...and we don't know that those images weren't captured and were not saved either.
"Voyeur" Photographer Lawsuit
- Thread starter ohkphoto
- Start date
...and we don't know that those images weren't captured and were not saved either.
I guess it all boils down to where a reasonable expectation of privacy begins and end. Take the example the telephone. You cannot place a tap on a persons phone without a court order as a person making the call has a reasonable expectation of privacy. But then what about those people who talk on their phones while walking around in a public area like a mall or while standing in line at a grocery store? Do they have a reasonable expectation to privacy if they're speaking loudly in a public place? The answer is no, they have lost any expectation of privacy by not taking reasonable measures to insure that privacy. I would argue the same dynamic applies here. Does a person standing in front of an open window have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Again the answer is no, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you can be seen from a public place. However, this is only US law, other countries, like France for instance, have a very different take on what is and what isn't considered privacy.
That may be law. However 4 years ago while in Hawaii i noticed a fellow with a camera and 70-200 lens. He was shoot the people surfing from the beach in front of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel all cool no worries. Then he turned his lens on the women suntanning on the beach. All of a sudden there was a scuffle with the photographer & some big guy whom beat the crap out the photographer threw the camera in the sand kicked him & the camera several time in which the lens detached or broke off the camera. This all happen in a matter of minutes, the assailant was restrained by a couple of guys until he settled down, then him & his girlfriend left(blonde with g-string bikini) photographer was left with a broken nose & camera. The camera was a Canon of some sort with a white 70-200 lens. No Police was ever called.
The fact that it is legal is obvious at least in NY anyway. I don't think the telephone tap comparison is a fair one since the person is not in his/her residence, and expecting privacy in a crowd is not logical. Though I think it still would be illegal to tap his phone even if he is talking on it in public. I think you'd have to be satisfied to hear just one side of the conversation unless it was on speaker phone.
What is right and wrong , and what is legal and not legal can be two different things. Being legal does not make it right. At one time installing hidden cameras in an apartment to watch the tenant in their most private moments like the bathroom and bedroom without the tenant knowing wasn't illegal. And there still maybe some places where it's still legal to do it.
So the legality of it doesn't mean it's right.
I look at this case as a learning tool. The law does not always protect the victim and it's up to us to try and use preventive measures to save our families from similar incidents, when we hear of such things like this. The expectation of privacy is just that. We expect our homes to be private, and now we know it's not always the case legally.
What is right and wrong , and what is legal and not legal can be two different things. Being legal does not make it right. At one time installing hidden cameras in an apartment to watch the tenant in their most private moments like the bathroom and bedroom without the tenant knowing wasn't illegal. And there still maybe some places where it's still legal to do it.
So the legality of it doesn't mean it's right.
I look at this case as a learning tool. The law does not always protect the victim and it's up to us to try and use preventive measures to save our families from similar incidents, when we hear of such things like this. The expectation of privacy is just that. We expect our homes to be private, and now we know it's not always the case legally.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
North Carolina Law clearly states that... "It is far better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."
Okay, thats kinda paraphrased. Okay, okay that ain't the law. The law does not protect anyone that can't afford a million dollar lawyer.
In that case, we have to take care of our problems by ourselves. Thats just the way it is.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
I know I ain't Bill.
Hypothetical answer. You remove the "offending member" from the window.
The "offending member" is entirely up to you.
"Offending member"....no pun intended, right?
I guess my point was to illustrate that simply because you are in your house but can still be seen from a public place does not automatically mean you have an inherent right to privacy. There has to be a modicum of effort made to insure your privacy beyond simply walking through your door and I think that is the reason for our laws.
Of course not! Nor should it be allowed for a guy to take photos of little kids without the parents permission!
If someone is purposely standing at the window trying to be seen, is not the same as someone just going through their daily life, while letting a little sun in on a nice day.I understood your point of view, I just don't believe taking candid pictures of people in their own homes without their knowledge or consent, when they aren't braking the law is right.
If someone is purposely standing at the window trying to be seen, is not the same as someone just going through their daily life, while letting a little sun in on a nice day.I understood your point of view, I just don't believe taking candid pictures of people in their own homes without their knowledge or consent, when they aren't braking the law is right.
ohkphoto
Snow White
For those of you who may not know, Pete and I joined Nikonites within a minute of each other and we've grown to be wonderful friends. We are a prime example of two people being on opposite sides of the fence and still loving each other. But he always has valid points and so helps me clarify my own stance on issues.
