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  
•       •       •

9703 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
 
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??
 
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
 
2013-05-17 03:29:07 PM

Igor Jakovsky: I used to have an office on the 46th floor in NYC and wondered why people wouldn't close their blinds.


Because they are farking stupid.

I mean look at me. I don't know the difference between civil and criminal law and I can blow holes in an internet lawyers arguments with basic logic.

/would anyone really want Theateatus as their lawyer?
 
2013-05-17 03:30:26 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


Nobody mentioned incidental capture. We're talking about expectation of seclusion. If you leave your windows unobscured, you have no reasonable expectation of seclusion. The same light is bouncing off of someone standing in front of an open window, and that person is visible to the naked eye as well as a camera.

Being behind an open window with open windows across the street shouldn't give any reasonable person a sense of seclusion. If I can see you, you can see me.

As said in TFA: "I think there's an understanding that when you live here with glass windows, there will be straying eyes but it feels different with someone who has a camera," Sylvester said.

See? No sense of seclusion. She's creeped out that someone took pictures, but she didn't expect seclusion.
 
2013-05-17 03:31:27 PM

soosh: 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.


Except if you're a government official, then your privacy is absolute and enforced.
 
2013-05-17 03:34:49 PM

Theaetetus: 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."


That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.
 
2013-05-17 03:37:16 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Being behind an open window with open windows across the street shouldn't give any reasonable person a sense of seclusion. If I can see you, you can see me.


But, that case earlier notes that the people in their backyard were filmed from the neighbors house. Clearly they could see the neighbor's window from their backyard, but the court still found that a reasonable person would consider it secluded.

As said in TFA: "I think there's an understanding that when you live here with glass windows, there will be straying eyes but it feels different with someone who has a camera," Sylvester said.

See? No sense of seclusion. She's creeped out that someone took pictures, but she didn't expect seclusion.


That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.
 
2013-05-17 03:41:01 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: 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."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.


... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.
 
2013-05-17 03:43:57 PM
In other news, how do photographers still charge $7500 for a print?  I can just take that digital image above where the perv photographer caught the hot chick bending over to a print shop and have them print it for me for $50, yeah?
 
2013-05-17 03:44:00 PM

Theaetetus: ... did you stop reading on the first page?


Isn't that your entire basis for posting this stuff?  That people won't read it, and realize that the case law you are posting has nothing at all to do with the case at hand?
 
2013-05-17 03:46:03 PM

LordBeavis: In other news, how do photographers still charge $7500 for a print?


Because people will pay for it.

It's not about what what your art is worth, it's what other people will pay for it that makes you famous.
 
2013-05-17 03:46:32 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: 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."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.


I was looking directly at p. 3, where it says the plaintiff has to to allege the use of their portrait or likeness for advertising or trade without written permission. You know, right there where the doc says no common-law right to privacy exists in NY law.
 
2013-05-17 03:49:51 PM

Theaetetus: That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.


No it doesn't, not in the least. She states that she knows she's visible through the windows of her building. Therefore, she has no expectation of seclusion. She's saying that it's creepy, not that she had an expectation of seclusion.
 
2013-05-17 03:53:34 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: 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."

That's not even an invasion of privacy case. It's use of her image in a commercial film without getting a release. In TFA, the subjects of the photos are unidentifiable.

... did you stop reading on the first page? It starts on page 3, referring to NYCRL s.51, their  invasion of privacy statute.

I was looking directly at p. 3, where it says the plaintiff has to to allege the use of their portrait or likeness for advertising or trade without written permission. You know, right there where the doc says no common-law right to privacy exists in NY law.


You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?
 
2013-05-17 03:56:45 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: That New York case noted that a home was some place that people would believe they had a reasonable expectation not to be filmed. Her comment seems to support that.

No it doesn't, not in the least. She states that she knows she's visible through the windows of her building...

but that she never expected to be filmed there.
Therefore, she has no expectation of seclusion. She's saying that it's creepy, not that she had an expectation of seclusion but that she had an expectation that she would not be filmed in her home, as the New York court said was reasonable.

I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.
 
2013-05-17 03:56:58 PM

Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?


What part of the three prongs are you missing?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects. It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission. If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

These are different things.
 
2013-05-17 04:00:53 PM

Theaetetus: I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.


REASONABLE EXPECTATION. If your bedroom faces the street or other buildings, and you leave your blinds open, a reasonable person would not expect to have seclusion under those circumstances. Windows allow light to pass through them. Reasonable people are aware of that.
 
2013-05-17 04:03:40 PM

umad: 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.


umad?
 
2013-05-17 04:07:09 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.


This has me wondering a legal question: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?
 
2013-05-17 04:10:09 PM
img856.imageshack.us

Could be worse.
 
2013-05-17 04:18:32 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?

What part of the three prongs are you missing?


I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question... Can you re-ask?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects.

Aren't their images being used in a piece of artwork up for an expensive sale? They certainly didn't sign any releases.

It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission.

