I usually don't understand even the typical (dull) street shooting of random strangers eating, sitting, chewing food, etc. etc. because I can't understand why anyone would want photos of what you can see any time you are outside. Why a third party (i.e. someone like me) would be interested in them is another mystery I can't answer. And why someone would want to buy photos that this guy took, well it just compounds the creepiness factor.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Street" Photography over the line?
- Thread starter SteveS58
- Start date
In this case it's not so much that they deserve privacy (which they still DO) as that it's equally creepy to take pictures of strangers in their own homes, whatever the circumstances.
No, even movie stars are entitled to the privacy of the perimeter of their own homes.
I've seen where they were putting on big fancy weddings and the press got helicopters to shoot pictures from above since of course they were not invited to attend. And that too IMO is wrong - must they hold a wedding in a cave or their own locked basement?
I have little to no sympathy for movie stars since I find most of them seem to be spoiled, highly overpaid and snooty. But they are still entitled to privacy.
If I were a neighbor, it would give me great joy to be able to say "He didn't know I was approaching from behind with a baseball bat; I carefully sneaked from the shadows of my home and bashed him over the head. And then I smashed his camera."
--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.
Last edited:
You are welcome to hide within your own home. When you see someone with a long tele lens on his camera aiming it at your house, just remind yourself there is nothing wrong, you simply forgot that you must hide in your own home.
Of course it's unwise to stand naked in front of a window, but there is a difference between someone seeing you, and someone seeking to take photos. Really now. You are not in a public space, though you can be seen from one.
--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.
Last edited:
Yes, except for wishy washy people who can never make up their mind that something is just plain wrong.
That's the big question. Let's take it a step further. Suppose your kids are skinny dipping in the pool in your fenced back yard, but a neighbor with a second floor window a block away, using a long tele lens, can photograph them. Even supposing for the sake of argument that it's legal, WHAT KIND OF CREEP WOULD WANT TO TAKE SUCH PHOTOS of strangers? Legal or not I am not about to defend such behavior.
If you live in a glass house, then certainly. Otherwise, people aiming cameras into your windows when you forgot to pull the blinds just might make you change your mind.
And if there is a broken slat in the blinds, then it's still okay for them to shoot photos of you as you undress because you are visible to them. Correct?
There is no legal right to be creepy, even when the victim may be a bit imprudent.
--
It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.
Last edited:
Daisy AU
Senior Member
Sean_Jayhawk
Veteran Member
Why suppose it could even approach being legal? It's not. It's child pornography and people shooting it or owning it should go to prison (and do when caught). Don't take it a step further when the photos in question don't take that step and don't even have any images that identify the subjects. You're taking a whole lot of steps to try and make your point while also dismissing the point about someone standing naked in front of a picture window for the world to see (if a person can get into trouble for being visible then that opens up the notion that this is a gray area). I tend to think the photographer shouldn't have done this but not because it's legally wrong; rather, because it seems unethical and makes street and documentary photographers look bad. But I suspect people will have difficulty showing how they were damaged if they can't be identified. We'll see, I suppose.
--
60 of my favorite shots from the recent past
Last edited:
Jeff Charles
Veteran Member
I won't defend him, but I will say this: His eye told him that he could produce some good photos through those windows. He's a photographer, so it was hard to resist. I do think that they are pretty good photographs.
That said, I think that photographing people in their homes the way he did is sleazy and offensive. I'd make it illegal.
His photos do not show faces, so that mitigates the offense a bit.
Repeat after me:
- being at your home is completely legal
- pleasure of looking through your windows is included into property fees
- observing your neighbors and reporting is your patriotic duty
- making visual notes an an extention of the above.
Repeat again.
(-)
dantastical
Leading Member
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 585
Im interested why you like these photos - to me they seem utterly without any interest, beauty or other redeeming feature. Even ignoring the ethics, to me they are just very poor images - utterly mundane and lifeless
Jeff Charles
Veteran Member
I look at them and they hold my eye. I like the formality of the compositions, while at the same time, the photos incorporate the natural elements - the people, the dog, the furnishings - in a soft and intimate way.
Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow if I look at them again. I know that happens with my own photos
Exactly ...
