Brad Crooks Photography wrote:
Fast forward to his last ever photograph...a window across the street...a silhouetted person.....a view down a rifle muzzle and a flash. End of Book.

Just sayin'.

Even photographers who go to great lengths to not make others uncomfortable run the risk of angering strangers, so I would say it's a risk, and perhaps especially in NYC where there are "made" people who might not take it too kindly.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I think this is an absolutely fantastic project.  Those of you that called the photographer a stalker, a poacher, etc. clearly missed the part about these images being taken out of his own apartment window - not from the bushes or somesuch.  If you can see it in your own home, it's fair game.

And I don't think any of the subjects would have a privacy case against the photographer, even if their faces had been shown.  I don't know NYC law(which is much more liberal than State law), but here in Upstate NY a man was arrested and charged with indecent exposure for forgetting to close the blinds before he put on a porno flick and took care of business.  Which means that, at least according to State law, there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' if you leave your curtains wide open.

This work reminds me of a book by another photographer.  I can't remember her name, and I can't seem to track down my notebook where I wrote it.  At any rate, it's called Wall Street and every frame in the entire book is shot through the same window of a bar bathroom.  Stock traders would get off work, head to this bar, and hire a hooker to screw in the bathroom.  And the book is images of these guys putting on condoms, getting BJs, doing drugs, etc.  Only a few faces are seen, but that's probably because they were all shot at a downward angle, so the images are all waist-level.

It's a pretty cool book, provided you're fairly hang-up free.

The moral of the story, of course, is that if you're doing anything dirty or embarrassing, close the damn blinds.

Exactly!

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
Artistically the images are well done but ethically, should artistic freedom override personal right to privacy. We are not talking public or government figures nor are we talking public locations but private residents.

This is one of the few times California Paparazzi laws seem to be justified. I am far from a saint in this argument, as a working photojournalist, I had this issue creep up. I could make the simple and mentally challenged argument that the people should have closed the blinds but I can't say why they were open maybe a roommate opened them before a person in the photo was aware of it. Or maybe the landlord needed to fix them, but in the end it does not matter.

We are talking about inside someone's home. I think back to a case recently were a person outed his college roommate by a hiding a video camera. The roomate committed suicide after the video was released online. The person who did the video was charged with a hate crime, but what if had argued it was art not a cruel joke.

Like I said, I am not without sin on this one. I have shot people in private moments during my career.

It's not the same -  not even a little.  In the case you reference, the video camera was used inside the home.  It may have been a shared home, but it was still inside the home.  These images were all shot from outside the home, meaning that the subjects allowed themselves to be seen.  They may not have done so intentionally, and they didn't expect cameras, but you have to be an idiot of the highest degree to live in a glass-walled home, leave your curtains open, and expect that no one will ever see you.

As my middle school art teacher used to say, people in glass houses should change their underwear in the basement.

These cases really bring out yet another problem with our legal system:  inconsistency, based on how the judge or jury feels about the end result, and not the actual crime.

In your case for instance, the defendant was punished more strictly than, say, a guy that put a sex tape of his ex on the internet with the intention of ruining her reputation.  Which is pretty dumb when you think about it, because it's really the exact same crime.  The fact that the roommate killed himself after the tape went public didn't change the crime itself, but it did change the sentencing.  Granted we have 'the eggshell argument', that sort of applies here.  In a nutshell, it states that if you punch a guy in a bar fight and he turns out to me a hemophiliac and dies, you can be charged with murder, even if you didn't know he was a hemophiliac.

But this is a little different, as the equivalent would be if you punched a guy in a bar fight, he decided he couldn't live with a bruise on his face, and he killed himself.  You've still only committed assault and/or battery, regardless of what the guy did to himself later.

This applies to these images as well.  Since the subjects chose to be fully visible, anyone can look in and see them.  Anyone can legally look into those windows, provided they are doing it from their own property, or public property.  Anyone can legally take photos from their own home, or on public property.  Every part of this project is wholly legal.  Why would adding it all together suddenly make it illegal?

