Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Do you think this is invasion of Privacy?
For those of you have never live in New York City before, buildings are very close together and you could peek at whoever did not close their blinds/shades across from you! Do you think this photographer has the rights to sell photos taken from his own N.Y. apt?? http://news.yahoo.com/nyers-furious-ove … 20378.html May 17 13 02:33 pm Link Definitely a violation of privacy. May 17 13 02:36 pm Link May 17 13 02:37 pm Link Are they identifiable? No? No problem. Yes? Problem. May 17 13 02:39 pm Link NYers furious over photos taken through windows. What the courts will care about is whether those photographed had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd say, probably. But then again, I'm very careful about my blinds & curtains. Except that sometimes, when I'm making images of nude models, the small office building across the way might be able to look in. May 17 13 02:43 pm Link Well Idk about downtown New York, but I feel watched all the time in Chicago neighborhoods haha so I always make sure wherever I'm at everything's shut. It just seems like logic to me. And your fault if you don't. You wanna walk around naked with the windows open? That's cools, expect people to see and possibly photograph you. May 17 13 05:59 pm Link May 17 13 06:04 pm Link May 17 13 08:04 pm Link Calling him a photographer is like calling a poacher a hunter. May 17 13 09:32 pm Link Andialu 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. May 18 13 07:19 am Link Hmmm, he premeditatively hides in the shadows, pointing a telephoto lens into peoples windows, to spy on and capture their personal and private moments. Whilst legally, there may be a legal question mark over his actions, morally/ethically . . . he's no better than the peeping tom lurking in the bushes outside one's wife, daughter, etc's bedroom window. Lets face it, most of us know what we would likely do with the latter guy if we caught him. May 18 13 07:35 am Link 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. May 18 13 08:08 am Link I think whether or not the subjects had an expectation of privacy is debatable. (Given that their blinds were open and their faces are not shown, I think arguing they had an expectation of privacy and that was violated would be a hard sell.) New York has had several cases in which it was found that artistic expression trumps right of privacy claims, including the 1999 case of photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia. May 18 13 08:15 am Link Farenell Photography 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. May 18 13 08:32 am Link "The Neighbors don't know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs." Sounds like he knew what he was doing was wrong, which makes it all the more worse! My window faces like a hundred others so I'm about to go and close the blinds now. May 18 13 08:36 am Link Perceptions Edge 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"? May 18 13 08:53 am Link Looks staged. May 18 13 09:15 am Link Legacys 7 wrote: Are you sure about that? Are you REALLY sure about that? May 18 13 09:20 am Link Farenell Photography 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. 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. May 18 13 09:29 am Link Eastfist wrote: Could be. May 18 13 09:30 am Link I think if you want privacy...you close the blinds/curtains May 18 13 12:46 pm Link Digitoxin wrote: 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. May 18 13 01:07 pm Link Privacy begins when the drapes/blinds close. May 18 13 01:10 pm Link studio36uk wrote: 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. May 18 13 01:16 pm Link Legacys 7 wrote: 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. Legacys 7 wrote: I'm sorry, we'll just have to disagree on this. May 19 13 07:10 pm Link |