Has the privacy line been crossed?

NY photographer feels that whatever he can see from his window is fair game? Even inside the private apartments of the neighbors?

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …prints-7-500-dollars.html

I think it is invasive, yes. People in big cities (and often in little towns) have to live on top of each other, so it can be difficult to find enough distance to stay away from all windows or open areas and keep your life private. When someone is in a private home, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photographers should respect that.

saw this on reddit this morning. i think he did violate privacy, i'm pretty sure this may even borderline voyeourism (sp)

Phrasikleia wrote in post #15941098
I think it is invasive, yes. People in big cities (and often in little towns) have to live on top of each other, so it can be difficult to find enough distance to stay away from all windows or open areas and keep your life private. When someone is in a private home, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photographers should respect that.

Kinda what I think. By not showing faces, the photog claims they are not identifiable, but I don't think that is the point. Shooting from a public street may even be different that shooting from his own apartment accross the street.

I can only assume that the prints that fetch $7500 are better than the ones in the article.

Honestly, the attitude of these "artists" really chafes me. They just feel like they should be able to take whatever they want and no-one can do anything about it. Whether it's spying on people in their homes, or simply reproducing wholesale someones images they just feel they should be able to get away with it because it's "art". I'm willing to bet this guy would be singing a different tune if it were pictures of him in his apartment hanging in a gallery.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15941210
I'm willing to bet this guy would be singing a different tune if it were pictures of him in his apartment hanging in a gallery.

I agree with you Scatter . . .

Pretty sure "reasonable expectation of privacy" is the key phrase here.

If the residents had been walking around naked, could they have been cited for indecent exposure?

Does one really expect privacy when all the windows and curtains are open?

Phrasikleia wrote in post #15941098
I think it is invasive, yes. People in big cities (and often in little towns) have to live on top of each other, so it can be difficult to find enough distance to stay away from all windows or open areas and keep your life private. When someone is in a private home, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and photographers should respect that.

^^^

who the hell would pay $7500 for one of those??

And secondly how can I contact them to see if they are interested in purchasing some of my mediocre crap.

The thing is, do you really have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you do things in front of an open window? Heck you can be prosecuted if police or others see you doing criminal things through your window. It's called "plain view".

If I don't want people seeing what I am doing in my house I pull the drapes.

thebishopp wrote in post #15941278
The thing is, do you really have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you do things in front of an open window? Heck you can be prosecuted if police or others see you doing criminal things through your window. It's called "plain view".

If I don't want people seeing what I am doing in my house I pull the drapes.

These people aren't exactly on the ground floor, and the photographer had to use a supertele to be able to see them. Not exactly the same as standing naked in your front entryway.

This brings back memories of the paparazzo who got shots of janet jackson sunbathing naked in her backyard, through the slots in her fence, from across the valley.

Having a tower block overlook my flat we tend to keep our curtains closed, not in case a photographer wants to take some shots, but because the block is full of nutters

From the other side of my house I have a view all the way towards the Campsie fells over the West End of Glasgow. I have taken some shots showing the University tower, and in the bottom third there are blocks of flats with livingroom windows facing me. I try to make sure that in the shots I post there are no people showing. Just common courtesy as I'd hate to be in a shot scratching my ass or picking my nose and then being displayed on a print somewhere, so I wouldn't do it to someone else.

Street photography is different as we are in public when we are outside. I do find the guy in the article's shots invasive though, as people in their own homes should be able to do what they want with an expectation of privacy.

I am a big fan of leaving my drapes open. Not a huge issue way out here in the country. Definitely close them if changing clothes or any other private activities are happening.

That said, I would be furious if someone was photographing me, but really livid if they then sold those photos without my permission. It's one thing for someone to notice you in your window as they go about their business. It's a very different thing for them to train the super-tele lens on you and snap away.

I do candids of folks on the street or in public venues. Someone inside their home is in a personally private setting, so for me, that would be off limits. Beside this, it might be potentially illegal, as we'll find out.

What the photographer will have on his side, at least legally, is that there are apparently no recognizable faces, and this could complicate the case in his favor. Not sure.

Just a side note, and by no means a vindication of the photographer's act, but really, I don't care how many floors up one lives in a city; you leave the shades or curtains open, you are likely doing so fully aware that voyeurs with telescopes or binoculars in other nearby buildings might be checking you out. That's urban living.

To end up in an art gallery, though, that would be understandably surprising.