If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsday)   Want to take pictures with a telephoto lens through your neighbors' windows without being arrested or labelled a "creep"? Be an artist and offer the pictures for sale   (newyork.newsday.com) divider line 147
    More: Interesting, Arne Svenson, exchange student, neighbors  
•       •       •

9709 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 1:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 01:09:38 PM  
First, I think what the guy did was not cool and not a little creepy.  Second, it was not, however, illegal.  Third, curtains, how do they work?  Fourth, damn I gotta start taking these kind of pictures so I can get paid.
 
2013-05-17 01:15:01 PM  
How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?
 
2013-05-17 01:15:07 PM  
It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.
 
2013-05-17 01:15:39 PM  
My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.
 
2013-05-17 01:18:10 PM  

mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?


Wut?
 
2013-05-17 01:18:57 PM  

fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.


I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.
 
2013-05-17 01:19:29 PM  

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


Nope.  Otherwise Paparazzi wouldn't exist.

/close your blinds if you don't want people looking at you naked.
//It's farking NYC, it's not like you can't see the other apartment building full of windows just 50 feet across the street from you.
 
2013-05-17 01:20:29 PM  

USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?


Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional
 
2013-05-17 01:21:04 PM  

mayIFark: I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.


Only if you close the shades.

I can take a photo of anything I can see from my own property or public property. I can sell it, and I can make  profit off it.

You have no expectation of privacy if you don't bother to close your blinds.
 
2013-05-17 01:21:41 PM  

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


... said no unidentifiable ever!

I understand the outrage and I'd be pissed too, but it's kind of hilarious reading about it.

If he did take the pictures in a manner which the individuals aren't identifiable as the article mentions, a lawsuit against him will be quite an uphill battle.  Perhaps as a group, but not individually.
 
2013-05-17 01:21:41 PM  
Not my neighbor!
 
2013-05-17 01:21:41 PM  

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


They would have to prove they are easily identifiable, they aren't
 
2013-05-17 01:25:09 PM  

chitownmike: wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

They would have to prove they are easily identifiable, they aren't


The artist and his location is known, it wouldn't take an inordinate amount of sleuthing to figure out the rest.
 
2013-05-17 01:25:31 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-17 01:27:44 PM  
Emo Phillips unavailable for comment.
 
2013-05-17 01:27:54 PM  

mayIFark: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.


Curtains exist for a reason. As long as something can be seen from public property it is legal.
Moral? Slimy.
But legal? Yes,
 
2013-05-17 01:29:23 PM  

USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?


Peeping Tom
Uncle Tom

Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?
 
2013-05-17 01:29:58 PM  

mayIFark: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

I could be wrong, but as long as I know, it is only legal to take a picture of someone without their consent, is at a place where they have no sense of privacy. Your bedroom is a place where someone expect to have privacy.


Yeah, but seriously, if you have floor-to-ceiling windows like the people who were photographed, do you really think you have privacy? I'm a community emergency responder, and during our city wide disaster training residents were instructed to put OK Signs on their windows/doors that are visible from the street so we know which houses to check for wounded. We would travel our neighborhoods looking through people's windows at night and you wont believe how many people don't farking close their curtains. From a public street I could see anything and everything, and if I wasn't wearing a reflective vest of carrying a high-powered flashlight I could totally be an invisible creep.

/Curtains, seriously!
//Don't care what you do in your home, but if I see stuff just from walking the street, then its your fault, not mine.
 
2013-05-17 01:30:00 PM  

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


It does raise one question - how do they get around the requirement for a model release? every stock photo featuring a person basically needs a model release, so why are jackass paparazzi exempted from that when they're selling the photos for ostensibly public use (for media outlets)? Is it some absurd free speech exemption?
 
2013-05-17 01:34:59 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Peeping Tom
Uncle Tom

Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?


Mmm, Tom Cruise? I think you're onto something.
 
2013-05-17 01:36:14 PM  

mayIFark: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional


So you mixed them by using a term that already means something. SMRT.
 
2013-05-17 01:42:18 PM  
The interior of your dwelling(including your yard in some cases) is considered a private space and taking photos/video is a violation of privacy laws.

/Some apartment buildings actually have bylaws to prevent the occupants from putting up window dressings that are more than just lace see thru curtains.
 