Whether the subjects knew there was a camera involved or not is irrelevant.  They chose to be visible, even if they didn't understand the implications.  As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

The voyeurism part is legal or illegal by itself.  What the voyeur chooses to do with that material after the fact has no consequence on whether or not he broke any laws in the first place.  The only way that showing these images would make anything less legal would be if they were images of minors, or if the subjects were identifiable and shown in a negative light.  That doesn't mean that the photographer has a rock-solid case and can't lose any legal battles - but it does mean that if there are any legal decisions against him, they will be based on sympathy, and not written law.  They may cite other cases that were also decided on sympathy (such as the gay roommate incident), but he would still lose based purely on sympathy.

KonstantKarma wrote:
"But the residents of a glass-walled luxury residential building across the street had no idea they were being photographed.."

Glass walls? Sorry, I'm not feeling any sympathy for the residents. Sounds like they're lifestyle-exhibitionists, and are probably just mad they're not making a profit from it.

Or perhaps they were all in on it and are feigning outrage to increase curiosity.

Perceptions Edge  wrote:
In Wisconsin there is no doubt this would 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.

ummmmmm what "living person" is he using? I did a google search and a tineye search on some of the images at random and nobody popped up as a person. It's usually a mistake to read a statute and expect to understand all the nuances right away.  Right now the people are not identified.  were any of them to sue, they would be deliberately identifying themselves. in your jurisdiction and mine, the doctrine of waiver or laches would apply.  It's the reverse of mitigation when you deliberately do yourself more harm than whatever the wrongdoer did.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I think this is an absolutely fantastic project.  Those of you that called the photographer a stalker, a poacher, etc. clearly missed the part about these images being taken out of his own apartment window - not from the bushes or somesuch.  If you can see it in your own home, it's fair game.

And I don't think any of the subjects would have a privacy case against the photographer, even if their faces had been shown.  I don't know NYC law(which is much more liberal than State law), but here in Upstate NY a man was arrested and charged with indecent exposure for forgetting to close the blinds before he put on a porno flick and took care of business.  Which means that, at least according to State law, there is no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' if you leave your curtains wide open.

This work reminds me of a book by another photographer.  I can't remember her name, and I can't seem to track down my notebook where I wrote it.  At any rate, it's called Wall Street and every frame in the entire book is shot through the same window of a bar bathroom.  Stock traders would get off work, head to this bar, and hire a hooker to screw in the bathroom.  And the book is images of these guys putting on condoms, getting BJs, doing drugs, etc.  Only a few faces are seen, but that's probably because they were all shot at a downward angle, so the images are all waist-level.

It's a pretty cool book, provided you're fairly hang-up free.

The moral of the story, of course, is that if you're doing anything dirty or embarrassing, close the damn blinds.

+1

A similar thing happened in Florida years ago. I don't remember the woman's name but she became pseudo-famous for a few minutes. She would engage in sex with her partner with open blinds in her own home. Somebody from the street videotaped her and her partner and presented it to authorities.

She was the one arrested.

Did one of them say that they didn't have a problem with people watching, but knowing they were being photographed was an invasive?

Perceptions Edge  wrote:
In Wisconsin there is no doubt this would 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.

You have now said this in two different threads.  Help me understand:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18265102

Zack Zoll wrote:
What lens the photographer used is irrelevant.  If taking photos of someone in their home is illegal, then it is illegal with all cameras and all lenses.

The only 'gear specific' laws I'm aware of in the US are the various city statutes that require a permit to use a tripod or a light stand.  And even those are usually enacted to keep people from making movies in public, but it's too complicated to define what gear is 'professional' and what is 'allowable.'

So it's all or nothing.

"Numerous state court cases have decided that photographers and videographers cannot use telephoto lenses to intrude visually into private spaces, even though they are not intruding themselves. People in their own homes enjoy an expectation of privacy, so shooting photos of them through a window constitutes a violation of their personal privacy, even if the photographer or videographer is standing on public property".

source: http://www.mediacrimevictimguide.com/right.html


What you can’t photograph
· Where photography has been prohibited by law. That’s by
law, not by private “No Photography” signs. What’s prohibited by
law? Photography of certain government facilities (usually of a
military nature) — you will be well aware of this prohibition if you
encounter one. For example, it is apparently against the law to take
photographs of bridges in the New York City area. Stupid, but true.
· Things that require special equipment to see — i.e., they
wouldn’t be visible to the public. So using a long lens on a rooftop to
shoot a woman on the fifth floor of an apartment building is a no-no.
That’s invasion of privacy. (Technically, taking the photo isn’t what’s
illegal. Violating the person’s privacy is. But they’re tied together in
this case.)
Note that using a long lens to shoot pedestrians from a rooftop (or high school soccer plays on a
field) is fine; they have no expectation of privacy

source:http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf

John aka John wrote:
This guy has no defense. There's an expectation of privacy in your home. Period.