... yes, that's one possible way to meet the limitations in the New York invasion of privacy statute. I'm not sure why you think that means it has nothing to do with invasion of privacy.

 If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

The first prong of the statute doesn't require her face, it merely says "picture of any living person". The pictures in the article are of living persons. It certainly meets that element.
Now, you can argue that the statute should be changed to require a recognizable portion, or a face, or anything else, but that's not in the statute.
 
2013-05-17 04:20:57 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: I think you're reading "seclusion" as being photon-tight. I think that's unsupportable in the case law. But go ahead, run around taking pictures through people's bedroom windows. We'll see how it turns out.

REASONABLE EXPECTATION. If your bedroom faces the street or other buildings, and you leave your blinds open, a reasonable person would not expect to have seclusion under those circumstances. Windows allow light to pass through them. Reasonable people are aware of that.


In New York, all bedrooms face other buildings. The same is true for most cities and towns, and only is excepted in rare places where there's tons of open land. Are you saying that no person in New York has an expectation of privacy in their bedroom unless they close their blinds to be light-tight, regardless of whether they're on the 1st or 50th floor?
I think most people would disagree.
 
2013-05-17 04:22:17 PM
For example, out my office window right now, I can easily see upwards of ten thousand windows, many of which are bedrooms. Not all of them have tightly pulled drapes. Are you suggesting that I could set up a camera and telescope and freely publish pictures of what I see with impunity?
 
2013-05-17 04:23:54 PM

magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?


Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.
 
2013-05-17 04:25:43 PM

Securitywyrm: 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 h ...


Interesting point but on the other hand, telephoto lenses and binoculars are as old as dirt at this point. It's not exactly new fangled technology that nobody knows about.
 
2013-05-17 04:53:00 PM

magicgoo: This has me wondering a legal question: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?


Well, this wouldn't be a first ammendment issue.  It would amount to harrassment, which is one of many exceptions to the first ammendment.
 
2013-05-17 04:53:32 PM
If this is permissible then I can't see the objection to cops obtaining cell phone location records without a warrant.

"Just close your drapes."

"Just shut off your phone."
 
2013-05-17 05:01:27 PM

Magorn: White People Problems.  residents of a luxury high rise should be able to pop for some curtains or blinds


Better yet, a reflective mylar coating that obscures the view in but lets you see out.
 
2013-05-17 05:04:51 PM

ComicBookGuy: A true artist does his art for himself.


That would be a starving artist.
 
2013-05-17 05:11:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Magorn: White People Problems.  residents of a luxury high rise should be able to pop for some curtains or blinds

Better yet, a reflective mylar coating that obscures the view in but lets you see out.


Window tint is for communists.
 
2013-05-17 05:12:13 PM

Theaetetus: Lenny_da_Hog: Theaetetus: You mean right were it says no common-law right to privacy exists in New York, so instead New York enacted a statutory right of privacy? Right before it goes on to talk about various other invasion of privacy cases, as well as finishing with the point that she had no expectation of privacy in her public location, as opposed to her home?
Tell me, what do you think is meant by "invasion of privacy case" if you think this doesn't apply?

What part of the three prongs are you missing?

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this question... Can you re-ask?

Her image was used for trade without a release. This is in no way comparable to TFA's subjects.

Aren't their images being used in a piece of artwork up for an expensive sale? They certainly didn't sign any releases.

It doesn't talk about an invasion of privacy, it talks about the commercial use of her face in a film without her permission.

... yes, that's one possible way to meet the limitations in the New York invasion of privacy statute. I'm not sure why you think that means it has nothing to do with invasion of privacy.

 If her face or identifiable features would have been obscured, as those in TFA's subjects, she would not have the first prong and she would have lost the case.

The first prong of the statute doesn't require her face, it merely says "picture of any living person". The pictures in the article are of living persons. It certainly meets that element.
Now, you can argue that the statute should be changed to require a recognizable portion, or a face, or anything else, but that's not in the statute.


Something tells me case law is going to interpret it as being identifiable features, like faces or anomalous body features.

The photographer in TFA didn't use anything other than a telephoto lens. If you have to keep obscuring the issue further and further into the use of telescope photography, you're no longer talking about TFA, you're getting into speculations of individual instances of reasonable measures and expectations.

The resident in TFA said she expected to be able to be seen through windows when they were unobscured. It's not speculation. She sounds perfectly reasonable.
 
2013-05-17 05:14:00 PM

Theaetetus: magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?

Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.


Hmm, finally, one good thing California has done! That's good too know. Not that I plan on getting photographed by creeper artists any time soon.
 
2013-05-17 05:18:05 PM

magicgoo: Theaetetus: magicgoo: Is there something in the law about celebrities' privacy protection versus just plain old everyday people? For instance, I don't (or shouldn't ever) expect photographers to be surrounding my house with telephoto lenses, but a celebrity should always sort of expect that? So, as a, "nobody," don't I have even better privacy protection than a celebrity? Or is who you are irrelevant?

