Photos of New York family taken through their window is protected art, judge rules

‘Art is considered free speech and is therefore protected by the First Amendment,’ Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eilee Rakower found. She said it was within Arne Svenson’s artistic rights to promote his show by sharing with the media some of his photos of Martha and Matthew Foster and their children — which were taken without their permission.

http://www.nydailynews​.com …t-judge-article-1.1421959

Dang....our rights as American citizens has won again.

Yes, the right to privacy in one's home is clearly less important than 'art'. Guess if we want privacy we should all buy blackout curtains and some active IR screening?

Luckless wrote in post #16193556
Yes, the right to privacy in one's home is clearly less important than 'art'. Guess if we want privacy we should all buy blackout curtains and some active IR screening?

If you are easily visible from a public spot, and the possibility of being photographed bothers you, then you better get those drapes.

It's nice to know that (occasionally) the courts are still capable of generating decisions based on common sense and the law.

mbellot wrote in post #16193717
If you are easily visible from a public spot, and the possibility of being photographed bothers you, then you better get those drapes.

It's nice to know that (occasionally) the courts are still capable of generating decisions based on common sense and the law.

But they weren't easily visible. They were several floors up and (it is my understanding that) he had to use a telephoto lens to get the shots.

mbellot wrote in post #16193717
If you are easily visible from a public spot, and the possibility of being photographed bothers you, then you better get those drapes.

It's nice to know that (occasionally) the courts are still capable of generating decisions based on common sense and the law.

And when photographers are using telephoto lenses and carefully lining things up to shoot through a small gap in the drapery?

On your front yard with no fence or privacy hedge? Sure, I'm willing to accept that as fair game. Inside the home itself? Expectation of privacy should trump 'freedom of expression' of someone outside. Maybe they were not aware of just how much can be seen from some angles.

Should I be able to use the excuse of "easily visible" to shoot under or over a bathroom stall/changing room door? I do a lot of my photography while low to the ground, and it is nearly a signature of a lot of the shots players love the most, and many of those doors don't provide a whole lot of privacy...

*edit* I could call the exhibit "Angry faces of pooping: The total violation of human dignity in public restrooms". I'm sure it would be a huge hit in some parts of the art community.

Taking paparazzi to a new lower level in the name of "art". If he had been caught in the act, he would have been arrested for peeping, but somehow displaying the result of his misdemeanor act is now art. Amazing.
Perhaps his next masterpiece will be "The Judiciary In The Bathtub".

i'm just glad they chose to use a picture of a Nikon for the story.



Though I realize that the doctrine as it is in the constitution relates to privacy from the gov't, put me on the side of right to privacy in your own home, regardless of the situation.

i bet this gets overturned in a higher court.

Luckless wrote in post #16193556
Yes, the right to privacy in one's home is clearly less important than 'art'. Guess if we want privacy we should all buy blackout curtains and some active IR screening?

Exactly, pull the shades. I think anything that can be seen from a public space is fair game. I don't like the images or the photographers approach but he clearly has the right to do it. You want privacy, close the blinds.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16194244
Exactly, pull the shades. I think anything that can be seen from a public space is fair game. I don't like the images or the photographers approach but he clearly has the right to do it. You want privacy, close the blinds.

So you feel that your right to privacy does not exist if I can put find a way to see you as long as I do not enter the space or move stuff?

No problem what so ever with me standing on a ladder and taking photos of you in a changing room or bathroom stall? It is your own fault for not making sure all gaps and holes were completely covered?

If you want privacy close your blinds. Changing rooms can rarely be seen from public property. If you are or can be seen from a public street under the law you are fair game in the US. Bathrooms, locker rooms are also considered private areas even in public spaces so thus no worries there. And you know that is not what this case or this conversation is about. If you are on the public street or you have no drapes on your window and can be seen from a public street then in the US you are fair game.

Yeah, this is good, it's a sign that photographers rights aren't being sacrificed. I don't like the pictures or the approach but that's beyond the point. Any photograph taken on a street has the possibility of someone being visible through a window, its no different then this really, except that the photographer in this case was focusing only on the people inside their homes. I've seen other images where someone in a window was a main part of the picture, but done in much better taste.

In my art I use sophisticated remote sound-recording devices.

If you don't want me to record and pass along to the public every sound made and every word spoken by you and your family, friends, and coworkers, you need to soundproof your homes and offices.

Right; it might appear intrusive and depraved, but on the other hand, if you have your shades open, you are, for all practical intent, sitting in your front yard; that's the reality.

Look at it this way, if you are in your yard flashing children, should you be detained? I would hope. OK, how about if you are indoors but doing so behind a plate of glass? Could such an act, by law, be considered lewd or public indecency if anyone passing by could clearly see your perverse transgressions?

And yes, just because you are "way up" in a building doesn't shield you, since never mind telephoto lenses, the number of city dwellers who possess telescopes is considerable enough to warrant consideration in regards to keeping the blinds open or closed.

The photos in question, by the way, are actually pretty good, at least some of them are, in terms of composition and such. They aren't throw away paparazzi snaps.

I understand and support the "visible from a public space" argument, but I wonder if these images could actually have been taken by the public. The photographer was shooting from his own apartment across the street, which isn't open to the public. Would it sway people one way or the other if there was definitely a public access that could have permitted these photos, or if there was definitely no way the public could have reproduced them?