And I'm glad there is.

That is a very definitive statement.  Can you point me to NY case law that supports it universally (I.e. "period")

ybfoto wrote:
"Numerous state court cases have decided that photographers and videographers cannot use telephoto lenses to intrude visually into private spaces, even though they are not intruding themselves. People in their own homes enjoy an expectation of privacy, so shooting photos of them through a window constitutes a violation of their personal privacy, even if the photographer or videographer is standing on public property".

source: http://www.mediacrimevictimguide.com/right.html


What you can’t photograph
· Where photography has been prohibited by law. That’s by
law, not by private “No Photography” signs. What’s prohibited by
law? Photography of certain government facilities (usually of a
military nature) — you will be well aware of this prohibition if you
encounter one. For example, it is apparently against the law to take
photographs of bridges in the New York City area. Stupid, but true.
· Things that require special equipment to see — i.e., they
wouldn’t be visible to the public. So using a long lens on a rooftop to
shoot a woman on the fifth floor of an apartment building is a no-no.
That’s invasion of privacy. (Technically, taking the photo isn’t what’s
illegal. Violating the person’s privacy is. But they’re tied together in
this case.)
Note that using a long lens to shoot pedestrians from a rooftop (or high school soccer plays on a
field) is fine; they have no expectation of privacy

source:http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf

'Special equipment' is vague.  Did the case define 'special equipment' as 'commercial telephoto lenses', or did you do that?  Did it set a magnification or price cut-off?  Because telephoto lenses are available at Wal-Mart starting at $100, if you get it with the camera.  A standard 10x set of binoculars has a little more magnification than that, and they give those away for free with outdoor magazine subscriptions.

No, I'm quite sure that 'special equipment' means things like 1200mm lenses, night-vision scopes, telescopes, etc.  Things that are not regularly owned by a large amount of the public.  That's the definition of 'special' isn't it?

Also, your argument infers that if you can take pictures of your neighbors screwing and send them to the paper, so long as you use a 50mm lens.  This is simply not true.

EDIT:  Something I forgot to mention ... most of these precedents were set during the days of film, and early digital.  During those days, there was no way that you were going to take a reasonably close-up shot of a woman on the fifth floor with any reasonable quality without an enormous lens and a tripod/cable release - maybe even 25 or 50 ISO film.  These days, you can crop way in on your images, effectively making all your lenses 'go further.'  Your 400 ISO images can be magnified immensely, to the point where you don't even need the tripod anymore - and that's part of the 'special equipment' bit.

So again ... going by this case law ... you're saying that it's illegal to use long lenses, but it's perfectly legal to use a regular lens and crop in to get the same photo.

I'm not arguing against what the words on the case law state.  I am saying that the spirit of the law is clearly not reflected in current case law, and the entire system of precedents needs a complete judicial review to accommodate for new technologies.

John aka John wrote:
This guy has no defense. There's an expectation of privacy in your home. Period.

And I'm glad there is.

No period.  Glass walls.  Even a child that is young enough to think that they can disappear behind a lamp post like a cartoon character knows that you can see through glass.

So if you're dumber than a little kid, then yes - there is an expectation of privacy.  But that expectation is based on the fact that 'a home' is surrounded by 4(opaque) walls, and a public space is not.  If you live in a field and you're outside, people can take your picture.  If you're inside, they can't.  The fact that it's all 'your home' doesn't matter - there's no magic ownership law that erects photo-proof barriers around your property lines.

Digitoxin wrote:
That is a very definitive statement.  Can you point me to NY case law that supports it universally (I.e. "period")

And since I posted an example that shows the opposite (from about a year ago), you should probably post two or three.

And no, I won't link to any articles, because I don't think his name deserves to be out there more than it already is.  It turns out that his arrest was based solely on what a little kid saw while he may or may not have been trespassing on the man's property.  So illegal or not, it's still an unlawful arrest.