2013-05-17 01:42:51 PM  
This is why I never open my shades.
 
2013-05-17 01:47:14 PM  
Yeah, I guess it's legal but it still seems really slimy to a) not get their permission and b) sell a farking candid voyeur photo for $7,500 (less slimy and more head-scratching that people would pay that, just go to his street and take one yourself).
 
2013-05-17 01:49:03 PM  
i90.photobucket.com

If the choice was "rear" or "window" I'd shoot the rear.
 
2013-05-17 01:50:10 PM  
If your window is part of the view from your neighbors window. Don't expect privacy. Farking city people problems.
 
2013-05-17 01:50:16 PM  

Somaticasual: wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

It does raise one question - how do they get around the requirement for a model release? every stock photo featuring a person basically needs a model release, so why are jackass paparazzi exempted from that when they're selling the photos for ostensibly public use (for media outlets)? Is it some absurd free speech exemption?


Some of it has to do with private vs. public figures.  Michael Jordan isn't going to get away suing people for taking a photo of him walking on the street.

Also, there's a difference between selling a photo of a any person for art, vs. using the photo for a commercial venture.  The latter, the person could claim you're using the photo to say said person endorses the product.

Finally, even if its not illegal or would be thrown out in court... a simple model release covers your butt completely, so you never have to worry about a fight- even if you'd win the fight in the end.
 
2013-05-17 01:51:34 PM  
I think these are extremely cool.  I take photos of people in public every so often, and frankly, if you're leaving your windows open to the point where people can see in, you've got no right to expect privacy.

If you're selling as art or using the photos for educational or editorial purposes, you don't have to get anyone's permission to use their image, so long as the image was legally obtained.   It's only for advertising or commercial purposes that you need their permission.
 
2013-05-17 01:54:28 PM  

wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.


Somaticasual: wxboy: My biggest problem with this is that the guy is selling these photos presumably without giving a cut of the money to the subjects of the photos and without their consent.  I bet they could successfully sue him over that.

It does raise one question - how do they get around the requirement for a model release? every stock photo featuring a person basically needs a model release, so why are jackass paparazzi exempted from that when they're selling the photos for ostensibly public use (for media outlets)? Is it some absurd free speech exemption?


There is a lot of established case law on this. The courts have consistently ruled that photos taken of people in public places do not violate any right to privacy if the photos are artistic (loosely defined as the photographer having made deliberate choices about the composition, lighting, etc) and the purpose of the photos is not commercial (but you are allowed to produce a limited number and sell them for however much you want). See: Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. The same concept pretty much applies to individuals claiming that the pictures violate their right to publicity.

Paparazzi can do what they do because the photos are used for news purposes -- reporting on the activity of a public figure. It's technically no different then all of the photos constantly taken of Obama and other high ranking elected officials.

You only have to pay people/face a lawsuit if the purpose is clearly commercial, such as slapping the photos on T-shirts.
 
2013-05-17 01:55:54 PM  
Want privacy? Then don't live in NYC.
 
2013-05-17 01:56:32 PM  
Sweet guess this means I can take "art" pictures of my roomate coming out of the shower. No not really she would castrate me with a rusty knife.
 
2013-05-17 01:58:30 PM  

fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.


At least my understanding is that if a person can, with the unaided eye, see you from a public location, then you are considered "in public" even in your own home.

The use of a telephoto lens kinda kills the bit about the "unaided eye", as would ye olde binoculars. This is why thermal imaging techniques still require a warrant.
 
2013-05-17 02:03:21 PM  
I've lived in several places on the first or second floor with hard to reach windows. I didn't close my curtains. I always felt that if someone was going to go through the troubles of trying to see inside, they deserved to see something. :)
 
2013-05-17 02:03:34 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

At least my understanding is that if a person can, with the unaided eye, see you from a public location, then you are considered "in public" even in your own home.

The use of a telephoto lens kinda kills the bit about the "unaided eye", as would ye olde binoculars. This is why thermal imaging techniques still require a warrant.


If you weren't visible to the naked eye, a telephoto lens won't be able to see you.  That's the difference between a telephoto and thermal imaging.
 
2013-05-17 02:04:22 PM  
White People Problems.  residents of a luxury high rise should be able to pop for some curtains or blinds
 
2013-05-17 02:08:00 PM  

soosh: ArcadianRefugee: fluffy2097: It is100% entirely legal to take a photo through someones window from your own, or from public property.

