Judge Dismisses Privacy Lawsuit Against "Voyeur" Artist Arne Svenson

[Damaso]

The New York photographer who provoked controversy by photographing his neighbors through their apartment windows and exhibiting the images in a show has fended off lawsuit for invasion of privacy.



New York State court judge Judge Eileen A. Rakower dismissed the claim against photographer Arne Svenson, ruling that the photos in question were protected by the First Amendment. She also ruled that the images did not violate New York State civil rights laws, as the plaintiffs had claimed.


"An artist may create and sell a work of art that resembles an individual without his or her written consent," Judge Rakower wrote in her decision, underscoring a central principle of the case.
Svenson, a fine art photographer, used a telephoto lens to photograph people inside apartments in a building adjacent to his own apartment building in the New York neighborhood of Tribeca. The images, exhibited last spring at the Julie Saul Gallery, show the subjects framed by their apartment windows, going about their everyday lives, with their identities mostly obscured.


http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Judge-Dismisses-Priv-8708.shtml

 

[jsrockit]

Wow, I didn't expect that result. This should let people know that the streets are definitely public (since apartment windows apparently are). 🙂

 

[tunalegs]

It doesn't make him any less creepy though. Remind me not to leave them alone in a room.

PS: unsurprisingly the photos are pretty boring. Taking pictures of things a long ways away through a window doesn't really produce engaging images.

 

[daveleo]

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.

 

[mfunnell]

It doesn't make him any less creepy though.

I agree.

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

I'm not sure I do. If you can't be bothered pulling your blinds closed, in the big city, what do you expect?

...Mike

 

[noisycheese]

Anything a person can photograph on the street has always been fair game in the first place - this ruling just reinforces a longstanding fact of law.

If you can't be bothered pulling your blinds closed, in the big city, what do you expect?

Good point.

 

[daveleo]

. . . .
I'm not sure I do. If you can't be bothered pulling your blinds closed, in the big city, what do you expect?

...Mike

You recall that we beat this to death in another thread. I don't live there, so it's not much of my business.

 

[Boris Stupak]

The people who feel their rights were violated should now feel free to encamp outside this photographer's apartment and shoot any many embarrassing photos of her as possible.

Perhaps create a website devoted to it.

 

[stompyq]

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

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

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

Aaaarrgghhhh! Far too much information!

😀

 

[oftheherd]

I don't live there either, but this decision may be used as collateral for other decisions. W

hat is interesting is that many times what is on public property has been held to be just that, public property. But there have been court cases that state photos of the inside of a person's home are an invasion of privacy. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this or other cases like it. If I had the time I would like to see what the law there states and what facts were presented by each side.

 

[daveleo]

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

And I can't run around the house in my wife's underwear ?
Is nothing sacred anymore?

 

[loneranger]

What about people in cars or driving, is that ok too?

 

[tunalegs]

I'm not sure I do. If you can't be bothered pulling your blinds closed, in the big city, what do you expect?

...Mike

Probably not to be spied on by a creep with a long telephoto lens.

It's one thing if your window is right next to the sidewalk, or across the yard from your neighbor's house. Quite a different thing when somebody is peering at you through a machine perhaps hundreds of feet away. That's really just creepy, there's no better word for it.

 

[tunalegs]

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.

 

[jsrockit]

What about people in cars or driving, is that ok too?

I do... that's better than in their apartment.

 

[daveleo]

. . .
Make it against the law to take photos with what are now common telephoto lenses on many point and shoot cameras (Canon now has 24~1200 fixed lens cameras) -- of windows -- and it will effectively end street photography of any building with a window in the frame.

. . . .

I disagree.
What is on the other side of a window, when viewed from outside, is private.
If the photo shows what is inside, it needs peoples' consent to show around (again, IMO)
There are all kinds of examples I could think of (older people or young children forgetting
to pull their shades down, hospital rooms, schools, etc) to support my opinion.
The photographer needs a compelling social or legal reason to make and show the picture - "making art" isn't a good enough reason.
But I don't write law, so that's just photo forum talk.

 

[bonatto]

Interesting outcome for a photographer with some interesting work.

 

[t.s.k.]

The judge really didn't have a choice here.
Ruling otherwise would have opened the legal floodgates.
Imagine all the rules and exceptions that could possibly come up.

Or it probably would have been overturned in a higher court as it should.

 

[Jamie123]

Of course the photo series is creepy. Isn't that the point of it? I actually feel just as creepy if I look inside the windows of the house across from mine even without taking a picture. One gives up a lot of privacy when living in a densely populated area.

I actually didn't think this guy's work was that invasive. It's not exactly brilliant but the pictures are somewhat picturesque with very nice lighting and textures. They also aren't really exploitative. The people's identity is hidden for the most part and they're not doing anything particularly private. I also don't get what the big deal is with the children. Does it really make a difference if the people in the pictures are children or adults? Neither of them have given any consent anyways so there's no ethical argument to be made in regards to personal responsibility.