Zack Zoll wrote:

ybfoto wrote:
"Numerous state court cases have decided that photographers and videographers cannot use telephoto lenses to intrude visually into private spaces, even though they are not intruding themselves. People in their own homes enjoy an expectation of privacy, so shooting photos of them through a window constitutes a violation of their personal privacy, even if the photographer or videographer is standing on public property".

source: http://www.mediacrimevictimguide.com/right.html


What you can’t photograph
· Where photography has been prohibited by law. That’s by
law, not by private “No Photography” signs. What’s prohibited by
law? Photography of certain government facilities (usually of a
military nature) — you will be well aware of this prohibition if you
encounter one. For example, it is apparently against the law to take
photographs of bridges in the New York City area. Stupid, but true.
· Things that require special equipment to see — i.e., they
wouldn’t be visible to the public. So using a long lens on a rooftop to
shoot a woman on the fifth floor of an apartment building is a no-no.
That’s invasion of privacy. (Technically, taking the photo isn’t what’s
illegal. Violating the person’s privacy is. But they’re tied together in
this case.)
Note that using a long lens to shoot pedestrians from a rooftop (or high school soccer plays on a
field) is fine; they have no expectation of privacy

source:http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf

'Special equipment' is vague.  Did the case define 'special equipment' as 'commercial telephoto lenses', or did you do that?  Did it set a magnification or price cut-off?  Because telephoto lenses are available at Wal-Mart starting at $100, if you get it with the camera.  A standard 10x set of binoculars has a little more magnification than that, and they give those away for free with outdoor magazine subscriptions.

No, I'm quite sure that 'special equipment' means things like 1200mm lenses, night-vision scopes, telescopes, etc.  Things that are not regularly owned by a large amount of the public.  That's the definition of 'special' isn't it?

Also, your argument infers that if you can take pictures of your neighbors screwing and send them to the paper, so long as you use a 50mm lens.  This is simply not true.

John aka John wrote:
This guy has no defense. There's an expectation of privacy in your home. Period.

And I'm glad there is.

No period.  Glass walls.  Even a child that is young enough to think that they can disappear behind a lamp post like a cartoon character knows that you can see through glass.

So if you're dumber than a little kid, then yes - there is an expectation of privacy.  But that expectation is based on the fact that 'a home' is surrounded by 4(opaque) walls, and a public space is not.  If you live in a field and you're outside, people can take your picture.  If you're inside, they can't.  The fact that it's all 'your home' doesn't matter - there's no magic ownership law that erects photo-proof barriers around your property lines.


And since I posted an example that shows the opposite (from about a year ago), you should probably post two or three.

And no, I won't link to any articles, because I don't think his name deserves to be out there more than it already is.  It turns out that his arrest was based solely on what a little kid saw while he may or may not have been trespassing on the man's property.  So illegal or not, it's still an unlawful arrest.

Zack, for the record, I agree with you.  My post above was specific to those who are suggesting a "bright line" test .....  I don't agree that there is one but it will entirely hinge on state law and interpretatation of same.

Zack Zoll wrote:

ybfoto wrote:
"Numerous state court cases have decided that photographers and videographers cannot use telephoto lenses to intrude visually into private spaces, even though they are not intruding themselves. People in their own homes enjoy an expectation of privacy, so shooting photos of them through a window constitutes a violation of their personal privacy, even if the photographer or videographer is standing on public property".

source: http://www.mediacrimevictimguide.com/right.html


What you can’t photograph
· Where photography has been prohibited by law. That’s by
law, not by private “No Photography” signs. What’s prohibited by
law? Photography of certain government facilities (usually of a
military nature) — you will be well aware of this prohibition if you
encounter one. For example, it is apparently against the law to take
photographs of bridges in the New York City area. Stupid, but true.
· Things that require special equipment to see — i.e., they
wouldn’t be visible to the public. So using a long lens on a rooftop to
shoot a woman on the fifth floor of an apartment building is a no-no.
That’s invasion of privacy. (Technically, taking the photo isn’t what’s
illegal. Violating the person’s privacy is. But they’re tied together in
this case.)
Note that using a long lens to shoot pedestrians from a rooftop (or high school soccer plays on a
field) is fine; they have no expectation of privacy

source:http://www.andrewkantor.com/legalrights/Legal_Rights_of_Photographers.pdf

'Special equipment' is vague.  Did the case define 'special equipment' as 'commercial telephoto lenses', or did you do that?  Did it set a magnification or price cut-off?  Because telephoto lenses are available at Wal-Mart starting at $100, if you get it with the camera.  A standard 10x set of binoculars has a little more magnification than that, and they give those away for free with outdoor magazine subscriptions.

