only designer originals?
2. Few, if any, people, apart from the subjects themselves, would be able to be absolutely sure who is in those photos. That goes double for New Yorkers, most of whom have no idea who their neighbors are, much less how their backsides look. The public at large, and even more importantly, a jury, would have absolutely no clue. That's the important consideration here. If we were talking about a famous photograph of a celebrity like the one of Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway grating with her skirt billowing upwards, we'd all know who it was even if her head was cropped off, but we're not.
!. If you know anything about women, you will already be aware of how 'typical' a woman's clothing choices are to her; within a relatively small community, such as a block of flats, I'm sure many people could identify others from what they wear. You don't have to be on speaking terms to use your eyes and learn from that.
2. The public at large, or a jury, would be just as ignorant about identity if faces were shown, unless as in your Marilyn example. It's those who do make the identity connection that matter to the victim. Your statement is a distraction.
Rob C
-
And you still miss my point. Incredible.
Your point seems to be that if you can see a window, then spying in it is OK if you don't need a telephoto lens to do so, which wasn't the case here.
(hint: I'm not disputing that Svenson used a long lens, nor did I assert that cropping is the same as using a long lens.)
Again with the reading problems. I said cropping the image is no different from using a long lens. And can you not even recall your own arguments as you posted this?
Context counts for a lot in these situations. You have to keep in mind the setting in which Svenson was shooting. This was Manhattan and his neighbors would have been about 200 ft. away. He could have taken those shots and shown just as much with a Nikon D800 with a normal lens and cropped the photos. At most he'd only need about a 135mm lens and do a small amount of cropping. We're not talking about paparazzi lenses here.
Except you do need a papparazzi style lens to get those shots or drastically crop image - which is to repeat myself again, is no different from using a long lens. So the context is Svenson used a big lens and quite probably cropping image too, all whilst hiding in the shadows so as not to be seen doing his peeping tom act.
These peoples' lives were in his face when Svenson looked out his window.
Do you even know what that means? Rhetorical question as you obviously do not, in someone's face is being literally inches away from someone's face in a confrontational manner or being blatantly aggressive or is used as an insult such as 'in your face'. None of the meanings have anything to do with going about your own business in your own home.
-
Your point seems to be that if you can see a window, then spying in it is OK if you don't need a telephoto lens to do so, which wasn't the case here.
Not my point at all, actually. But if you don't understand that by now, repeating myself isn't going to help.
in someone's face is being literally inches away from someone's face in a confrontational manner or being blatantly aggressive or is used as an insult such as 'in your face'. None of the meanings have anything to do with going about your own business in your own home.
"In your face" also means being "right there in front of you". At least it does where I live. Standing in a big picture window 200' away is being pretty blatantly visible. He would have this view right there in front of him every time he looked out his window. But you don't get that either.
-
From a legal point of view Doug is right: "By not showing the faces of any of his subjects, their likenesses are not identifiable by the public. They're merely anonymous human forms". From a legal point of view, a person is considered identifiable when he can be recognized by a stranger, not by someone who already knows him.
From an ethical point of view I agree with Rob when he says that "I doubt any lady on her knees, scrubbing the floor, for example, is any the happier to be seen by her neighbors than by anyone else". Not everything that is legal is ethically right.
Taken individually, the photographs of Svenson are no different from the photograph by Raghu Rai "INDIA. Delhi. Jama Masjid. Evening prayer. Jama Masjid Mosque. 1982" (http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=SearchDetailPopupPage&VBID=2K1HZORUNEVH6&PN=21&IID=2S5RYDFGZHJ), where we see through a window a woman praying into a private space, certainly recognizable by her friends or relatives, but not identifiable by a stranger, for which she is just a "human form." In the original photograph is also visible a person behind the first window to the left, with his face turned to the viewer and therefore recognizable and it would be interesting to know why this person has been deleted by darkening the window (only aesthetic reasons?).
The whole question, about Svenson's photographs, lies in this: how much time did he spent observing the private lives of his subjects? (intrusion in privacy, as AFairley pointed out) There are only two possibilities that can give an answer to this question:
1) his admission.
