Judge Dismisses Privacy Lawsuit Against "Voyeur" Artist Arne Svenson

[Bille]

"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.

Was the judgement based on the images selected or is this a general approval of photographing into apartments of others?

 

[Johnhw]

Wasn't there a thread recently of a state to outlaw the taking photos of children in public without the parents permission? I thought I saw that somewhere...
California?

 

[Major Tom]

What is morally/lawfully permissible is not necessarily hokey dory. Your acting within the bounds of the law does not absolve you of being... a dick. In order to protect the range of freedom we enjoy it sometimes means we have to tolerate the offensive, the ill-considered etc. The judge did well to bear this in mind.

As far as the gallery itself, I find this kind of postmodern stuff to range between boring and annoying.

Why do they do this? Ego. The majority of judges have forgotten their place in the scheme of things; like vast majority of politicians, judges dislike anything that limits their wielding of power. Not all, of course, but the majority.

Not all of course. What a humble caveat. I wonder at what point it's appropriate to have anything but contempt for the government. Maybe when everything they do aligns with my worldview?

The Constitution is not a dogma. It is a document created by the best confluence of political considerations a nation's people can muster to help it govern itself. The Founders were extraordinary men, admirable men, but we must stand on their shoulders, not live in their shadow.

 

[fdarnell]

Where I was brought up, we were told to close the blinds so people could not see in. Not sure how I would feel about somebody with a long lens peering into my house and publishing pics, but then again, I keep my blinds closed so they can't.

And yes, during the day too. It's way too hot here in Central FL. Keeps the AC bill down.

 

[daveleo]

Where I was brought up, we were told to close the blinds so people could not see in. Not sure how I would feel about somebody with a long lens peering into my house and publishing pics, but then again, I keep my blinds closed so they can't.

And yes, during the day too. It's way too hot here in Central FL. Keeps the AC bill down.

Now you got me thinking of a new project for myself.

Since poorer people living in cities don't have air conditioners and keep their windows open day and night, and I have this long long lens and my right to create art legally supersedes their claim to privacy . . . hmmmmm . . . 😉

 

[fdarnell]

Now you got me thinking of a new project for myself.

Since poorer people living in cities don't have air conditioners and keep their windows open day and night, and I have this long long lens and my right to create art legally supersedes their claim to privacy . . . hmmmmm . . . 😉

If you use the art to lead a movement to get them air conditioning subsidies, it will be most successful and you will be allowed to do it. If you just push art for art's sake, be prepared for court action. Especially in the major cities.

Now if you want to study those cobbled up air conditioners or without air conditioning in fly-over country, you won't need a long lens. Get a 21, get closer and enjoy some nice sweet tea on the porch or lawn!

😀

 

[whtchocla7e]

Anything visible to the public should be fair game in my opinion. The burden of protecting their own privacy should be on the individual, 100%. Just my opinion.
Creepy or not creepy.. at least creepy is better than ignorant and naive.