No, I'm quite sure that 'special equipment' means things like 1200mm lenses, night-vision scopes, telescopes, etc.  Things that are not regularly owned by a large amount of the public.  That's the definition of 'special' isn't it?

Also, your argument infers that if you can take pictures of your neighbors screwing and send them to the paper, so long as you use a 50mm lens.  This is simply not true.

EDIT:  Something I forgot to mention ... most of these precedents were set during the days of film, and early digital.  During those days, there was no way that you were going to take a reasonably close-up shot of a woman on the fifth floor with any reasonable quality without an enormous lens and a tripod/cable release - maybe even 25 or 50 ISO film.  These days, you can crop way in on your images, effectively making all your lenses 'go further.'  Your 400 ISO images can be magnified immensely, to the point where you don't even need the tripod anymore - and that's part of the 'special equipment' bit.

So again ... going by this case law ... you're saying that it's illegal to use long lenses, but it's perfectly legal to use a regular lens and crop in to get the same photo.

I'm not arguing against what the words on the case law state.  I am saying that the spirit of the law is clearly not reflected in current case law, and the entire system of precedents needs a complete judicial review to accommodate for new technologies.

John aka John wrote:
This guy has no defense. There's an expectation of privacy in your home. Period.

And I'm glad there is.

No period.  Glass walls.  Even a child that is young enough to think that they can disappear behind a lamp post like a cartoon character knows that you can see through glass.

So if you're dumber than a little kid, then yes - there is an expectation of privacy.  But that expectation is based on the fact that 'a home' is surrounded by 4(opaque) walls, and a public space is not.  If you live in a field and you're outside, people can take your picture.  If you're inside, they can't.  The fact that it's all 'your home' doesn't matter - there's no magic ownership law that erects photo-proof barriers around your property lines.


And since I posted an example that shows the opposite (from about a year ago), you should probably post two or three.

And no, I won't link to any articles, because I don't think his name deserves to be out there more than it already is.  It turns out that his arrest was based solely on what a little kid saw while he may or may not have been trespassing on the man's property.  So illegal or not, it's still an unlawful arrest.

well we have agree to disagree unless you can provide a point a reference or source thats says otherwise, because there are numerous sources that say that using a telephoto to shoot "inside" a person's home is considered invasion of privacy. If you have a article or precedent that says otherwise please share with the group. Not saying your wrong just sayin you havent provided any proof contrary to what can be found by a simple google search

ybfoto wrote:
well we have agree to disagree unless you can provide a point a reference or source thats says otherwise, because there are numerous sources that say that using a telephoto to shoot "inside" a person's home is considered invasion of privacy. If you have a article or precedent that says otherwise please share with the group. Not saying your wrong just sayin you havent provided any proof contrary to what can be found by a simple google search

Here's why I don't need to cite anything:  because the law is written based on a mislabeling of the products it describes, and is applied based purely on how the judge or jury feel about that case, and how well the lawyers argue.

Let me explain that.

According to the law, 'telephoto lenses' are illegal.  Well, first we need to define 'telephoto.'  Typically, that means 'longer than the eye can normally see.'  If we use this definition, then an 85mm lens is exactly as intrusive as a 800mm lens, since they are both telephoto lenses.  We know this is not the case.  Strike one.

If you are using a format other than 35mm film (for which most case law was written), then the numbers all change.  If you use a 300mm lens on an 8x10 camera, it is a 'normal' lens.  If you use a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, it can be considered a telephoto lens.  Since the law is not written to accommodate this, current wording would make it illegal to photograph any residential area using any formats larger than 35mm, as this would necessitate a lens longer than 50mm.  This is not the case, so clearly the law is not followed as written.  Strike two.

Of course, 'telephoto' refers to a specific a design of lens, where the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.  Like Kleenex, it is mistakenly applied to ALL long lenses, even in Federal Law.  But that is the textbook definition, and according to your sources those are the only illegal lenses.  Which are the most common these days, but it's not all there is.  So according to the law as written, you can use a mirror lens or other non-telephoto long lens to take your pictures.  Strike three.

