Judge dismisses lawsuit against NYC photographer

[Bosonic]

Source: AP

NEW YORK (AP) — A lawsuit brought against a New York City photographer who snapped pictures of his neighbors through their open windows without their knowledge or permission has been dismissed.

A state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan dismissed the case Monday. The judge ruled photographer Arne Svenson's art was protected by the First Amendment.

The New York Post (http://bit.ly/15gdM0r) says Svenson agreed to remove the photos from his website and Facebook page as part of the dismissal.

Two parents whose children were snapped for Svenson's exhibit, called "The Neighbors," brought the lawsuit after his show became public in May.

Read more: http://www.leaderherald.com/page/content.detail/id/355375/Judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-NYC-photographer.html?isap=1&nav=5040

[Katashi_itto]

1. If the NSA can do through your data without your knowledge or consent...I guess it follows

[kelliekat44]

2. Don't be ridiculous. Has NSA posted anything on any citizen on the Internet?

This rank invasion of privacy. The media is getting too carried away with their privileged status and needs to be curtailed just as much as NSA. I think rampant media types have done more harm to ordinary citizens than NSA.

[bobclark86]

4. "This rank invasion of privacy..."

Let's look think about that for a minute...

1) Is he trespassing?

NOPE. He took photos from his own apartment. If you have permission to be somewhere, you can shoot anything you see.

2) Were the windows drawn and he used x-rays and Star Trek subspace scanners?

NOPE. If you're wall-height windows aren't covered, you don't have an expectation of privacy.

3) Are the subjects identifiable?

NOPE. Hell, he doesn't even need a model release to sell the photos.

You see, despite the whining on this thread, this is NOT "rank invasion of privacy."

"The media is getting too carried away with their privileged status and needs to be curtailed just as much as NSA. I think rampant media types have done more harm to ordinary citizens than NSA."

Yeah, because an artist photographing out his window (which, actually, isn't the media, but that damn liberal art community) is WAAAAAY worse than the government mining every phone call and email with only a fake warrant from a rubber-stamp secret court to back it up.

And my favorite argument so far (down thread):

"Is it just me or does he actually have kind of icky, pervy look to him?"

Yup, and an "icky, pervy look" should be enough to strip someone of their rights. Most southerners think black people look creepy, and gay guys kissing as creepy. Looks like Jim Crow, the sodomy bans et. al. should be off the hook from now on, as long as they blame "icky, pervy looks" instead of skin color or sexual orientation.

[skypilot]

5. Strip him of his rights?

We don't even know what pictures this guy took that were NOT put in the exhibit. That is the thing. It's one thing to be able to see into someones home when they don't have their curtains or blinds drawn. It is quite another to start snapping pictures of them. This is a fucking "right" now? In fact, in a sense, the guy IS trespassing. Jesus, I can't believe the fucking world we live in now. I guess privacy really is dead.

And yes, he does look icky and pervy. And he is free to look as icky and pervy as he likes as long as he and others like him aren't aiming a camera at my window and clicking away. I can't believe you would compare this guy to blacks, gays and lesbians who have legitimately been oppressed and stripped of rights.

[bobclark86]

7. If I live in an apartment...

with floor-to-ceiling windows, in a major metropolitan area, AND DON'T PULL THE CURTAINS, I don't HAVE a reasonable expectation of privacy. Plain and simple.

"It's one thing to be able to see into someones home when they don't have their curtains or blinds drawn. It is quite another to start snapping pictures of them."

No, it's not. Same thing, actually. Oh, and it's been a "fucking 'right'" for a long fucking time, buddy. It's the same right -- a right to free speech -- as used by the videographer at the Rodney King beating, and the photographers at Occupy Wall Street. Coincidentally, it's been a right more than 100 years longer than any gay rights (which is a complete travesty, but not really the point of this thread).

"We don't even know what pictures this guy took that were NOT put in the exhibit. That is the thing."

So? Nobody prints everything they have. If anything, he protected people's privacy by not showing anything "dirty" or "perverse"... or even identifiable. Not identifiable? We don't even know who's privacy he DIDN'T invade.

"I guess privacy really is dead."

Where in the constitution is there a right to privacy? Go ahead. I'll wait...

...give up? That's because, unlike a freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, it's not there. It's implied (and many judges don't think it exists at all), and as interpreted by courts, is quite limited.

