The Neighbors

[Balto]

While it might be a little creepy, in the world we live in now, you can't expect to have complete privacy even in your own home. Taking photos of kids without their parents permission or knowledge is crossing the line a bit so I understand why they were taking down. Some of the images were interesting though.

 

[Noll]

IMO, there are few obvious boundaries in photography left to be pushed, and this may be one of them. From what is posted, they seem tastefully done and well-composed. Seems like the photographer succeeded in invoking an emotional response, which isn't an easy thing to do.

If I were one of the people in these photographs, I'd still be far, far more concerned about the level of much more private information being collected online by vast numbers of companies and being marketed to other companies in ways we don't even know. in terms of actual violation of privacy, these photos are peanuts in comparison.

 

[wintoid]

The pictures themselves do nothing for me, which is in stark contrast with the strength of feeling I have about the manner of their production.

 

[shadowfox]

Actually, I think the photos themselves indicated that the photographer has a keen eye for interesting compositions.

But I am with those who think this is just wrong, because the subjects did not expect to be photographed.

In street-photography, you are out in the public. You expect to be seen publicly, it means dressing and acting accordingly (unless you're deliberately trying to get some attention, good or bad).

In your own home, that is not the case, by definition that you are in your own private space.

The fact that this exhibition happens, proved that some people don't think private space exists at all.

I don't have to agree with them.

 

[oftheherd]

I may be wrong but I believe that if you are taking a photo from public property or your own property of something or someone who is in plain view from that site, there is no restriction other than from libel laws which would give damages if you were showing someone in an unfair negative situation.

In other words, the NYC photog has only broken the laws of good taste, if any...

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that is incorrect. I believe people are allowed to expect privacy in their own home. But as I understand, it is a moot point here as I think the photographer was photographing from his own home (at least according to the OP).

 

[daveleo]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that is incorrect. I believe people are allowed to expect privacy in their own home. But as I understand, it is a moot point here as I think the photographer was photographing from his own home (at least according to the OP).

According to the article in the May 27 issue of the New Yorker magazine, that is correct.