Lastly, there is NO written explanation of what constitutes a 'telephoto lens', or what constitutes 'special equipment' - it is left entirely up to the discretion of the courts.  So if the judge hearing the case is a hunting enthusiast, he is within his rights to determine that using a spotting scope for photography is not 'special equipment', because it hasn't been defined otherwise.  If the judge doesn't know anything about photography at all, he would be equally within his rights to decide that any lens other than the one that came in the box is 'special equipment', because again - there's nothing saying that he can't do that.

We're out of strikes, but that's a REALLY big one.  That's basically an entire no-hitter right there.

So yeah, feel free to post all the case law you want.  It doesn't matter.  The law is written in an intentionally vague manner, in order to leave it up to specific jurisdictions as to what is and is not allowed.  In this particular situation, all case law does is show how individual judges and juries defined 'special equipment.'

Zack Zoll wrote:
Here's why I don't need to cite anything:  because the law is written based on a mislabeling of the products it describes, and is applied based purely on how the judge or jury feel about that case, and how well the lawyers argue.

Let me explain that.

According to the law, 'telephoto lenses' are illegal.  Well, first we need to define 'telephoto.'  Typically, that means 'longer than the eye can normally see.'  If we use this definition, then an 85mm lens is exactly as intrusive as a 800mm lens, since they are both telephoto lenses.  We know this is not the case.  Strike one.

If you are using a format other than 35mm film (for which most case law was written), then the numbers all change.  If you use a 300mm lens on an 8x10 camera, it is a 'normal' lens.  If you use a 50mm lens on an APS-C camera, it can be considered a telephoto lens.  Since the law is not written to accommodate this, current wording would make it illegal to photograph any residential area using any formats larger than 35mm, as this would necessitate a lens longer than 50mm.  This is not the case, so clearly the law is not followed as written.  Strike two.

Of course, 'telephoto' refers to a specific a design of lens, where the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length.  Like Kleenex, it is mistakenly applied to ALL long lenses, even in Federal Law.  But that is the textbook definition, and according to your sources those are the only illegal lenses.  Which are the most common these days, but it's not all there is.  So according to the law as written, you can use a mirror lens or other non-telephoto long lens to take your pictures.  Strike three.

Lastly, there is NO written explanation of what constitutes a 'telephoto lens', or what constitutes 'special equipment' - it is left entirely up to the discretion of the courts.  So if the judge hearing the case is a hunting enthusiast, he is within his rights to determine that using a spotting scope for photography is not 'special equipment', because it hasn't been defined otherwise.  If the judge doesn't know anything about photography at all, he would be equally within his rights to decide that any lens other than the one that came in the box is 'special equipment', because again - there's nothing saying that he can't do that.

We're out of strikes, but that's a REALLY big one.  That's basically an entire no-hitter right there.

So yeah, feel free to post all the case law you want.  It doesn't matter.  The law is written in an intentionally vague manner, in order to leave it up to specific jurisdictions as to what is and is not allowed.  In this particular situation, all case law does is show how individual judges and juries defined 'special equipment.'

wow thats a lot writing that really doesn't disprove my original comment in any way, anyhoo let me know if you find something contrary to what I have posted, until then I am done

Zack Zoll wrote:
I ... I don't think you get the point.  And I don't think I can explain it to you.

Let me try one last time.  'Deviant pornography' is illegal in many states, yes?  And with the exception of sodomy, bestiality, and interracial sex (guess which states had those laws), deviant pornography isn't defined.  And even though many states have anti-sodomy laws, all sorts of porno featuring butt stuff is available nationwide, because it's too much effort to stop everybody

Despite many, MANY lawsuits, 'deviant pornography' still has no clear definition, so you can't go look up what you can and can't do in your movies.  So in the case of deviant pornography, case law is only relevant if you happen to be in the district where the case was ruled.

This is a similar situation.  Except in this case, the term 'telephoto lens' is incorrectly used, meaning that the law has all sorts of loopholes.  Since it's left up to individual jurisdictions, it literally does not matter if I present you with a case where a photographer was allowed to continue using a certain piece of equipment, because that equipment may or may not be legal in your jurisdiction.

no I get your point entirely but IMO your making strawman argument.

John aka John wrote:
This guy has no defense. There's an expectation of privacy in your home. Period.

And I'm glad there is.

You can believe that but I think he will get away with it....