2) the acquisition of a large number of photographs of each subject.
-
Not my point at all, actually. But if you don't understand that by now, repeating myself isn't going to help.
Well it may be that your writing ability is on a par with your reading comprehension. Or your flip flopping around trying to argue Svenson's case gets you all confused when the facts do not tally with your assertions. Like in this risible line of justification..
"In your face" also means being "right there in front of you". At least it does where I live.
And in no part of the World does right 200 ft away equate with someone being "right there in front of you". It seems you will redefine English as well as photography to defend your right to spy on people.
Standing in a big picture window 200' away is being pretty blatantly visible. He would have this view right there in front of him every time he looked out his window. But you don't get that either.
I posted a picture above that was taken at 200' with a lens that has 4x magnification compared to a standard lens/our eyesight. Yet even in that people are pretty darn small in frame as they are well, quite a long way away. And despite this evidence directly contradicting your statement saying you could do this with a normal lens, you blithely dismiss it.
The main thing that completely undermines your argument re using a normal lens and a tiny bit of cropping is twofold. That is not what happened and is not actually possible either. The view presented by the photos is that of a telescope and not what we see with our own eyes and that is the important distinction. Just like if we can hear that someone is talking at a distance but not tell what they are saying, but with the aid of audio snooping equipment we can clearly hear and record every word said. And in the eyes of the law that is an important distinction.
-
The view presented by the photos is that of a telescope and not what we see with our own eyes and that is the important distinction.
I'm not sure that this distinction is so important, because of these reasons:
1) photographing windows is not illegal.
2) photographing windows with telephoto lenses is not illegal.
3) publishing images of unrecognizable people is not illegal.
If we take into consideration these three points for every single Svenson's image, Doug is right.
4) spying in the private lives of people is illegal, but this is not so simple to prove.
-
Well it may be that your writing ability is on a par with your reading comprehension. Or your flip flopping around trying to argue Svenson's case gets you all confused when the facts do not tally with your assertions. Like in this risible line of justification..
And in no part of the World does right 200 ft away equate with someone being "right there in front of you". It seems you will redefine English as well as photography to defend your right to spy on people.
I posted a picture above that was taken at 200' with a lens that has 4x magnification compared to a standard lens/our eyesight. Yet even in that people are pretty darn small in frame as they are well, quite a long way away. And despite this evidence directly contradicting your statement saying you could do this with a normal lens, you blithely dismiss it.
The main thing that completely undermines your argument re using a normal lens and a tiny bit of cropping is twofold. That is not what happened and is not actually possible either. The view presented by the photos is that of a telescope and not what we see with our own eyes and that is the important distinction. Just like if we can hear that someone is talking at a distance but not tell what they are saying, but with the aid of audio snooping equipment we can clearly hear and record every word said. And in the eyes of the law that is an important distinction.
The technical differences between a normal lens and a long one are not the issue. And what you call the right to spy on people isn't it either. It's your level of reading comprehension, or rather the lack of it, that's the real issue here. But I must say that I'm very impressed by how extensively you must have traveled in order be so certain what a given colloquialism means in every corner of the world. I'm sure the folks at Berlitz would love to hire you. Finally, I recommend getting your eyes examined if you're having trouble seeing people 200' away from you, because I can see them just fine.
-
!. If you know anything about women, you will already be aware of how 'typical' a woman's clothing choices are to her; within a relatively small community, such as a block of flats, I'm sure many people could identify others from what they wear. You don't have to be on speaking terms to use your eyes and learn from that.
You've obviously never lived in Manhattan. But ultimately, we're splitting hairs here. Svenson's attorney doesn't have to convince a couple of his subjects' neighbors--he has to convince a jury of twelve randomly chosen citizens.
2. The public at large, or a jury, would be just as ignorant about identity if faces were shown, unless as in your Marilyn example. It's those who do make the identity connection that matter to the victim. Your statement is a distraction.
It's not a practical consideration in the context of a trial. If, for example, you showed a jury a group of 50 random driver's license photos, or any head shots for that matter, which also included those of the subjects in Svenson's pictures and then asked the jury to match those people with the people in Svenson's photographs, they wouldn't be able to. For all intents and purposes, Svenson's subjects have no identifiable likenesses.
