Art or Peeping Tom

[milkweed]

I have a telephoto lens and windows. I also have binoculars and neighbors with windows. I NEVER use them to peer into my neighbors homes. Its a line I would not cross without some reason (like screaming, or something that looks like a fire for example). A controversy has been sparked in NYC via a photographer taking pictures of people in their apartments from his apartment window and offering these for sale:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...over-photos-they-claim-violate-their-privacy/

additional link in case abc moves the above:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/17/3402128/nyc-artists-secret-photos-raise.html

Its one thing to see something via the naked eye. The expectation of privacy is different under those circumstances; I think we can all agree that a peeping tom usually is trespassing to get their view. But with the advantage of technology, allowing this kind of photography to fall outside of the rules of conduct, how long before someone videos (through a window) sex acts (edited to obscure the faces) and sells them online as pornography?

While I do agree it is art, I think the pictures should be removed from public sale as the artist did not get permission to use these persons likeness. I would have to also take the position that this was an illegal act and a violation of the same type as a peeping tom.

Thoughts?

 

[Buddha12]

There are problems. The first thing is how do you know who the people are, where do they live and if they did or did not consent to being filmed or videoed. You have to find them and ask them first then there could be a case made. But if no one knows who they are or where they live how can anyone ever find them to ask them anything?

There are much better videos on pornographic sites that you can find on the internet for free. Usually no one pays anything to view those free porn links BUT they can get a virus attacking their PC if they do take the risk.

 

[milkweed]

There are problems. The first thing is how do you know who the people are, where do they live and if they did or did not consent to being filmed or videoed. You have to find them and ask them first then there could be a case made. But if no one knows who they are or where they live how can anyone ever find them to ask them anything?

from the article:

But the residents of a glass-walled luxury residential building across the street had no idea they were being photographed and never consented to being subjects for the works of art that are now on display - and for sale - in a Manhattan gallery.

Section 50 NY law:
Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for
advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait
or picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Model release needed. Would the pictures have any value without the people in them? I wonder if any on sale have no people? My boss and my ex sister in law signed model releases for their hands to be used (boss wasnt paid, sis in law was).

There are much better videos on pornographic sites that you can find on the internet for free. Usually no one pays anything to view those free porn links BUT they can get a virus attacking their PC if they do take the risk.

Other porn is irrelevant.
PC virus is irrelevant.

However, in NY there are laws protecting people from such things (didnt know that when I posted earlier). Surprised at how recent the law was signed:
Signed into law on 23 June 2003, "Stephanie's Law" prohibits "unlawful surveillance,"

well... doesnt matter... should be against the law for people to photograph others in their homes (without consent). Beyond creepy.

I suppose it wouldnt take too long to get the laws changed. A few months of photographing people from the street and posting them on the internet.

Just too creepy.

 

[Buddha12]

Well then a lawsuit is probably going to be filed since everyone knows what went on and who did it.