# Update on Expectation of Privacy Laws thread.



## jwbryson1 (Aug 9, 2013)

I started this thread 3 months ago.  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...830-expectation-privacy-invasion-privacy.html

Today, a state judge ruled in favor of the photographer.   Judge backs the right of Tribeca artist to photograph people through their windows - NYPOST.com

Lesson?  Keep your shades closed....

Very interesting.


----------



## wyogirl (Aug 9, 2013)

I'm a little creeped out by this.  I mean, its one thing to photograph adults without them knowing... but kids is a whole other issue.  I would be so royally pissed if some peeping tom photographed my kid.  Seeing one of the photos (not of a child) did persuade me to accept the project as legitimate art, but seriously, leave the children out of your project/gallery.


----------



## terri (Aug 9, 2013)

The paparazzi have been doing this for years.   He's taking them off the internet, anyway.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 9, 2013)

wyogirl said:


> I'm a little creeped out by this.  I mean, its one thing to photograph adults without them knowing... but kids is a whole other issue.  I would be so royally pissed if some _*peeping tom*_ photographed my kid.  Seeing one of the photos (not of a child) did persuade me to accept the project as legitimate art, but seriously, leave the children out of your project/gallery.




To be clear...this guy did not walk up to the window and watch them in a state of undress like a peeping tom.  He had a long lens and simply shot through opened curtains.  I hear you and don't necessarily disagree, but from a legal perspective we have to be careful how we characterize his actions.  Just my $0.02.


----------



## KenC (Aug 9, 2013)

To me, the fact that he used a long lens should make it an invasion of privacy.  If someone leaves their curtains open and there are no windows or other vantage points nearby, then they would not expect to be observed, much less photographed.  It should be easy to draw a line between what could be seen with the naked eye by someone looking out of their own window or walking down the street and what could only be seen with special equipment (long lens, telescope, etc.).

The article didn't make it clear, but it appears that the decision was based on his having stopped using the photos.  If he had not stopped, would the judge have ordered him to stop?


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2013)

KenC said:


> The article didn't make it clear, but it appears that the decision was based on his having stopped using the photos.  If he had not stopped, would the judge have ordered him to stop?



The way I read it, his decision to cease did influence her decision.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 9, 2013)

Creepy is right. I just don't get shooting your neighbors, especially their kids through their windows. I couldn't do it and I have some pretty nice looking women across the road who run around in lingerie and occasionally nude. You gotta draw the line some place and have a sense of ethics.


----------



## weepete (Aug 10, 2013)

Hmm, just be aware guys that jounalists have an awful history when it comes to reporting on lawsuits. They really often miss the cruix of the case and report only on the sensationalist aspects.

Don't suppose anyone can find the actual judgement for this case? I know that in the UK you can read most of the judgements online but I can't find anything for this case except press clippings


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 10, 2013)

It's an interesting situation as on the one hand, we all value are own privacy and wish to maintain as much of it as possible; on the other regulating such activities often has consequences well outside of the intended area. It's really a situation where we need everyone to just take a minute and use their freakin' head...although we all know that likely won't happen. Hell, half the laws on the books wouldn't be necessary if not for an extremely small percentage ruining it for everyone else. As someone who is big into firearms (it's my business and hobby), I'm very familiar with this. Many a gun law has been made with far reaching effects due to a single person not using their head.

There are a lot of similar scenarios occurring right now with first and fourth amendment (among other) cases right now. Everyone wants their cake, and to eat it, too.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 10, 2013)

Further proof that western legal systems as a species, and those who administer them are completely and utterly f***ed!


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Further proof that western legal systems as a species, and those who administer them are completely and utterly f***ed!


They're ultimately flawed because people have to run them, and its human nature to desire more power by any means necessary. It sucks, but history has shown this yo be the case. Those with power typically abuse it.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 11, 2013)

Court got it right.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 11, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Court got it right.


How d'ya figure that?  I'm all for the rights of photographer's but a person's right to privacy in their own home should be second to NOTHING.  If you can't have an expectation of privacy in your own home, where can you?


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > Court got it right.
> ...



OK, but where does that "right to privacy" end? Do you have a right to not have strangers on your property or in your home? Absolutely...but are you saying it should be illegal for anyone on public areas to gaze inside your home? We'd all be guilty of that...

It's a very slippery slope, and ultimately we need to realize that we cannot fix every issue in our society with legislation. If you have a clear line of site into your home, then people will be looking, regardless of their intentions. People will catch the insides of homes taking pictures in any heavily populated area, even if that wasn't the focus of their photo/video. Homes will be in the background of the photo/video, people will see inside (if the blinds are open). THAT is the issue with making things like this illegal...you can't just stop the "bad" and let the "good" go through. It stops it all, and it would effectively make taking photos or videos in dense urban areas impossible.

Your right to privacy inside your home isn't absolute.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 11, 2013)

Joeywhat said:


> OK, but where does that "right to privacy" end? Do you have a right to not have strangers on your property or in your home? Absolutely...but are you saying it should be illegal for anyone on public areas to gaze inside your home? We'd all be guilty of that...
> 
> It's a very slippery slope, and ultimately we need to realize that we cannot fix every issue in our society with legislation. If you have a clear line of site into your home, then people will be looking, regardless of their intentions. People will catch the insides of homes taking pictures in any heavily populated area, even if that wasn't the focus of their photo/video. Homes will be in the background of the photo/video, people will see inside (if the blinds are open). THAT is the issue with making things like this illegal...you can't just stop the "bad" and let the "good" go through. It stops it all, and it would effectively make taking photos or videos in dense urban areas impossible.
> 
> Your right to privacy inside your home isn't absolute.



Just out of curiosity, what amount of legal protection do YOU expect against people snapping photos inside your home with a telephoto lens?  We weren't talking about walking by on the sidewalk and looking over, and happening to see inside.  We were talking about a deliberate shot, taken from out of view, with a telephoto lens... Inside someone's house. That is a much different scenario than "happening"  to shoot inside someones house doing urban street photography or video. 

I think it is photographers like that, that make people sour on anyone taking photos in their general direction. They scream about "photographers rights", but then show zero consideration for other peoples feelings, caring only about "getting their shot", any way they can. 

Personally speaking, and legal rights aside, i have zero respect for photographers that care more about their "shot"  than they do about the people around them.


----------



## weepete (Aug 11, 2013)

Found it! For those that are interested here is the judgement:

Foster v Svenson :: 2013 :: New York Other Courts Decisions :: New York Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

As far as I can tell from this the judgement was not made on whither the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but whither Svenson's work could be considered as being used for advertising or trade. The judge ruled that the artists 1st ammendment rights of expression trumped the New York Civil Rights Laws (50 and 51) meaning that the artist did not need consent to display the images as part of his exhibition. 

I assume that the plaintiffs took legal advice and that it may have been thought that if you have floor to celing windows in a built up city it could be reasonable to assume that a neighbour may see you from their apartment and therefore there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy
which is why this was not argued in court. I am however speculating on the last part.


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 11, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Joeywhat said:
> 
> 
> > OK, but where does that "right to privacy" end? Do you have a right to not have strangers on your property or in your home? Absolutely...but are you saying it should be illegal for anyone on public areas to gaze inside your home? We'd all be guilty of that...
> ...



NONE. I assume that if people can LOOK, they can record. Do I like it? Not really. Do I think anything should be legally done about it? No, as I don't see any good way of legislating such behavior out of existence.

I think people that do it can go to hell, personally speaking...but again. that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.


----------

