"Voyeur" Photographer Lawsuit

Kodiak

Senior Member

Hello everyone,

I was a moderator in an other forum when this "scandal" saw daylight!

EVERYBODY on that forum was unanimously taking the position to sue the creep!

I was the only voice in his favour! Here is the integral article I wrote on that form:

*
Hi everyone,

"As a professional photographer, I find the series positively… refreshing!"

Photographer Arne Svenson is doing what everyone of us is doing, he is looking
at the world. The world around him.

Everything we look at, we do not see! Because we like to see, because we like to
capture, because we like to share, we have developed (or wish to) a more acute
sense for beauty, colours, shapes, nature, people, drama etc. He, like all of us,
wishes to see, experience, and share his world.

Svenson:
" The area has gone through many changes, and I watched the building
across the way built from the ground up. Made entirely of glass and steel, it offers
residents views of the neighbourhood -- and neighbours and passersby views into
the apartments. (sic)

"As people filled the empty units, I was intrigued not only by the implied stories within
the frame of the glass but also by the play of light upon the subjects, the shadows,
the framing of the structure. I don't photograph anything salacious or demeaning
-- instead I record the turn of the head, the graceful arc of a hand, the human form
obscured by drapery." (sic)

"I am not photographing the residents as specific, identifiable individuals, but as
representations of humankind. In fact, I take great care in not revealing their identity;
the strength of the imagery comes from us seeing ourselves in the anonymous figures
of "The Neighbours." (sic)


Of the ten pictures shown in the following link to CNN's website…


Opinion: 'Neighbors': Both anonymous and intimate - CNN.com

four of them I consider to be great. The photos I like best are 4, 6, 8, and 9.
The other six fit with the rest of the work but they don't reach me as much.

This is as subjective as any other position in regard of the work.

For many of us photographers, a frame is the final version of a shot. Some of the
forum members even post framed shots! He doesn't have to bother with that: all his pictures
are framed upon the take… a window frame!

I do not wish to extend my post into the "right or wrong doing" of this work of his, simply
because I am not American, and believe that this discussion about "right or wrong doing"
should remain among the Americans. On the other hand, this is a photography forum, so
I feel that the topic is a good one.

Yours,

Kodiak
 
Last edited:

Moab Man

Senior Member
Thanks for posting the follow-up. I think it is the right decision. You don't want people looking in a window then draw the curtains.
 

carguy

Senior Member
I find this outcome disturbing. These people were clearly in their private residence, not in a park or on a public street. The photographer was selling the images thus using them for commercial purposes. The fight would be far from over if that was my child being featured in an exhibit while photographed through the windows of my home.

Not liking this one at all.
 
Last edited:

Bill16

Senior Member
I found this disturbing and I think the judgment allowing this type of invasion of privacy sets a dangerous precedent. There were children involved which make this much worse in my opinion. Would any of us approve of someone taking photos of us without our knowledge in our own home through the windows,crack in the curtains, or a skylight? Where do you draw the line? Do you you think the using it as art makes it OK?
I don't believe it's right, and I think it's sad that NY law allows this type of invasion of privacy. But this is just my own opinion.
 

ohkphoto

Snow White
I find this outcome disturbing. These people were clearly in their private residence, not in a park or on a public street. They photographer was/is selling the images thus using them for commercial purposes. The fight would be far from over if that was my child being featured in an exhibit while photographed through the windows of my home.

Not liking this one at all.

The only ones recognizable were the children, and he removed those images and agreed to not have them as part of the exhibit.

In today's world of cell cameras, I would bet that there's more than one "unauthorized" photo of you and/or your children somewhere "out there".

As far as their being in their "private residence", it doesn't matter. The law is clear that as long as the photographer is in a public place (or his own residence) he doesn't need the subject's permission, and it is legal. May not be ethical, but legal, yes.

When you live in a house or apartment with large windows, you set your self up for "voyeurism", whether it's a photographer or a "peeping tom". Curtains were made for a reason . . . I draw mine at night, and I live out in the middle of nowhere . . . but then I'm afraid of things that go "bump in the night."
 
I think it would have been a different story if had been peeping through a window in an alley but he was in a different building in his own apartment. The people that were having their pictures were aware that the curtains were open and they could be seen. Close your curtains if you do not want to be seen.

Yes I do think it is a bit creepy that he was taking pictures and it would have been better if he had picked a different subject but it was not against the law.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
The fight would be far from over if that was my child being featured in an exhibit while photographed through the windows of my home.

Not sure what more you could do or where you think this would/could go. To me I see this similar to criminal activity being done in the front room of a home with the curtains open. Legally it has been upheld time and again that if you're doing it (criminal activity) where the public can see (standing on the sidewalk or on the street) then you have no privacy and police can act on it. However, if I entered your property and was peeking in through and around your curtains then I am invading your privacy and trespassing. And if you have your curtains drawn then you should have a right and sense of privacy. But like the criminal act scenario above, you have no privacy when you're standing in plain view of the public or living in a fishbowl which these people chose to do and every apartment did have blinds they could draw.