-
I am guessing that "right of publicity law" (that's the NY statute sued under) is well enough developed so that there is a relatively clear standard as to what "recognizable" means. In that regard, see CHEATHAM v. PAISANO PUBLICATIONS, INC., 891 F.Supp. 381 (1995) where the court said:
In order to succeed in her claim, Plaintiff must have a notoriety which is strong enough to have commercial value within an identifiable group.
The Court has grave doubts that Plaintiff can establish the proof necessary to show a sufficiently wide notoriety for this case to go forward. The photographic replica does not display Plaintiff's face; because the photo was taken from behind and includes only her backside from her waist to her thighs. Plaintiffs cause of action under a right of publicity claim may arise only if her image is distinctive enough that her friends and customers recognized the replica drawing on the T-shirt and identified this drawing as her "image."
Plaintiffs assertions that friends and customers recognize her designs and that these unique designs have commercial value overcomes Defendants' motions to dismiss at this early stage. If the recognition of Plaintiff's image is sufficiently clear and sufficiently broad-based, it may be an unlawful appropriation for which Plaintiff could receive damages. For these reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the claim for appropriation of image are denied at this time..
In Cheatham, the unpermitted use was a photograph of a woman from the rear wearing clothing she had designed with a cutout that let her butt show. The plainitff argued that although her butt per se might not be recognizable, she was recognizable because of the unique clothing she designed and wore (i.e., the image could only be her). The court decided that there was a fact issue of how large this group who would recognize her from the clothing might be (if it existed) that required denial of the motion to dismiss.
Now, this just relates to the lawsuit for violation of rights of publicity, which I think is a loser. I do think that a lawsuit for violation of right of privacy would have a high degree of success. Taking photos from the shadows with a long telephoto and publicly displaying them? Give me a break. To me the law is pretty clear that you have a right of privacy in your home. That right may not be violated if you have the blinds up and someone across the way can casually see through your window with their naked eyes. But as soon as that person picks up the binocular or birding lens, he has have crossed the line.
-
Recognizability is a red herring and isn't going to decide the issue. The real question is whether or not these people have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes. In common law, yes. In most states, yes. In New York. . . who knows? We'll see.
-
Recognizability is a red herring and isn't going to decide the issue. The real question is whether or not these people have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes. In common law, yes. In most states, yes. In New York. . . who knows? We'll see.
To the contrary, in the Foster lawsuit, recognizability is precisely what the case turns on because there is no straight breach of privacy claim in the case, only breach of right of publicity. And I don't think the intentional infliction claim will/should survive a motion to dismiss. (Note that this claim is not premised on taking the pictures in the first place, but in not ceasing their publication after the Fosters complained. However, the complaint admits that Svenson and the gallery pulled the photos after the Fosters complained, and that the continuing use was by third parties over which Svenson had no control.) The lawsuit will only decide the claims actually pled and litigated. Of course the Fosters may amend the complaint to add a straight invasion of privacy claim, as they should. AFAIK Kravitz has not filed a lawsuit against Svenson.
-
It would have been far more interesting if Svenson had been sued for invasion of privacy. Then maybe we'd get some precedent for this kind of situation. But there's still time for Kravitz to come forward.
-
You're right, Fairley. I was under the impression that Kravitz had filed suit. If there's a suit that claims right of publicity, Foster might as well forget it unless he's a lot more famous than he appears to be and makes money from appearing in public.
-
First, it's Kravetz, not Kravitz.
Second, some of the images do, apparently show faces, https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
Third, the suits do include privacy matters, not just publicity rights. It's not uncommon for a lawyer to sue under a variety of statutes in an attempt to get a judgement from one or more, or to force a settlement.
-
First, it's Kravetz, not Kravitz.
whatever.
Second, some of the images do, apparently show faces, https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm
The Fosters contend that their childrens' faces were clearly recognizable--to them. Of course, what might seem obvious to a parent might not be so obvious to a jury. We will see. It's also worth noting that Svenson removed some of the photos from the galleries when the Fosters asked him to.
