N.Y. court: Legal to surreptitiously photograph people in their homes, and sell those photos

WaPo (Volokh Conspiracy) ^ | April 10, 2015 | Eugene Volokh

[QT3.14]

From yesterday’s New York intermediate appellate court decision in Foster v. Svenson (paragraph breaks added):

[Snip]... Defendant photographed the building’s residents surreptitiously, hiding himself in the shadows of his darkened apartment. Defendant asserts that he did so for reasons of artistic expression; he obscured his subjects’ faces, seeking to comment on the “anonymity” of urban life, where individuals only reveal what can be seen through their windows. After approximately one year of photography, defendant assembled a series of photographs called “The Neighbors,” which he exhibited in galleries in Los Angeles and New York.

[Starwolf]

If its visible from public areas, its legal. Black letter and it should be. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy

This includes children or adults at a playground, park, beach or other areas open or visible to the public.

Its not a tech issue.

[Mastador1]

Don’t get your hopes up too high. I tried the same with her mom a few years ago. Still no buyers.

Not even at Halloween? You would think that they would be in high demand at the haunted house, I know it sets the hair up on the back of my neck when I see her image!

[familyop]

Well, yeah. What’s been legalized for surveillance is legal for anyone to do.

[familyop]

"People need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to declare themselves and their homes to be copyrighted."

That way, the socialist political/regulator class will be protected while spying on everyone else's homes and officiously robbing those who haven't already been robbed.

[dragnet2]

His use of a telephoto lens should have made it illegal

What would be the legal size lens to use? Is he prohibited from simply enlarging the images?

[familyop]

"So being a Peeping Tom is now reasoned?"

Not if he's standing on the property he's looking at (e.g., trespassing) or, for example, using a peephole or electronic device to view someone without their knowledge in a space that is generally considered to be private (bathroom with no curtains open, e.g. invasion of privacy in some jurisdictions).

See how it's been done for so long? I read about a case not long ago about one neighbor's security camera being pointed at the window of a neighbor's house. No award for or conviction of anyone. Curtain closed.

Tinted windows can also help, although officials might think someone at a residence with tinted windows are hiding something.

[hosepipe]

IF you don’t want to see photos of YOU doing something WRONG....

THEN; don’t something wrong..

-and/OR- vote for people for Tort Reform..

[familyop]

Did some reading about the topic while learning about home camera security systems. There are satellites that can see and record imagery on the ground with resolution that would shock most people. People with high-res security cameras and powerful telescopes looking through living room windows have won cases. Apparently, what is legal for some for surveillance is legal for all. And with understanding of that, most Americans wouldn’t have it any other way.

[familyop]

Tabloid employees took pictures over “privacy” fences of naked celebrities hanging out around their swimming pools many, many moons ago. Aircraft can commonly see down into such spaces, you see. So can people from higher elevations, such as upper floors of neighboring buildings.

It’s been true for a long time, that those who really want privacy would best build for privacy.

[QT3.14]

Didn’t sell the pics.

[Moonman62]

My understanding is that the lens and camera can’t see more than the eye can see when it is pointed at someone’s window. For a 35mm camera that is usually considered to be a 50mm lens or less.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL

[Vendome]

It is legal.

[DoughtyOne]

thanks for the comments

this just seems wrong

in your home you should have the assumption of privacy

even if you are in front of your windows, there should be limits to what people can do on purpose

if some 65 year old dirtbag is taking photos of the young teenage girl next door in her living room, it doesn’t seem right

[dragnet2]

Yep. Cameras are everywhere. And apartment living is creepy. I see them as barracks with landscaping.

[familyop]

Agreed on apartments. Many East Asians are much better at getting along in such close quarters than us. Reminds me of sports fans screaming, the unwanted smell of pot smoke and bottoms rubbing on tubs upstairs.

[familyop]

“Limits” of the kind you mentioned for which groups? All, or only some? Something to think about, perhaps? See demographics in crime stories in the news (teenage girls, teachers, police, CEOs, politicians, priests,...all kinds). We’re near anarchy, as the situation is.

[familyop]

I’ll put it this way. It seems that determining purpose could be yet another lawyer’s dream—a mess in many cases and another drain on the economy. Such a law would apply to everyone including teenagers. And what about beaches?

[familyop]

The mention of “telephoto lens” in the article along with a search of statutes in your state might be of some help. It could be difficult to catch someone taking such pictures, though, examples being private investigators or people who post pictures to creepy web sites. Home security measures might be the most effective way to deal with it (tinted windows, curtains, tactical lighting, outfacing security cameras, etc.).

[muir_redwoods]

D’oh, if you want privacy, close the blinds.