Your medical records? Protected without a warrant. Your seat in a public bathroom? Protected. A building with huge windows, no drawn curtains and completely visible from public spaces? Not so much (and you can be arrested for indecent exposure, even). That same place, but with the curtains drawn? Protected.

[skypilot]

11. So his "right"...

...to take pictures (of whatever kind) of people in their homes trumps people's right to not be photographed in their homes (as opposed to on the streets)? I guess everyone should have the good sense to keep their curtains drawn at all times. If I keep my curtains open I don't expect to not be seen but I do expect to not be photographed. But it looks as though that just me.

[cstanleytech]

24. Its not that his rights trumps theirs its that.

they left the curtains open thus anyone could see into their home.
Of course it was rude of him to do but rudeness isnt a crime.

[skypilot]

26. I get that.

I really do. But I still thinks there's a difference between simply being able to see into someone's home and actually photographing them in their home without their knowledge or permission. There is a line there that I personally think he has crossed. I can see into the apartment in the building next to mine when they have the curtains open but it would never occur to me to sit there and photograph them. And if they had children it REALLY wouldn't occur to me. People keep their curtains open sometimes when they are at home. I think it's really a stretch to say that they are inviting anyone with a camera to photograph them if they choose not to keep their curtains closed. Who, except for eccentrics and shut-ins, keeps their curtains closed all the time? It kind of defeats the purpose of having windows to begin with.

[cstanleytech]

29. Problem is its in public view though and thus legal just like its legal to go to the beach

and shoot all the photos you want of people.
Now what I wonder is if they cant go after him criminally is if they can go after him in a civil court if hes trying to sell the works for money with their images you would think they would have a case in a civil court.

[skypilot]

31. In public view.

Public view. This is the crux of the matter for me. I don't think of someones living room or bedroom as a public space--in public view--the same way I think of the beach or the street as public space. I don't think that a set of curtains is the only thing that sets my living space apart from the world outside. To me the separation isn't that tenuous--or shouldn't be. The separation, to me, consists of the outside walls, the inside walls, the doors, the locks on the doors, the actual physical distance between my building and the buildings around me and the acknowledgement by others that those walls, those doors, those locks and that distance signifies something. It can't--or shouldn't-- all hinge on curtains.

[TeamPooka]

15. so now you are judging him on things "he might have done" maybe...

what is the starting salary in the Thought Police?

[skypilot]

20. I don't know.

What is the starting salary for Big Brother? Apparently, around $10,000 per image if you're this guy. And my judgement of him is more for what he HAS done not what he might have done. He HAS photographed these people in their homes and displayed those photographs. You don't have to be a member of the Thought Police to wonder what other images he might have of these people and their children.

I can't believe I have to have this argument on the same message board where people are so upset about the NSA. And this guy isn't collating phone numbers and email addresses, he is looking right into people's homes and photographing them.

[TeamPooka]

21. comparing an artist looking out his window to "big brother' proves you have lost a rational argumen

ignored

[skypilot]

23. Yeah, that's all he's doing...

..."looking out his window".

Ignore all you want.

[elleng]

6. Thanks, bobclark.

[skypilot]

3. This seems really fucked to me.

Aren't there any kind of "Peeping Tom" laws in New York?

On edit: By the way, this is the guy:



Is it just me or does he actually have kind of icky, pervy look to him?

[markpkessinger]

12. If your shades/curtains are open . . .

. . . and your activities are visible to the world through your window, then it's pretty hard to assert that you had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[skypilot]

14. It is one thing for your activities to be visible...

...it is quite another thing for them to be photographed. Why should people have to have their curtains/blinds drawn ALL THE TIME in order to be justified in saying that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Hell, lets just do away with windows altogether if by having them we are somehow tacitly giving permission to others to spy on and photograph us. If I can't have my windows uncovered and/or open to let in light and air without someone thinking that I'm fair game for their art project then I might as well live in a windowless box of a domicile with artificial light and vents for air.

If I don't have my windows covered I'm not surprised that someone might incidentally see into my home. I don't consider that a serious breach of my privacy. But some guy with a telephoto lens deliberately looking into my home (and probably for a prolonged period while he waits for a good shot) is another matter altogether. If someone stood outside on public sidewalk and aimed a camera with telephoto lens at your window or your children's window would you be fine with that? As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is less about this guy's First Amendment rights than it is about the fact that we now live in a world where people don't have the good sense, decency, and civility to not do this sort of thing.