Third, the suits do include privacy matters, not just publicity rights. It's not uncommon for a lawyer to sue under a variety of statutes in an attempt to get a judgement from one or more, or to force a settlement.
The primary cause cited in the lawsuit is misappropriation of their likeness. Invasion of privacy is the second cause and the rationale for it, as outlined in the suit, is poorly argued. They are going to have a tough time convincing a judge of just how Svenson's photographs put their children in danger. Why should faceless photographs of their children put them in harm's way more than, say, allowing them to be seen in a public place, like in a school playground or at a public pool? I'm not an expert on the modus operandi of perverts, pedophiles and kidnappers, but it seems to me that there are a thousand every day situations more likely to attract the attention of these people than Svenson's photographs. Unless they're accustomed to putting potato sacks over their kids' heads when they leave home, it would seem they have little to worry about from Svenson's images.
And let's be honest here, Svenson's camera is the least of their worries. At least he's an established artist with a respectable bio. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of telescopes owned by people living in highrises in Manhattan. You see them all the time, sitting in apartment windows in New York and every other big American city. Their owners aren't using them to look at the stars. They're looking into peoples' homes. Those are the real pervs. And then there are the myriad random passersby on the street with cellphone cameras who can easily see them through their big open windows. Who knows who they might be? The Fosters complaining about invasion of privacy, when they're living in a fish bowl in Manhattan, is completely disingenuous. It's much like the scene in "Casablanca" where Claude Rains feigns shock at the discovery of gambling in Rick's club. You're living in the Big Apple, sweethearts. You're not in Kansas any more, so don't waste our time by complaining that you shouldn't have to contend with the hard realities of living where you do. Unless you're a total moron you keep your blinds closed if you don't want people to see you, because otherwise they will see you. And you will never have the luxury of knowing who they are or what might be going on in their heads. So instead of freaking out about Svenson they should take this as their wakeup call and thank him, because maybe now these idiots will begin to take some responsibility for their own privacy in the big city.
-
whatever.
Nice to see that you have the requisite level of respect for other people. You're not worth wasting time on.
-
Well, Kravetz has not filed a lawsuit either as far as I can tell. There is a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction in the Foster case set for June 18th. The Fosters want to enjoin Svenson from photographing the building, among other things. Interestingly, in the moving papers, Foster's attorney says that Svenson's conduct is a violation of NY's anti-surviellance law. I have only been able to find one of the images online (#12) but looking at it I would say that Foster's claim that the children are "clearly recognizable" is quite a stretch.
@BobFisher, why so huffy? Your initial post that Doug Frost responded to was rather brusque itself, don't you think? I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have a civil discussion about this.
-
Nice to see that you have the requisite level of respect for other people. You're not worth wasting time on.
oh yes, because nitpicking about the mispelling of names in internet forums is such a noble calling. don't make me laugh.
-
Doug, after ignoring everything that counters your spurious arguments and facts shows them to be innacurate, you are now resorting simply being more and more rude.
Not surprising though as you think being a peeping tom is fine and dandy.
And even less surprising is the fact that you are anonymous. Which is ironic considering your disregard for others privacy.
-
Doug, after ignoring everything that counters your spurious arguments and facts shows them to be innacurate, you are now resorting simply being more and more rude.
Not surprising though as you think being a peeping tom is fine and dandy.
And even less surprising is the fact that you are anonymous. Which is ironic considering your disregard for others privacy
Deliberate distortion of my argument shows either a total disregard of the truth or the inability to grasp basic concepts. Take your pick. You're only interested in diatribe, not dialogue.
But your quip about anonymity is genuinely hilarious, as it only underscores just how clueless you really are.
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen...
There comes a time in every forum "discussion" when all one can do is agree to disagree. I think you've arrived at that juncture.
It's been fun watching the fur fly from the sidelines, but now you've all succeeded in beating this horse to death. It doesn't make sense to continue.
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen...
There comes a time in every forum "discussion" when all one can do is agree to disagree. I think you've arrived at that juncture.