1. I think that the first statement in bold is a moot point. We all do this as photographers. Do we show EVERY shot of the bride? How do they know we did or did not delete the ones where the boogers in her nose are visible or too much cleavage is showing?
2. The second statement in bold depends on whether and when photography is defined as "art".
As a photographer, I personally try to respect the rights and privacy of others. If I lived in the city and this were my project, I would have posted a notice in the lobby of the apartment buildings letting residents know that between certain hours I would be photographing "neighbors' windows" and if they did not want to be part of the art project, to draw their blinds during these hours on these specific days. I would post the links to my portfolio so they could see that my work was legitimate. I would also state what would be off-limits. But that would be in an ideal world. Who knows what the situation was or could have been. There are sub-atomic particles that change behavior solely because they were observed. As photographers we know that some of our best shots of people are those taken at unexpected moments. Had he done things with advance notice, he most likely would have ended up with a very different project. The neighbors might still have been unhappy and he might still have been sued or been tied up in "injunction related" battles. By doing the "right thing" he might have opened up a whole different can of worms, and the adage, "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" can be applied here.
9/11 forever changed this country. We lost much of our openness and "innocence", and gave up a lot of our privacy for the sake of national security. Yes, there are bad people in the world. But not every photographer who points the camera at a child or beautiful woman is a child molester or pornographer. It's sad that we have to feel that we need to come from a place of such fear and suspicion.
So I do support this photographer because I believe that photography can be art, and I believe in artistic freedom. If someone had been harmed, I would feel differently. But as I see it, this is just a photographer who "documented" the life of "faceless" neighbors in his community. I don't see him as a "pervert" with a stash of pornography in his portfolio. But, I tend to be an optimist and give people the benefit of doubt until they prove me otherwise.
While I agree with your belief that you should not be allowed to take photos of little kids, the law is very clear on this. You can take as many photos of little kids in a public area as you want because such activity is legal. Whether or not this is "right" or "wrong" is clearly a philosophical question that is beyond our current set of laws. However, whenever you can be seen from a public place, whether it's at a park or in your front room, you can be legally photographed.
As for my example of the man in the window, the answer is no. He would be arrested because just like the woman taking photos of people in their houses, the man at the window is considered to be "in public" because he can be seen from a public place and thus cannot be protected by a claim he was doing this activity in the privacy of his own home. Unfortunately, the knife cuts both ways.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
!! TRICK QUESTION ALERT !!
There's no such thing as "too much" cleavage!
Oh, and where do I go to claim my prize?
....
That is why I stated that being legal doesn't always mean the same as what is right. And it was the reason I spoke about preventive measures to help protect yourself and family. Because not every photographer takes photos for the same reasons, and the end result could possibly become tragic.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
Stand in a window across the street from that pervert artist and he'll make you an exhibit!
This example is a bit different in that it bridges into child pornography, assuming the example is of them changing their clothes. So in this case it moves from art to criminal very quickly.
Personally I think the judge got it WAY wrong on this one. People DO have a right and an expectation of privacy in their own homes, without some perv with a long lens taking photos of them in potentially embarrasing or compromising situations and without their knowledge in the interest of "art". If you are walking down a public street or are in a public space, you really cannot really have an expectation of privacy but in your own home you most certainly should have. Now the photo in the article shows a man sleeping on his couch with his face completely obscured, not a big deal, but what about (as an example) a woman in her bedroom who has removed her clothes in the process of getting ready for bed and has forgotten to draw the curtains? That is an egregious violation of her privacy. Should she be penailzed or humiliated because she forgot to close her curtains one night and some perve with a long lens happens to see it and snap some photos? That is not art, at least not in my opinion at least.
If you ask me the photographer is a creep and probably has a more than few emotional issues. People like that give the rest of us a bad name.
If you ask me the photographer is a creep and probably has a more than few emotional issues. People like that give the rest of us a bad name.
Last edited:
That's the problem, too many grey areas, hence protected class.
That's a problem with the definition of art being a very subjective matter. While the legal ruling on this issue is clear, it doesn't offer any solace to those who believe photography of an individual without permission is contemporary voyeurism without genital exposure. Few serious street photographers who specialize in faces and other candid night shots not possible with long lenses have gone without serious confrontation, sometimes physical attacks, for that lack of permission.