This is why paparazzi exist. Because what this man did was legal.

At least my understanding is that if a person can, with the unaided eye, see you from a public location, then you are considered "in public" even in your own home.

The use of a telephoto lens kinda kills the bit about the "unaided eye", as would ye olde binoculars. This is why thermal imaging techniques still require a warrant.

If you weren't visible to the naked eye, a telephoto lens won't be able to see you.  That's the difference between a telephoto and thermal imaging.


Or so sayeth the Supreme Court.  Line of sight, even when you used mechanical aids that enhance the visible light spectrum, is "in plain view" and no warrant is needed.  The theory being if you want to keep something private all you have to do is pull the curtains.   Use of IR or other non-visible wavelength viewers on the other hand requires a warrant.  Similar rules for "eavesdropping"   what you can hear with the naked ear at the edge of the property is "plain hearing"   the minute you bust out any kinda microphone or hearing aid, you'd better have a warrant
 
2013-05-17 02:08:44 PM  
You have a peeping tom.
But don't worry.
tonight, when you undress, leave the curtains open, and we will trap him.
Signed~ the polise.
 
2013-05-17 02:09:31 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Peeping Tom
Uncle Tom

Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?


He hung out with those other two other ne'er-do-wells, Dick and Harry.
 
2013-05-17 02:10:04 PM  
Anything a person can see without trespassing, can be photographed legally. You don't want to get in the picture, don't be in the public. If a photo's subject is you, then you have to sign a release for use, but If it's a crowd shot and you're at the front of the crowd, you have no more rights than the streetlamp.

If you're that paranoid, develop some situational awareness, in this case...curtains
 
2013-05-17 02:10:11 PM  
Mr. Rogers was not only singing about his neighbors.
 
2013-05-17 02:11:06 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Peeping Tom
Uncle Tom

Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?


"Peeping Tom" was the only guy who didn;t turn his back when Lady Godiva made her famous naked ride (and was blinded for that IIRC)

"Uncle Tom" was the titular character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel about slavery
 
2013-05-17 02:11:49 PM  
What he's done here is taken something as juvenile as a "People Of Wal*Mart" Tumblr and claim it's Art.

He's probably only the thirtieth person that month to bundle up a collection of random, no-point-of-view snapshots and put them up in a gallery. Gee, and his teacher in art school gave him a B+ and told him the series was "inspiring" and everything!
 
2013-05-17 02:13:09 PM  

vudukungfu: You have a peeping tom.
But don't worry.
tonight, when you undress, leave the curtains open, and we will trap him.
Signed~ the polise.


So crazy it just might work.
 
2013-05-17 02:14:00 PM  
*forlornly stares at mound of Polaroids; scratches chin*
 
2013-05-17 02:15:12 PM  
No one is ever allowed to take a photo of you without your written permission.  Don't even try to argue with me.  My Dad's a lawyer.
 
2013-05-17 02:15:27 PM  

fluffy2097: You have no expectation of privacy if you don't bother to close your blinds.


But have a heart. It sounds like this idiot was spending all day, every day, looking for something,  anything interesting. When you drop something and it rolls under the couch and you're about to drop to your hands and knees to go get it, are you expected to think "Oh, wait...I was enjoying the late-afternoon sun here in the living room and it's possible that my fully-clothed behind will be facing the window. What if some perv with a 1000mm lens is peeping at this window at this exact moment?"
 
2013-05-17 02:17:05 PM  
One of my favorite local peeping tom stories... at least he doesn't have to squint to see through the blinds anymore.
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/455124/clifford-davis/2012-10-1 6/ jacksonville-father-catches-peeping-tom-police-say
 
2013-05-17 02:18:39 PM  
brucemctague.com
 
2013-05-17 02:20:23 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Who the fark was this Tom guy, and what did he do to for his name to be used as an insult? Seriously, who was "Tom"?


It's from Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe.  The titular slave was faithful to his owners, although even by hamfisted literary standards it's pretty reductionist.
 
2013-05-17 02:20:23 PM  

mayIFark: USCLaw2010: mayIFark: How about being labeled as Uncle Tom?

Wut?

Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional


Peeing tom?  Like a cat taking a piss??
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report