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  
•       •       •

9700 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 02:22:08 PM
Artist is just another name for asshole most time and this is one of those times.
 
2013-05-17 02:22:17 PM
If I found that somebody had done that to me I'd beat them with a tire iron so that they'd think they were on an adventure.
 
2013-05-17 02:22:24 PM

Rotter: 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?"


If I saw my ass hanging in an art gallery, or better yet, a shot of my junk. I think I'd pull something laughing.

It's not like anyone knows it's me but me. They just know my junk, because my wiener is so awesome it now hangs in an art gallery.
 
2013-05-17 02:23:06 PM
I don't personally agree with what this guy did.  Yep, it's not illegal, but it just doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do.  However, you can bet money that many thousands of people are also using telephoto lenses to snoop through other people's windows.  They just aren't selling the photo's.  It's pretty cheap to get a camera/lens combo that can see a real good distance, if you aren't worried about absolute top quality.  I'm sure plenty of pervs are happy to lay down $400-$500 so that they can watch their neighbours undressing.

The lesson really is, be aware of who might be able to see in your window if you don't want to be watched.
 
2013-05-17 02:23:43 PM
Came for the Hitchcock reference. Leaving happy
 
2013-05-17 02:23:59 PM
God, what a chat-up line.

"My dick has been considered a work of art by NYC's MOMA"
 
2013-05-17 02:24:43 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.


There's precedent that if you can be seen out your window, there is no expectation of privacy. If, however, he somehow parted curtains to take pictures, then yes, bad.
 
2013-05-17 02:25:25 PM
Just call Homeland Security. Cameras are terrorism tools.
 
2013-05-17 02:25:48 PM
This right here is why I live in the sticks.
 
2013-05-17 02:26:53 PM

namegoeshere: This right here is why I live in the sticks.



It's quieter in the country anyway, and you can see the stars.
 
2013-05-17 02:26:56 PM
A true artist does his art for himself.
 
2013-05-17 02:30:43 PM

hammettman: [i90.photobucket.com image 500x342]

If the choice was "rear" or "window" I'd shoot the rear.


I'd shoot it IN the rear.
 
2013-05-17 02:31:25 PM

ng2810: 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.


I think the big issue here is that he used a telephoto lens. The reasonable expectation of privacy is based on what people, not technology, can see.

For example
You have a six foot opaque fence around your backyard. Someone walks up to the edge of your fence and uses a camera mounted on a pole to take pictures of your children playing in the backyard.
You're wearing a sheer dress, and someone uses a thermal camera to effectively get a picture of you in your underwear.
You close your curtains, but there's a tiny gap on the edge. Someone uses  a telephoto lens from just the right angle to film you in your room.
If you're shouting a conversation in your house, there isn't a reasonable expectation that other people won't hear. What if I have a surveillance van across the street and I pick up the whispers between you and your lover using a sensitive microphone? I'm detecting the conversation from a public road, does this still count?

When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.
 
2013-05-17 02:32:55 PM

soosh: 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.


I take pictures of bird habitat and behavior, and never take pictures of humans.

I get harassed by people every other day or so when the see me pointing a camera at the top of a tree in their yard. With DHS warnings of terrorists and kiddie pornographer paranoia, I attract more attention with a 35mm than I would walking down the street with a decked out semi-auto rifle.

Here's the deal -- You do not own the light that bounces off of you or your property into a public space. Using the light to excite a CCD or cause a chemical reaction with film is not a tort. If you don't want light bouncing off of you into a camera lens, put something between yourself and the camera.
 
2013-05-17 02:33:43 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.


fluffy2097: 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.


rlv.zcache.com
Found your shirt, Fluffy.

Under the tort of invasion of privacy, sometimes called "intrusion upon seclusion",  "one who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

In most jurisdictions, you can be liable for invasion of privacy if you take a photo through someone's window using a telephoto lens or similar equipment, even from a public sidewalk.
 
2013-05-17 02:34:33 PM
However,
It's ileagal to be Naked and Aroused in you living room with the curtains open.  You can't use "if you don't like it don't look"  as an excuse.

/don't really know if that's true or not.
 
2013-05-17 02:36:37 PM

Securitywyrm: When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.


No it didn't. It just increased the resolution.
 
2013-05-17 02:41:29 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.

No it didn't. It just increased the resolution.


From Webb v. CBS:
Using a telephoto lens, a videotape was then shot from neighbor Tracy Reardon's home depicting the
Webbs, Stebic, Jacobson, and some children in their bathing suits around the Stebic's backyard
pool, which was allegedly surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence.
... we find that the plaintiffs allegations that they were swimming in the backyard pool of a private home surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence are sufficient to allege both that they believed they were in a secluded place and that the activity was private. Finally, we hold that a reasonable person could find that a television cameraman using a telephoto lens to videotape the Webbs and their children in their bathing suits around a private backyard pool to be highly offensive. Accordingly, we find that the Webbs have properly stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.


Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. For example, there's a New York case involving paparazzi and JFK's widow and son.
 
2013-05-17 02:43:32 PM

Securitywyrm: You have a six foot opaque fence around your backyard. Someone walks up to the edge of your fence and uses a camera mounted on a pole to take pictures of your children playing in the backyard.


Coincidentally, see the case I quoted above.
 
2013-05-17 02:45:31 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.

No it didn't. It just increased the resolution.

From Webb v. CBS:
Using a telephoto lens, a videotape was then shot from neighbor Tracy Reardon's home depicting the
Webbs, Stebic, Jacobson, and some children in their bathing suits around the Stebic's backyard
pool, which was allegedly surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence.
... we find that the plaintiffs allegations that they were swimming in the backyard pool of a private home surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence are sufficient to allege both that they believed they were in a secluded place and that the activity was private. Finally, we hold that a reasonable person could find that a television cameraman using a telephoto lens to videotape the Webbs and their children in their bathing suits around a private backyard pool to be highly offensive. Accordingly, we find that the Webbs have properly stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. For example, there's a New York case involving paparazzi and JFK's widow and son.


Different states have different laws regarding privacy.
 
2013-05-17 02:46:16 PM

Theaetetus: Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. For example, there's a New York case involving paparazzi and JFK's widow and son.


That's also behind a 7-foot privacy fence, and not through an open window.

Movies, cartoons, and literature since the time of high-rise construction has depicted people visible through upper story windows. You have no expectation of privacy if you leave your windows unobscured.
 
2013-05-17 02:50:43 PM
Captain Stillman: "Look at that--- how do they do that.?....God I wish I was a loofah"
 
2013-05-17 02:51:32 PM

hammettman: [i90.photobucket.com image 500x342]

If the choice was "rear" or "window" I'd shoot the rear.


Well sure, because only through the rear window can you see the backdoor.
 
2013-05-17 02:51:57 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

If there's a naked chick walking around with the shades open, do not get into a masturbating bet.
 
2013-05-17 02:52:08 PM

il Dottore: If I found that somebody had done that to me I'd beat them with a tire iron so that they'd think they were on an adventure.


Once the photons bounce off your butt it's safe to assume you don't want them anymore.
 
2013-05-17 02:56:02 PM

hammettman: [i90.photobucket.com image 500x342]

If the choice was "rear" or "window" I'd shoot the rear.


I really like that movie.
 
2013-05-17 02:56:10 PM

Theaetetus: Securitywyrm: You have a six foot opaque fence around your backyard. Someone walks up to the edge of your fence and uses a camera mounted on a pole to take pictures of your children playing in the backyard.

Coincidentally, see the case I quoted above.


Pursuant to Illinois law, to recover on an intrusion upon seclusion claim, the Webbs must show: 1) they were in a place that a reasonable person would believe to be "secluded", 2) the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, 3) the matters intruded upon were "private", and 4) the intrusion caused the plaintiff "anguish and suffering." 

It is hard to prove that an unobscured window is a place where a reasonable person expects to be secluded.
 
2013-05-17 03:00:41 PM
Theaetetus:

That's funny, I found you on the internet too!
cdn.lolzbook.com
 
2013-05-17 03:01:26 PM
cdn.newsday.com

2113
Earth English Braincast
brought to you by CocaPepsiRite

Federation police are looking for thieves who bypassed many security systems and managed to steal several high value pieces of art. Among them was the famous "Giant Ass" photograph by Arne Svenson.

Nicknamed "Giant Ass" soon after it's unveiling nearly 100 years ago, the photo was a popular exhibit at The Art Museum.

Police have no leads but they admit they have questioned and released several Ferengi even though their species doesn't actually enter the canon until at least 2150.
 
2013-05-17 03:03:08 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Securitywyrm: When he used a telephoto lens to see through the windows, that went from 'in public view' to invasion of privacy.

No it didn't. It just increased the resolution.

From Webb v. CBS:
Using a telephoto lens, a videotape was then shot from neighbor Tracy Reardon's home depicting the
Webbs, Stebic, Jacobson, and some children in their bathing suits around the Stebic's backyard
pool, which was allegedly surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence.
... we find that the plaintiffs allegations that they were swimming in the backyard pool of a private home surrounded by a seven foot privacy fence are sufficient to allege both that they believed they were in a secluded place and that the activity was private. Finally, we hold that a reasonable person could find that a television cameraman using a telephoto lens to videotape the Webbs and their children in their bathing suits around a private backyard pool to be highly offensive. Accordingly, we find that the Webbs have properly stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. For example, there's a New York case involving paparazzi and JFK's widow and son.