Yeah. Celebrities are thought to be "newsworthy" people, and so there's more leniency for publishing their pictures.
As a result, states with a large number of celebrities like California have enacted much, much stronger invasion of privacy statutes.

Hmm, finally, one good thing California has done! That's good too know. Not that I plan on getting photographed by creeper artists any time soon.


I wouldn't take anything he says as truth.

He claims to be a lawyer.
 
2013-05-17 05:23:30 PM
I see Fluffy still hasn't figured out that old puzzle with the two guards. :)
 
2013-05-17 05:27:11 PM
You claim to be a patent attorney no less.

/is it any wonder you are always wrong?
 
2013-05-17 05:29:44 PM
I don't think much of this guy's photography.

But sometimes art is about the context; and in this pre-drone world it seems a timely statement about 'in plain view' privacy; and I support its success in sparking conversation about something really important.

I wonder about the background of line-of-sight privacy laws; I imagine they came from cases where allowing it was helpful to law enforcement; and perhaps the fact these same laws also allow for this behavior is more or less coincidental.

But at least that would show we live in a place where the people and the law, conceptually mostly, have the same rights.

/ which is pretty great.
 
2013-05-17 05:30:29 PM

Badgers: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 624x352]


What about 30 Rock?
 
2013-05-17 05:34:02 PM

fluffy2097: You claim to be a patent attorney no less.

/is it any wonder you are always wrong?


Let's see... You think I'm always wrong because I'm a patent attorney, but you also think I'm lying about being a patent attorney, which means you think I'm wrong because I'm not a patent attorney, but then I'd be telling the truth, so therefore I am an attorney, which is why you think I'm wrong, except for the part where I'm right about that.
So, yes, it is.

Unfortunately, that's the only question you're allowed to ask, so I think you're done in this thread.
 
2013-05-17 05:41:40 PM
What a colossal asshole. He needs a poke in the snoot. Also, he's a derivative hack. This was done much, much creepier and better by another complete dickhead: Some chick, IIRC, in the suburbs.

Also Edward Hopper. I hope Arne reads this and thinks of suicide, because he is so lame and unoriginal
 
2013-05-17 07:22:26 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.


Legal yes, morally good no.
/do unto others
 
2013-05-17 07:41:07 PM

Hiro-ACiD: 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.

Legal yes, morally good no.
/do unto others


"Your Honor, I was just following the Golden Rule.  I like it when strangers tie me up and shove ice cubes up my ass."

/most flawed moral advice ever.
 
2013-05-17 07:58:47 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.


The only way they could sue (and expect to win) is if they were recognizable in the photos AND the photos were used for commercial purposes. Commercial purposes does not mean printing and selling them, or making a book full of them and selling that, those are editorial uses. Commercial purposes means using them to advertise an unrelated product, such as herpes medication.
 
2013-05-17 08:07:07 PM

Theaetetus: Let's see... You think I'm always wrong because I'm a patent attorney, but you also think I'm lying about being a patent attorney, which means you think I'm wrong because I'm not a patent attorney, but then I'd be telling the truth, so therefore I am an attorney, which is why you think I'm wrong, except for the part where I'm right about that.
So, yes, it is.

Unfortunately, that's the only question you're allowed to ask, so I think you're done in this thread.


awww. who's terrible at lateral thinking.  You're terrible at lateral thinking. yes you are! yes you are!!!

You're just adorable. You still haven't addressed the issue of a 7 foot tall privacy fence in your first example (which is in the wrong state! how embarrasing!)

You haven't addressed the fact your second example is actually about the movie Supersize Me, and involves an employees face and voice being video taped by a hidden camera on restaurant property, which was then used in the commercial advertisements and the actual movie.

You keep on about your TV tropes though. I'm sure that's good for... something...
 
2013-05-18 12:56:06 AM

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.


see paparazzi from above posting
and then tell us why you think you have a clue?
 
2013-05-18 01:10:47 AM
meh
I walk around my house naked with the windows drawn. If anyone is dumb enough to look in, they deserve what happens to them. On the other hand, I am on the 20th floor. so there is that.

so
WHAT happens when we finally get FLYING CARS?
will people buzz highrises and take pics?

what about those awesome like RC copters you can get right now??
 
2013-05-18 01:25:46 AM

Magorn: 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.


OK. I always thought binoculars et al were also verboten.

/bored
 
2013-05-18 02:04:10 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Magorn: 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.

OK. I always thought binoculars et al were also verboten.

/bored


The Supremes give the green light to technology  that is available to the general public and in common use.  Telephoto lenses would meet those criteria.  Anything sold only to law enforcement would not.
 
2013-05-18 12:04:30 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"?


Here ya go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_toms_cabin
 
2013-05-18 06:06:35 PM

ReverendJynxed: umad: 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.

umad?


You are the very first person to make that hilariously original joke, I swear. In fact, this post is so good, that it puts you in the same league as greats like spentmiles and pocket_ninja. I bow to your awesome intellect. Keep being awesome!
 
Displayed 147 of 147 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report