Andialu wrote:
Definitely a violation of privacy.

Is it any more of a violation of privacy where we have a camera on every street light, ATM, camera phone, to say nothing about the security cameras meant to "protect"...whoops! I meant to spy on us.

I doubt it.

I'm not saying what the photographer did was something I'd do or condone but under the law where it focuses more on where the picture was shot from than where the subject was, I'm not seeing a problem for him.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Is it any more of a violation of privacy where we have a camera on every street light, ATM, camera phone, to say nothing about the security cameras meant to "protect"...whoops! I meant to spy on us.

I doubt it.

I'm not saying what the photographer did was something I'd do or condone but under the law where it focuses more on where the picture was shot from than where the subject was, I'm not seeing a problem for him.

That example is like comparing apples to oranges. ATM and street cameras aren't photographing or video camera recording me in my home. My private space where some things are meant to be private.

Someone pointed out that it's not an issue due to you not being able to see the people, but is one of you can recognize them. I disagree. That person is being photographed in their home regardless if we can't recognize them. Those that are suing him, can recognize themselves. So yes, there is a problem here.

Perceptions Edge  wrote:
I can't speak to NY, but in Wisconsin this would pretty clearly be actionable.  State Statute 999.50 Right of Privacy States:

"(2) In this section, "invasion of privacy" means any of the following:
(a) Intrusion upon the privacy of another of a nature highly offensive to a reasonable person, in a place that a reasonable person would consider private or in a manner which is actionable for trespass.
(b) The use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of any living person, without having first obtained the written consent of the person or, if the person is a minor, of his or her parent or guardian."

2(a) could be questionable as to whether it is highly offensive, but 2(b) is quite clear....if he's selling them for up to $7,500 each he's clearly engaged in trade and admits himself he has no no written consent from the subjects.

So, unlike New York which has  case law where seemingly "trade" excludes images sold as art, you are saying that Wisconsin considers the sale of an image, in any form and for all purposes, including art sold in galleries, "trade"?

In wisconsin, How do street photographers get away with selling images as art?  They would seem to run afoul of your reliance on the definition of "trade" in 2(b) as "quite clear".

Can you link me to a case, in Wisconsin, that affirms that the sale of an art photograph is "trade"?

Legacys 7 wrote:
That example is like comparing apples to oranges. ATM and street cameras aren't photographing or video camera recording me in my home. My private space where some things are meant to be private.

Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure about that?

Regardless if the people wanted or expected privacy in their own homes then why did they not, y'know, close their curtains? The insides of their homes were in full view of other homes as well as the public.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure about that?

Regardless if the people wanted or expected privacy in their own homes then why did they not, y'know, close their curtains? The insides of their homes were in full view of other homes as well as the public.

You know damn well what I'm talking about. No one is debating the big brother part that we deal with everyday in public. We're talking about a voyeur who's taking pictures of you in your home. We can go back in forth about closing curtains etc. But when you not only photograph someone in their home and then display it in a gallery for the public to see, we're talking about a much bigger problem than simply closing your curtains. Period.

Eastfist wrote:
Looks staged.

Could be.

Digitoxin wrote:
So, unlike New York which has  case law where seemingly "trade" excludes images sold as art, you are saying that Wisconsin considers the sale of an image, in any form and for all purposes, including art sold in galleries, "trade"?

In wisconsin, How do street photographers get away with selling images as art?  They would seem to run afoul of your reliance on the definition of "trade" in 2(b) as "quite clear".

Can you link me to a case, in Wisconsin, that affirms that the sale of an art photograph is "trade"?

Different states treat the unauthorised use of someone's image for purposes of the instant question surrounding this kind of incident differently; some treat it as a privacy right; others as a publicity right; and at least one that we have previously looked at [VA IIRC] treats it as a property right. Each of those different treatments will be litigated slightly differently and each will be based on different facts surrounding the usage.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Studio36

I know.  I just want to understand the poster's point suggesting that this matter will hinge on his reference to "trade" and how it has been adapted in case law in wisconsin to require authorization.

To state what he suggested as a matter of fact tells me that he must know what he is talking about and I would better like to understand it.

Legacys 7 wrote:
You know damn well what I'm talking about. No one is debating the big brother part that we deal with everyday in public. We're talking about a voyeur who's taking pictures of you in your home.

You're forgetting that much of the same equipment that Uncle Sam uses is also on the commercial market & cheaply. As this guy's gallery pieces reinforces, we're being watched & filmed ALL THE TIME in some manner or another, we just don't know it.

As Herb Ritts (or was it Helmut Newton) once said, "all photographers are voyeurs in some way." One person's voyeuristic perv is another person's artist.

Legacys 7 wrote:
We can go back in forth about closing curtains etc. But when you not only photograph someone in their home and then display it in a gallery for the public to see, we're talking about a much bigger problem than simply closing your curtains. Period.

I'm sorry, we'll just have to disagree on this.

I don't see being photographed in your own home when the people left their windows open for the entire world to see, those same people in the gallery possibly seeing the same or similar thing from another building or the street or a rooftop. The devil is in the details & I see no expectation of privacy on this one.

The only difference from that is that the photographer could potentially profit from it & I say good for him. He came up with a (seemingly) simple idea that had guts & executed it. Its the same that I hear about the works of people like Richard Avedon or Marcel Duchamps with his toilet installation (or "Looq" piece). Art (even objectionable art) is also about the discussion it can create as much as the aesthetic techniques used.