The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous
 
2013-05-17 03:06:07 PM

soosh: Theaetetus: Now, that one's Illinois, not New York, but most states have something similar. 

Different states have different laws regarding privacy.


Holy fark, seriously? You're trying to tell me that different states - such as New York and Illinois - may have different laws?! And that when I mention one, I should include an explicit caveat indicating that I'm talking about one state, like Illinois, rather than another state, like New York?!!
You could knock me over with a feather right now, I'm so goddamn stunned.
 
2013-05-17 03:06:10 PM
I'd rather buy a naked painting of Bea Arthur
 
2013-05-17 03:06:41 PM

Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however. Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous


Shhh. You'll make him cry by using his own facts against him with the use of common sense.
 
2013-05-17 03:08:16 PM

Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous


The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.
 
2013-05-17 03:09:57 PM

fluffy2097: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however. Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

Shhh. You'll make him cry by using his own facts against him with the use of common sense.


I've already proven your earlier blanket statement wrong. Most people would realize that they have an opportunity to learn something and might start reading some of the posts or linked sites, rather than blathering on. But you're special that way.
 
2013-05-17 03:11:40 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.


And again, literature, films, TV shows, and cartoons all depict people being seen in high-rise windows. When I look out of a high-rise, I can see through open windows in the high-rise across the street. I have no reasonable expectation of seclusion when I leave my curtains open.
 
2013-05-17 03:14:23 PM
Creep.
 
2013-05-17 03:15:03 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Magorn: The Seven Foot Privacy fence I think being the key to that fact pattern however.  Not sure an open window where the blind could have been drawn would be analogous

The privacy fence wasn't high enough to block the neighbor's windows - the point was that a reasonable person would feel it was secluded, even if it was not absolutely photon-tight.

And again, literature, films, TV shows, and cartoons all depict people being seen in high-rise windows. When I look out of a high-rise, I can see through open windows in the high-rise across the street. I have no reasonable expectation of seclusion when I leave my curtains open.


Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.
 
2013-05-17 03:15:51 PM
The neighbors should steal his identity and post all the information on teh interwebs.
 
2013-05-17 03:17:15 PM

Bermuda59: I'd rather buy a naked painting of Bea Arthur


I'd rather spank to something else. That painting is way out of my range.

/no not the price
 
2013-05-17 03:17:16 PM
Drapes. Curtains. Window shades. Blinds.

Any one of these will do.
 
2013-05-17 03:17:35 PM

Theaetetus: I've already proven your earlier blanket statement wrong


All you did was equate a 7 foot tall privacy fence to a set of open curtains buddy.

/special indeed.
 
2013-05-17 03:19:15 PM

Theaetetus: Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.


Yet there his work is, in a gallery, with all sorts of pissed off dumb people yelling at him, and he's not in jail.
 
2013-05-17 03:19:42 PM
Also, Magorn and Lenny, check out Candelaria v. Spurlock. It's a New York case, and one of the distinctions was that Candelaria was filmed at a McDonald's counter: "Here, plaintiff was not filmed in her home or any other location in which she could reasonably expect not to be filmed."
 
2013-05-17 03:20:26 PM

fluffy2097: Theaetetus: Using a telephoto lens specifically to look into someone's home is different from photographing the face of the building. Specifically, under New York privacy law, there's an "incidental use" doctrine that applies.

Yet there his work is, in a gallery, with all sorts of pissed off dumb people yelling at him, and he's not in jail.


Someone clearly doesn't understand the difference between civil and criminal law. ^.^
 
2013-05-17 03:22:58 PM

fluffy2097: 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.


I used to have an office on the 46th floor in NYC and wondered why people wouldn't close their blinds. I guess they think if they are up high enough no one will be able to see them. If they lived on the first or second floor I'm sure they would keep them shut.
 
2013-05-17 03:24:36 PM
You've now equated a 7 foot tall privacy fence with a pair of open curtains.

You've also compared showing someones face and voice while being recorded by hidden camera on private property (A McDonalds) and being used in a movie, as well as advertising the movie, with a still photograph in a gallery that does not show the  subjects face or other identifying features.


/so much tard.
 
2013-05-17 03:25:02 PM

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

Wut?

Just trying to mix peeing Tom with creepy uncle.

/Intentional


Peeing Tom and creepy uncle are probably the same person.
 
2013-05-17 03:28:31 PM
Al Hitchcock and Jim Stewart are high fiving somewhere . . .
 
2013-05-17 03:29:02 PM
i.imgur.com
 
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 »






Report