It's been fun watching the fur fly from the sidelines, but now you've all succeeded in beating this horse to death. It doesn't make sense to continue.
+1. I'll post links to Svenson's opposition brief to the motion for preliminary injunction when it's filed and available, probably in a week or so.
-
This should be a link to Svenson's opposition to the Fosters' application for preliminary injunction (document 33 on the docket)
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=oeObwMAjh5KEtI7uYG_PLUS_AJA%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=5UZOjZMZveo_PLUS_maNIt5PwAQ%3D%3D&showMenu=no&isPreRji=N
He also has filed a motion to dismiss (no 28 on the docket). The basis for the motion is that NYS has no common law right of privacy (which is likely why it was not pled as a basis for relief - I guess NYS does not follow the Restatement in this area), and that because the photographs are works of art, they do not fall within the scope of the statutes sued under, because the fact that a gallery offers the art for sale does not transmute it into a work for "trade purposes." As to the emotional distress claim, under NY law that can't be used to do an end run around a failed right to privacy claim, the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous to support the claim as a matter of law, nor have the Fosters suffered severe enough emotional distress.
His equitable arguments are basically that other respected/recognized photographers have done the same (with examples), the project is over and he does not intend to take any more photos, he removed the photos the Fosters complained about from the gallery, he offered to talk to them about it but they filed the lawsuit instead of responding to him, he has not licensed them to any media outlets, and if news organizations show copies they got somehow, he can't control that.
-
The real question is whether or not these people have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes. In common law, yes. In most states, yes. In New York. . . who knows?
Now we know.
-
ART remains.
Peter
-
Deliberate distortion of my argument shows either a total disregard of the truth or the inability to grasp basic concepts. Take your pick. You're only interested in diatribe, not dialogue.
No distortion necessary, you change your argument when facts counter your quite specific claims.
But your quip about anonymity is genuinely hilarious, as it only underscores just how clueless you really are.
Really as my identity here is known and you have no links to yourself or your work. Something I always find a bit suspect when someone in a photography forum does not link to examples of their work.
-
The argument being made by the photographer that these people deserved what happened to them or that they gave tacit permission because they left their blinds open is akin to the rapist saying the woman wanted it or deserved it because of the way she was dressed.
-
The argument being made by the photographer that these people deserved what happened to them or that they gave tacit permission because they left their blinds open is akin to the rapist saying the woman wanted it or deserved it because of the way she was dressed.
And of course, every man knows, deep in his heart, that he's absolutely irresistible and therefore rape is impossibe because, in his case, No! can't possibly mean no; it's just a further tease.
;-)
Rob C
-
No distortion necessary, you change your argument when facts counter your quite specific claims.
Really as my identity here is known and you have no links to yourself or your work. Something I always find a bit suspect when someone in a photography forum does not link to examples of their work.
As if anyone has a reason to give a damn what you think of them. Heaping one more irrelevancy on top of all your other ones is simply a lame attempt to distract from the glaring truth, being that you have no grasp of the issues. So go ahead and stew in your suspicions and your sanctimony. You have nothing to contribute.
-
The argument being made by the photographer that these people deserved what happened to them or that they gave tacit permission because they left their blinds open is akin to the rapist saying the woman wanted it or deserved it because of the way she was dressed.
What counts as far as the court is concerned is what his lawyer is saying, which is that it was within his rights to take those photographs. The court will decide if it was. But the way both sides are approaching this seems to have more to do with commerce and the misappropriation of identity than invasion of privacy, per se. Apparently New York State's lack of an explicit right to privacy law means that this may not be the precedent-setting privacy case it could have been.
-
At this point, I expect the judge to dismiss the "use of image for trade without consent" claim, the law seems pretty clear there (though I admit I have not read the NYS cases cited by Svenson, but the doctrine is pretty similar in all the states). I also would expect the judge to dismiss the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, though he may give the Fosters leave to amend the claim if they can demonstatate they can allege some additional facts to demonstrate actual extreme distress. The Foster's response to Svenson's motion to dismiss should be available online in a day or two, I'm curious to see what they come back with.