He is building his own sense of the neighborhood from the little, available pieces. Cool idea and very well implemented at the formal level.
The section "Challenges" at the DPR is very consistent but it is not the only type photography around.
Here is the first-hand info about Svenson's work:
http://arnesvenson.com
(-)
Russell Evans
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,617
- Solutions
- 16
- Reaction score
- 1,732
If the lighting display on the Eiffel Tower can be covered by copyright, shouldn't the interior decor of your home also be? I'm not a lawyer, but I think this link says it is so. If the people in the building did their own decorating or paid someone else, it seems like it should be covered?
Thank you
Russell
Thank you
Russell
Not that I'm defending the idea of taking pictures of people in their backyard without their knowledge or consent, but when did it happen that innocent nudity, such as skinny-dipping, has become child pornography? I'm old enough to remember going to the theater with my family to see the Tom Sawyer movie starring Johnny Whitaker (whom we had enjoyed on the Family Affair television program), and the skinny-dipping scene was considered as simply cute or funny in this G-rated film. Nudity is not the same as pornography.
As to the photography mentioned in this thread, one misdemeanor definition I found on the web, that was unfortunately not referenced to a particular state, reads, "Unless covered by another provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who, while in possession of any device which may be used to create a photographic image, shall secretly peep into any room shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor." I think it's bad enough to aim a camera through someone's window while walking down the street, on public property and in full view; it's even more egregious to do what the photographer says he did, "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 the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within." I don't know whether it's legal in New York or not, but my opinion is that it shouldn't be legal anywhere.
I do agree that there is artistry in the photos. Something about the lighting and the formal composition reminds me of Vermeer or Rembrant, while the obscured faces make me think about the alienation of living in a big city.
But yes, TOO creepy, and think about the people in that building... who still live there! Now they will have to keep their curtains closed at ALL times. I live in an apartment in NYC with big windows facing onto one other apartment building. Sometimes I have the curtains open, and sometimes closed. I would have a really trapped feeling if I had to keep the curtains closed at all times, plus my apartment would be a lot darker. Bear in mind that people in NYC have less privacy and less access to open space and air and light than a lot of other people might have. And these are people who paid between $2 and $6 million for their apartment. I would be so creeped out I would have to sell the apartment (and if the name of the building has come out, it might very well decrease the value of the apartments, as well).
As far as the legal question: there is a (sort of?) similar case that I remember. Neighbor A was upset with Neighbor B because Neighbor B was having sex in full view of the front windows, the street, and Neighbor A's house. Neighbor A asked Neighbor B to stop doing this; Neighbor B declined to stop. So Neighbor A filmed Neighbor B "in flagrante delicto." I don't recall the outcome, and I don't have enough details to google, so I am asking: does anyone else remember this?
But yes, TOO creepy, and think about the people in that building... who still live there! Now they will have to keep their curtains closed at ALL times. I live in an apartment in NYC with big windows facing onto one other apartment building. Sometimes I have the curtains open, and sometimes closed. I would have a really trapped feeling if I had to keep the curtains closed at all times, plus my apartment would be a lot darker. Bear in mind that people in NYC have less privacy and less access to open space and air and light than a lot of other people might have. And these are people who paid between $2 and $6 million for their apartment. I would be so creeped out I would have to sell the apartment (and if the name of the building has come out, it might very well decrease the value of the apartments, as well).
As far as the legal question: there is a (sort of?) similar case that I remember. Neighbor A was upset with Neighbor B because Neighbor B was having sex in full view of the front windows, the street, and Neighbor A's house. Neighbor A asked Neighbor B to stop doing this; Neighbor B declined to stop. So Neighbor A filmed Neighbor B "in flagrante delicto." I don't recall the outcome, and I don't have enough details to google, so I am asking: does anyone else remember this?
Sean_Jayhawk
Veteran Member
The NY laws seem to go after people recording bedroom and bathroom scenes in a sexual nature and /or trying to get under clothes photos, etc. I read through it and the photographer in this case doesn't seem to have broken a law; though, there are some nuances in the wording that could go against him, I suppose. I should also note that this doesn't get at federal laws, which I didn't look up.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/voyeurism_statutes_mar_09.pdf
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum