Judge Dismisses Privacy Lawsuit Against "Voyeur" Artist Arne Svenson

[t.s.k.]

It is illegal to shoot photos of any window which is less than 15 feet from the base of any building.

It is illegal to shoot photos of any window which does not have some type of installed privacy device.

etc, etc, etc, etc...

"Base" is open to interpretation as well as "some type of installed privacy device". Each is challengable as presented.
But that's besides the point.
My implication is that clearly defining the conditions is a monumental task in of itself as well as writing the language.

 

[daveleo]

Writing a very explicit "bullet-proof" law on this topic is probably impossible -
too many possible scenarios to deal with, too many "what-ifs" and too many exclusions.

Has to be judged case-by-case under a loosely-worded law that recognizes
the ideas of (reasonably expected) privacy, the right to create art, the
right to record public activities, and the need to protect the innocent from exploitation
(kids, older folks, the helpless, etc etc). And let the case judges make the decisions.

Keeping in mind that in every judgement, 50% of the people involved are disappointed. 😀

 

[nikon_sam]

If all the pictures in the series are of similar style then I feel the judge got it right...although he may have violated someone's privacy who's privacy did he actually violate...most, if not all, persons in these photos are simply unidentifiable...with the exception of the full face shot of the dog...if I or you were one of these people first we'd have to prove that it was, then possibly prove how we were violated...most of the pictures I saw were decent enough and really didn't embarrass the subject...I agree with most in here that this is not a style I would be comfortable with and it could be seen as creepy. There could be many more shots taken that do identify the subject in embarrassing situations but are not included in this exhibition due to the creepy factor and potential lawsuits...the thought of those negatives/files existing would definitely label the photographer as creepy in my book...

 

[noisycheese]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to pervert that perfectly reasonable liberty to cover stalking with specialized technology.

Legally justifiable (and admittedly for many good reasons), but ethically reprehensible. Like many things.
Even so the photos are still criminally boring.

I can't see how a telephoto lens could be considered specialized technology, given that they are extremely commonplace these days and are available from any well stocked camera retailer like B&H, Camera West, Adorama, Midwest Photo Exchange, Badger Graphic, Tamarkin, etc.

Telephoto lenses can be rented for a fraction of their cost these days, which would not be the case if they were truly rare or specialized. Additionally,the telephoto lens has also been with us for the past 120+ years; all this makes it pretty hard to make a legitimate claim that these lenses are some specialized, high tech wonder lens that is obscure and difficult to obtain.

...Most photographic history books credit John Dallmeyer with developing the first telephoto lens: he applied for a British patent in 1891...

Link: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/who-invented-the-telephoto-lens

It seems pretty obvious to me that photographers are being unjustly accosted and screwed with too much these days as it is. If we were to declare by force of law that telephoto lenses are some sort of prohibited/forbidden technology for use in photography in the public venue or on the street, every photographer walking the street with a "big" (by whose definition??) lens attached to his/her camera would be laid siege to (verbally or otherwise) by every police officer, rent-a-cop, wannabe lawman, security guard and do-gooder/busybody on two feet.

While I can't speak for all photographers in the U.S., I am decidedly averse to anything that remotely resembles such an arrangement.

I get it, though: A fair percentage of people just flat out don't like the type of work presented in this photographer's exhibit; they like it even less that it is within the law and is protected by the First Amendment.

That having been said, we don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to abide by and throw out the parts we don't like. The bottom line is this - the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land which transcends all other laws, treaties and court rulings, until such time when it is legitimately amended. Even then, the part of the Constitution which comprises the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) is not up for negotiation.

There used to be an old saying, something along the lines of "I disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to freely express it." In a nation that is built upon a written Constitution, that same line of thinking has got to apply to street photography, which is Constitutionally protected form of freedom of expression.

Just some food for thought...

 

[pieter]

This is about a photographer taking pictures of people inside their own houses without them knowing. Let's not make every issue about the first amendment.

If we really want to blow this issue up beyond recognition, I would like to point out that this ruling is the opening of the floodgates where every one's privacy rights will be trampled on.
Next we will have people saying that street photographers should be allowed to walk into people's houses to take pictures to capture the human condition in their most natural habitat. For the art of it! "Hey, why should only long tele lenses be allowed to do it, why not a summicron 35mm?!"

 

[Al Patterson]

What now I have to start putting on my pants when I am in my apartment????

Good question. Can your neighbors charge you with indecent exposure if you remove too much prior to closing the drapes?

 

[Al Patterson]

This is about a photographer taking pictures of people inside their own houses without them knowing. Let's not make every issue about the first amendment.

If we really want to blow this issue up beyond recognition, I would like to point out that this ruling is the opening of the floodgates where every one's privacy rights will be trampled on.
Next we will have people saying that street photographers should be allowed to walk into people's houses to take pictures to capture the human condition in their most natural habitat. For the art of it! "Hey, why should only long tele lenses be allowed to do it, why not a summicron 35mm?!"

Unfortunately, the first amendment rears its head any time someone feels their rights are violated, and this was in the US, so it applies. That said, I found the pictures boring.

 

[Range-rover]

That would not of happened years ago, he would be considered a peeping Tom and
he and his camera would have been halt off to jail, but times of changed and I bet
it's going to a higher court to be overruled. And it 's amazing how people are stretching
that first amendment right that one day it's going to just tear.

range

 

[Rob-F]

It is illegal to shoot photos of any window which is less than 15 feet from the base of any building.

It is illegal to shoot photos of any window which does not have some type of installed privacy device.

etc, etc, etc, etc...

How about, "It shall be unlawful to photograph any window glazed with glass manufactured after January 19th, 1953."

"windows manufactured before that date can be photographed only if equipped with a window shade that could have been pulled down had the occupant wanted to."

 

[airfrogusmc]

I too am surprised, and as jsrockit said, the streets are fair game now ! ! (at least under this jurisdiction 😉 )

PS : I disagree with the judgement in this particular case.

The street have always been fair game.

This is creepy but creepy or not he apparently has the right to do it. Keep the curtains drawn.

 

[tunalegs]

It is impossible, by putting any stipulation -- all rights are lost. So better to be able to shoot what you see.

It is like saying a country has freedom of speech, but there are few things you can't say.

I'm sure you know there are some things you can't say without getting in trouble, hate speech, yelling "fire!" in a theater, etc. 😉

I can't see how a telephoto lens could be considered specialized technology, given that they are extremely commonplace these days and are available from any well stocked camera retailer like B&H, Camera West, Adorama, Midwest Photo Exchange, Badger Graphic, Tamarkin, etc.

If you think every average Jones or Smith has a lens in their house capable of taking the photos in question - let alone a camera capable of mounting it - you're thinking wrong. Aside from that a lens that long is specialized. You wouldn't for example take family photos with it, or take it with you to disneyland, or your friend's kid's birthday. How would it be considered anything other than specialized? 😕

 

[noisycheese]

The street have always been fair game.

This is creepy but creepy or not he apparently has the right to do it. Keep the curtains drawn.

Agreed.

If I may digress a bit from my usual role of playing devil's advocate regarding this work, I wouldn't exactly describe this work as creepy - but I do think it could be described as odd, off-beat or just plain old weird. Perhaps the photographer hit his intended bullseye: To produce a body of work that is odd (or very different). Nonetheless, why anyone would buy these pieces to hang in their home or business escapes me.

The above having been said, photographers have pretty much always been considered weird in one way or another by non-photographers. I guess we all just got a little bit more weird in the eyes of the non-photographers of the world thanks to the efforts of this gent...

 

[Jamie123]

In the past only if one was wealthy.

I think this still applies today. People don't seem to have a problem with photographers going to third world countries and taking poor people in all kinds of situations that we would consider private. But take a picture of a guy watching tv in his Tribeca apartment and all of a sudden it's an outrage.

What I actually like about Stevenson's work is that he had the balls to show the pictures to the very same people whom he was spying on.

 

[RichC]

Not that difficult to balance rights in public vs private spaces.

We English have sorted it through case law in recent years - you can photograph what you like* providing you don't breach what a judge described as "expectation of privacy". Which seems a sensible compromise to me. People unaware of a photographer in a park = OK. People unaware of a photographer using a long lens to peer into their home through a window = illegal.

In short, context is important - and the US First Amendment seems a blunt tool to me as a European, refusing to allow nuances, shades of grey.

*ignoring breach of copyright, national security and other specifics we're not discussing here.

 

[Damaso]

I disagree.

If the photo shows what is inside, it needs peoples' consent to show around (again, IMO)

Good thing we're discussing the law and not our opinions here...

 

[daveleo]

Good thing we're discussing the law and not our opinions here...

? we are not discussing opinions ?

Also, please include the rest of my comment. Taking that one sentence out of context is misleading.

 

[williams473]

I'm glad for all of us for the ruling. These are some beautiful images, elegant in their simplicity and well seen, and it would be a shame if they were made somehow illegal. I don't mind that that personal privacy was violated in their creation because we all do the same thing when we make pictures in public. I'm not sure how I would feel if the people were easily recognizable, but the way it was done works. But let's be honest, we all USE people as our subjects to make our photographs. I don't know how to describe a place like a city without people, so I use them as my subjects as actors on a stage. I don't claim to be a journalist so who they are and what they may actually be doing doesn't really matter, but I need these folks to make images. They become characters in a story I am telling that if successful, might stir a response in the viewer. Portraits on the other hand are an entirely different animal, but the images in this Svenson's portfolio are not about WHO is in the image - they are not certainly not portraits nor are they intended to be.

 

[starless]

I agree with the ruling, but I don't see anything interesting in the images.

 

[Scrambler]

There is a longstanding law in France allowing people to prevent the taking and/or publication of their image. There is a famous series of photographs "stolen" on public transport around Paris, surreptitiously taken with (if I recall correctly) a Nikon SLR hanging around the photographers neck, using a cable release. The images are stark, confronting and odd. No-one is paying attention to the photographer. And the context is interesting.

I couldn't locate the details so would love anyone with a better memory for names to remind me of the photographer's.

Some info re street photography in France:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/541694800/on-the-legality-of-street-shooting-in-france

 

[Pablito]

Has to be judged case-by-case under a loosely-worded law that recognizes
the ideas of (reasonably expected) privacy, the right to create art, the
right to record public activities, and the need to protect the innocent from exploitation

Been there done that. It's called fascism.