-
The Fosters have filed their response to Svenson's motion to dismiss (https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=xt9gpfpw338g4rtP5397Ig%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=6U4i1Qy2a2pyt2dKizViFg%3D%3D&showMenu=no&isPreRji=N, document no. 41). The weakness of the opposition is that it sidesteps Svenson's argument that works of art do not fall within the amibt of the "unauthorized use of likeness" statue because sale of an artwork is not a use in "commerce or trade," and also does not respond to the argument that the Fosters have not alleged any actual facts showing "extreme emotional distress" (yes, they obviously are pissed as hell, but that is not the same thing). The Foster's lawyer keeps hammering the outrage card by repeated references to a "half-naked little girl" and attacking Svenson, but a motion to dismiss focuses on whether or not the complaint states a cognizable legal claim, not whether the defendant's conduct was oppobrious. The real legal issue here is whether the judge will rule on a strict reading of the law; if so, I believe Svenson should win the motion to dismiss. However, since the Fosters likely will be given leave to file an amended complaint, I believe he will issue a prelimary injunction to simply because Svenson's conduct was so abhorrent (the peeping Tom aspect of the case).
-
Sounds as if the Fosters have a lawyer problem.
-
Sounds as if the Fosters have a lawyer problem.
No lawyer problem. The law is just not on their side with this one. No problem, just the law.
Peter
-
The parts of the law that Fosters's lawyers have chosen as the basis of their suit certainly don't seem to be on their side, but that leaves us back at the point of choice. It doesn't sound as if they even attempted to bring in reasonable expectation of privacy. On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder whether or not there is such a thing in New York City.
-
Looks like the hearing on the motion to dismiss/application for preliminary injunction was continued to July 2
-
I hope you mean without their consent at their homes, otherwise we are gonna have to burn a lot of negatives from photographers that are very well regarded. :o
I quote myself:
"The only reason some people on forums say otherwise, condone this blatant intrusion, is that they hope to get their jollies doing exactly the same sort of spying. It's bloody pathetic, exploitative and in very poor taste. And no, that has little to do with the victims being dressed, half-naked or anything like that: they should simply be left in peace - by right."
Rob C
-
Raul, you really had to bring up a 3 month old, and dead, conversation?
The difference between the scenarios is that on the street there is no expectation of privacy. Some street photographers do engage in some pretty questionable tactics and produce some less than tasteful imagery, but it's OK because they are in a public space.
The photographer, in this instance, prevailed because New York State does not have invasion of privacy laws that most other, civilised, jurisdictions have. That's the only reason he prevailed.
-
There are still caveats when outside. Thinks like the spycams some idiots use to shoot up women's skirts, for example, will still get you thrown in jail.
-
There are still caveats when outside. Thinks like the spycams some idiots use to shoot up women's skirts, for example, will still get you thrown in jail.
Nope.
-
Once again, i think you should have said inside their homes otherwise every street photographer since Cartier-Bresson is a creep? I don't think they carried a bunch of releases in the backpack in those days and made everyone sign it, otherwise the photos would have been very different (and boring).
Most of the work by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander can be considered intrusive, calling that "bloody pathetic" is just wrong.
I do believe that street photography does sort of require some degree of spying on people, big deal, google and facebook are giving the really private info to the government.
I don't think so at all.
People like HC-B had a mission; they were mainly working for 'socially concerned' magazines and the political points that they were making were in tune with the plight of their subjects. If anything, I'd imagine that HC-B et al. would have had a lot of co-operation from their subjects.
However, when similar - not the same - things began to be the province of Wino and pals, then no, there wasn't anything political or altruistic at play: it was an obsession with catching the oddballs, the same breed of people as Arbus found so captivating. I see it as manifestation of a deeper mental problem - why else, had there been real, legitimate purpose, would so many films have been left undeveloped... it was an illness, a compulsion to be there on the street, in the thick of others kinetic energies, an attempt to cling to an illusion of having a life of one's own by the simple expedient of intruding into the lives of those random others one didn't even know. A substitute for a contented personal reality, then.
If anything, rather than mild outrage, I feel a gentle sorrow for them.
