Tech / Special Interest → Digital Imaging > Peeping Tom Photography Exhibit

Peeping Tom Photography Exhibit

»www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh···lL5h5nVL

New York photographer Arne Svenson is selling photographs of his neighbors for as much as $7,500 at the Julie Saul Gallery in the west side neighborhood of Chelsea. The photographs, which don't show full faces, were taken through Svenson's second story apartment window. The photographs, the largest being 5 feet by 2 feet, exhibit "his neighbors through their oversized windows as they engaged in such personal things as bending over cleaning, taking naps and carrying sleeping kids to bed."

Svenson justifies his technique:

quote:

---

“For my subjects, there is no question of privacy,” he said in a statement accompanying the exhibit. “They are performing behind a transparent scrim on a stage of their own creation with the curtain raised high. The neighbors don’t know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs.

“I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or a movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within.”

---

Not illegal, and probably not unethical either. But I sure wouldn't like it were I to find that I was in one of those shots, depending upon the state of dress or undress the subjects were in. i think i would agree with those people completely and be furious. Even though they should not expect that someone might not see/be watching them as he did with his birder example, it still reeks of stalking with no shades pulled etc., their persons are theirs and they should have been consulted first. They, indeed, have been violated.
--
JKK

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay

»gothamist.com/2013/08/09/peeping···_leg.php

Yup. Totally legal. There's no expectation of privacy if you're living in a city and you don't cover your windows.

Actually, that doesn't appear to be so: »gothamist.com/2013/08/10/man_arr···thro.php

If I was the subject of one of his pictures, I would either be waiting outside his door or sue for royalties.

It's one thing to have a small subset of humanity see what you do through your windows, it's something quite different to be stalked unknowingly via a telephoto lens, and then have that image exposed to the entire world. There has to be some expectation of privacy in one's own home, no matter if the blinds /curtains are open or closed. I hope the judge's decision is appealed.

On second thought, I think that I would be waiting outside his door...
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains.

Life is just better when Jeter is in the lineup.

Creepy!

YOU have control over who can see into YOUR home. If YOU knowingly choose to do nothing to protect YOUR privacy from peepers then YOU should be prepared for others to see YOU. If YOU choose to let 1 person peep then YOU choose to let the world peep.
--
The new Oldsmobiles are in early this year!

But it's okay for him to shoot the pictures and the owners had no idea that he was shooting pics of them?

Sleezy, maybe, but unfortunately, it's legal. I can't imagine having the balls big enough to do and then sell them, but obviously, there are those that do.

As photographers, we all know just because a cop arrests someone for "unlawful surveillance" doesn't mean the charge is going to stick. Remember all the people who have been detained and/or arrested and even had their cameras and memory cards confiscated/erased by overzealous law enforcement? Wasn't there a time when NYC cops were detaining/arresting photographers photographing in the subways?

OK. So just where's the line between acceptable and unacceptable? And why is that the line?
On public streets? In public parks? In parking lots? On public transit? In a car? At work? Inside malls? Inside a store? Inside a restaurant with the windows uncovered? Inside a museum? In a government building? In a club? At a sporting event? In a home with the windows uncovered? In a hotel with the windows uncovered? Other??? And WHY?

Hell if I know. I do know that if you're in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. If you're on private property (let's pick your mall), the property owners can impose their own rules when it comes to photography. Many malls and stores do not allow photography. Regarding homes with the windows uncovered, in the Svenson case the Manhattan Supreme Court ruled that his photography was protected by the First Amendment. But, as we know, the cops can still arrest you if you photograph someone in their home, even if the photograph was taken while standing on public property.

Basically, it's up to the photographer to use his/her common sense and it's still up to law enforcement whether or not you're arrested. Then, it's up to the courts. And, it's up to the photographer to decide whether taking a questionable photograph is worth being arrested and going to jail, even if it's for only a day. Personally, I would never photograph someone through the windows of their home and I would definitely never photograph anyone's kids, even if they were in a public place and even though I know doing so is legal. And, let's not forget, Svenson's photographs did not show anyone's faces. There are laws regarding using someone's likeness commercially. Obviously, Svenson knew this.

Personally, I'm more concerned with our government spying on its citizens than I am a photographer taking my photograph.

I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask what's the difference between what this dbag is doing and the all-pervasive snooping of our own government. Not much as far as I'm concerned, but others may differ. When your own elected leaders raise the invasiveness bar as high as ours has, selling voyeur shots of the neighbors seems kind of small potatoes, but morally and ethically equivalent.
--
There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ~ W.S.

Look up at my last post.