[Alameda]

16. You can use sheer, lace or some type of curtain that obliterates visibility inside

......if you choose to keep your windows in a way that allows visibility from outside, you have given permission for whatever. IOW you have no expectation of privacy.

There are many photographers who have taken photographs through windows...look!

?5483e4
?5483e4
?5483e4

from here...http://www.tirzahphotography.com/2011/01/vivian-esther.html

[skypilot]

17. I have given permission...

...for "whatever"?!?!

Wow.

And none of those people in the photos you posted appear to be in their HOMES and the subjects in the first two seem to be well aware that they are being photographed. And do we know if that child is being photographed by a stranger or a relative? I think that's a relevent question in this day and age.

[Nye Bevan]

18. If you parade around in your NYC apartment with enormous windows, while the shades are open,

and another apartment building is right across the street, is it really fair to say that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

[skypilot]

19. Yes it is.

And these people aren't "parading around", they are living their lives and minding their own business. Which is what this photographer should be doing. And it doesn't matter if they are in NYC or a quiet suburb. These people aren't in street level apts where they should just expect that people are going to walk by,look in, and take their picture. And even if they were, there is still such a thing as common decency and consideration. Even in NY.

[X_Digger]

30. You're conflating what you think is considerate with what you think the law is. T'ain't so.

Legally, there is no expectation of privacy in your glass box with no curtains.

[skypilot]

32. I'm not conflating anything.

The law can be whatever the law is. Laws are often wrong. People here at DU discuss that fact all the time. But consideration still exists and people everyday manage to NOT photograph their neighbors in their homes without permission even if it is "legally" allowed. If there is no law against this kind of thing there should be. And it doesn't matter if your home is a glass box or made of bricks or wood or whatever. The thing that almost everyone in this thread--including you--seems to be focused on is curtains and whether those curtains are open or closed. This is a matter for people in non-glass box homes as well.

I really hope I'm wrong about this but I sense a bit of resentment towards people who can afford to live in NY apartments with floor to ceiling windows. There seems to be a kind of "Screw those people (and their privacy) in their glass box apartments if they're too stupid to close their curtains" attitude in this thread. And they aren't all living with "no curtains". In another post I included an excerpt from an article about this photog where he talks about lying in wait for the movement of a curtain so that he could photograph the occupant of that apartment. But I guess it really doesn't matter because people on this thread seem to think that even if you do have curtains you should know enough to keep them closed all the time. I've already posted about how silly I think that is.

[cstanleytech]

25. If he was trying to plant cameras on thier property and or inside their home

sure, plenty of laws in place to handle that but they left the curtains open so legally he is protected though its a pretty creepy thing to do.

[skypilot]

27. No, he isn't planting cameras on their property but...

...in my opinion he has done the next worse thing. This is how he describes what he does:

I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs. I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within

Yes, it most certainly is a creepy thing to do and I think that last part is telling. Watching for the "movement of a curtain". Sounds to me a though some of these people probably did have their curtains closed but this guy sat their "quietly waiting for hours" for someone to open theirs. As I've said in other posts, no one should be expected to keep their curtains closed at all times, no matter where they live or what kind of windows they have. My opening my curtains to let in some light is not an invitation for some guy in the shadows of his own home to photograph me in mine.


On edit: I'm not being sarcastic when I say thanks for at least admitting that it's pretty creepy. Most of the people in this thread sound as though they have NO problem with it whatsoever.

[cstanleytech]

28. Thanks, I always try to call it like I see it.

In this case its a creepy thing for him to do, legal..................but creepy nonetheless.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Close your shades. Problem solved (nt)

[PatrynXX]

10. suggest you watch Blue Thunder

maybe shades made of lead..

[PatrynXX]

9. well the Paparazzi are gonna take this and run with it you know

always been frowned on when they take photos of celebs while in house let alone on the grounds. oops it's totally legal...

[markpkessinger]

13. This is consistent with long-standing New York law regarding privacy

Privacy rights in New York are always contingent upon whether or not one has, in any given situation, a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' It's pretty tough to assert that there was any such 'reasonable expectation of privacy' for actions taken in front of an unshaded/uncurtained window, which are visible to any passersby.

[Festivito]

22. Rite of expression verses right of being secure.

Interesting fight.