Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 04/15/2015 8:44:12 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Whoo-Hoo! My clandestine pictures of Chelsea Clinton will go on sale next week!! I’m gonna make a fortune!!
Don’t get your hopes up too high. I tried the same with her mom a few years ago. Still no buyers.
What if someone did the same to the judge that handed down this absurd ruling.
Publish the results on the web alongside his legal opinion on the matter.
Almost makes me think the tin-foil-hatters are right. Between this guy and the phone-camera people, I’m thinking I might need to buy myself a burka.
Yes, but did you try selling promissory notes that you wouldn’t show them the photos if they paid you? You may have gone about this all wrong...
So being a Peeping Tom is now reasoned?
Wow. This and other judges today have a screw loose.
Is that why Anthony Weiner was seen naked in his picture window holding his..
Haha! Now you tell me!
I don’t care what this court says, it’s voyeurism and being paid to peep. This is not what a good neighbor does who gives a damn about his neighbors feelings. I would never trust him if he lived in my area. Maybe standards are different back in his native country of Sweden
Let me make this perfectly clear and please parrot:
Bring a hidden camera into my home and publish surreptitious photos or video, cell phone or otherwise, and the price will be unbearable.
And no, you won’t be able to prove jack.
People need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to declare themselves and their homes to be copyrighted.
Lmao.
Cyber-voyeurism: the cameras will be on quadcopter drones, which will fly pre-programmed routes and beam back the footage in real time. Cheap enough to abandon or crash the drone and the perp will be nowhere in sight, in fact could be on the other side of the world as long as he has a confederate in the local area to manage the snooper drones.
hear! hear!
start selling pictures taken inside the homes of judges, cops, and various govt types and you’ll see this rule change immediately
His use of a telephoto lens should have made it illegal, even though it may be art.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.