Personally, I too would not be happy about the child picture even though I don't believe there is anything you can do per the child was in plain view of the public. Myself, I would not have used the photo of a child where the location is identified or identifiable as it was in this collection.

 
Last edited:

ohkphoto

Snow White
Kodiak, thank you for posting the link to Svenson's photographs, and I agree with the points you made in your article. I see his series simply as a depiction of life in his neighborhood, and the images are tastefully artistic.
 

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
I have to admit that I would NOT have sued this guy. The court seems to be of the opinion that he had a right to practice his art.
I believe I have the right to rip the head off of any pervert and take a dump down the hole.
But thats just me.
He's lucky I'm NOT his neighbor.
JMTCW

​Pete
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
Looked through the collection, I really liked them. And with the exception of the identifiable children, I think he did it right. The photos are best without a face.
 

Kodiak

Senior Member
Kodiak, … I agree with the points you made in your article. I see his series simply as a depiction of life in his neighborhood, and the images are tastefully artistic.

Very happy there are still common grounds!

Have a good day…

PS, Could you please find a way to remove that
stupid and insulting spam award!

If I contribute too much, I may reduce my contributions
or stop them altogether…

Who has such a brain to ever think that anyone
would appreciate this king of award!

I thank you in advance!
 
Last edited:

ohkphoto

Snow White
Before any of you start labeling him as a "pervert", please take a look at the link to his exhibition images which Kodiak posted, and I'll post here again because I know not everybody reads the posts from the beginning: Opinion: 'Neighbors': Both anonymous and intimate - CNN.com

Also, the term "voyeur" is in quotes so it means it's not to be taken literally.

It's easy to find "appropriate" subjects to photograph when you live in the wilds of New Mexico or Montana, or the "jungles" of Florida, but in an urban jungle like New York? And he describes his reason very clearly and they're based on an artistic vision. How fascinating all those windows have to be . . . and why is it "OK" to set up a scope in your apartment so that you can "people watch" into other's windows? And you know that is common practice.
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
I have no clue about the legality, so no comments on that..
but i think the pics are actually great..
very creative & have the touch of art to them..

if it weren't for the controversy, am sure people would've looked at these images differently & would probably love it too
 
I wonder how many of the people that complained about his photography have changed their habit of leaving the curtains open?

Also I noticed that in none of the photos were any of the subjects in any kind of embarrassing or compromising situations. You know he had to have had many chances for those types of photos.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I just looked at the photos and frankly I'm a little surprised that these rather uneventful images caused any problems. Hearing all the hubbub I expected something a bit more scandalous or at least slightly salacious. I can't help but feel a little Shakespearean and say this is "much ado about nothing"
 
Last edited:

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
As I am the only person that called this artist a pervert, I'll take Helene's comment as partially directed at me. I checked out the link and I'll admit that the posted images were tastefully done.
How-ever, my opinion has not changed. Does anyone here think that he only took one image of each window? Or did he take an extensive series so he could choose from among a large lot for his art project?
Now his "neighbors" no longer can enjoy the nightime view of their city because this perv is probably spying on them.
This person collects images of people without their knowledge or consent and calls it art.
To me, it's an invasion of privacy.
As photographers we are taught to respect the rights of others and to leave only footprints behind.
This guy is leaving others privacy shattered.
BWTHDIK?

​Pete
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I guess the statement is right about closing your curtains and making sure they can't be seen through if back lighted. I just think it's sad that that is what you have to do to protect yourself and family from have your private moments shared through photos publicly without your consent. And I would say nobodys privacy in their home is safe unless all view from outside is blocked.
It isn't this one artist that is so disturbing, it's the saying it's OK to do this, to anyone with a camera. Who knows what motives the next guy may have who is taking candid shots through your window. His or her shots may not be for art...........
But thank you Helene for sharing this news with us! I never new this was legal to do. I guess I should look into NC laws on this subject.
 

carguy

Senior Member
As I am the only person that called this artist a pervert, I'll take Helene's comment as partially directed at me. I checked out the link and I'll admit that the posted images were tastefully done.
How-ever, my opinion has not changed. Does anyone here think that he only took one image of each window? Or did he take an extensive series so he could choose from among a large lot for his art project?
Now his "neighbors" no longer can enjoy the nightime view of their city because this perv is probably spying on them.
This person collects images of people without their knowledge or consent and calls it art.
To me, it's an invasion of privacy.
As photographers we are taught to respect the rights of others and to leave only footprints behind.
This guy is leaving others privacy shattered.
BWTHDIK?

​Pete

I agree Pete. There is much more here. While people should keep their curtains and blinds drawn, there is an expected level of privacy expected. Taking images through their windows, putting them on public display and selling them in the name of 'art' is not right in my opinion.

This is not the same as a passerby happening to look in the direction of the window and catching a glimpse of someone sleeping on a couch or a child playing at a table. There was intent here.

This is an intentional invasion of privacy to me thinly guised as 'art'.
 
Top