“Most of the work by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlander can be considered intrusive, calling that "bloody pathetic" is just wrong.”
No; again, I was referring to the concept of intrusion, not to the photographic results which can, obviously, be quite stunning on their own merits. Exactly as a beautifully applied stab to the heart, that neither damages nor breaks any ribs, can be considered a wondrous piece of surgery, but fatally murderous nonetheless.
Rob C
-
People like HC-B had a mission; they were mainly working for 'socially concerned' magazines and the political points that they were making were in tune with the plight of their subjects.
The early work, which is so especially admired (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg642381#msg642381), was not made "working for 'socially concerned' magazines".
Exactly as a beautifully applied stab to the heart, that neither damages nor breaks any ribs, can be considered a wondrous piece of surgery, but fatally murderous nonetheless.
"It is the secret of the artist that he does his work so superlatively well that we all but forget to ask what his work was supposed to be, for sheer admiration of the way he did it." p594 The Story of Art
-
... deeper mental problem ... an illness, a compulsion...
Which just happens to be the origin of much of art in general ;)
-
Which just happens to be the origin of much of art in general ;)
The devil lives in the application.
;-)
Rob C
-
The early work, which is so especially admired (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg642381#msg642381), was not made "working for 'socially concerned' magazines".
I don't happen to share that poster's view on the matter; I certainly don't take it as gospel.
In fact, I don't even accept there was any measurable difference between his (HC-B's) photographic oeuvres: I think he brought exactly the same ethic and eye to everything; how could he humanly do otherwise? Split-personality? I don't think so. I don't recall any pundit saying or writing to the effect that HC-B wanted to copy anyone else or to be anyone else than the photographer and artist that he already was.
Rob C
-
Well the way the photos were made is a bit creepy to me but, looking at them, I don't see that. Just some very nice work. They do not seem voyeuristic at all to me. I think you would have to know the story to read that into the photos. Some in our society work overtime to feign offense and this might be one of those times.
-
Well the way the photos were made is a bit creepy to me but, looking at them, I don't see that. Just some very nice work. They do not seem voyeuristic at all to me. I think you would have to know the story to read that into the photos. Some in our society work overtime to feign offense and this might be one of those times.
Much of Art falls into this realm. A look too closely at the making of the Art, or the Artist, will often disappoint.
Peter
-
Much of Art falls into this realm. A look to closely at the making of the Art, or the Artist, will often disappoint.
Peter
Hence the beauty of taking things at face value. But it has got to be at the viewer's own idea of value. The moment that the gurus start to inject their take, virgin vision is lost to PR, spin and silk purses with bristles on the inside.
Rob C
-
Nope.
Yep, http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/08/police-nab-first-upskirt-photographer-of-the-summer/
-
Yep, http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/08/police-nab-first-upskirt-photographer-of-the-summer/
Bob, you are (mostly) right. You are absolutely right that police will arrest you. I do not know about Canada, but here, in "the land of the free," most judges will then let you go.
You see, only about 10 states here have a specific law banning up-skirt photography (as of 2005, at least). There are some judges who specifically said, in a freeing verdict, that women do not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy," even under their skirts, if they are in public. A USA Today article on the subject here (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-08-video-voyeur_x.htm).
-
Whether it's 1 or 10, the laws still exist. More will likely he enacted. More may have been enacted in the intervening 8 years. And, as you note, even if charges are dismissed, arrest is still likely. It's also worth noting that the judges don't seem to generally want to dismiss the charges but do so because they feel they have no other option.
-
Bob, you are (mostly) right. You are absolutely right that police will arrest you. I do not know about Canada, but here, in "the land of the free," most judges will then let you go.
You see, only about 10 states here have a specific law banning up-skirt photography (as of 2005, at least). There are some judges who specifically said, in a freeing verdict, that women do not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy," even under their skirts, if they are in public. A USA Today article on the subject here (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-08-video-voyeur_x.htm).
Expectation or right? Different, very different. If they legally don't have that right then the law is truly an ass (no pun intended, in this case). A charter for violation of the person, then?
Rob C