Photos raise privacy issues.

[revi]

Interesting case that could set dangerous precedents.

What if you are photographing a building and there happens to be someone in a window that is visible when your high resolution picture is enlarged?

Who'll know unless you publish the image without change? As is often the case, it's not the taking of the picture that's causing the problems, but the publishing.
If you were indeed photographing the building and didn't notice the person, there shouldn't be any problems (shouldn't be, not saying that there won't be any...)
Now, if you were shooting a panorama of the building with a 500mm and you caught the star living on the 5th floor in her birthday suit, that's a different case.

What if a defendent in a trial says the police cannot use surveillance pictures because they breach his right to privacy?

Isn't it legal to take pictures in public areas? And if there's surveillance camera's in private areas, there's signs saying so. I think the defense would be rather weak.
If the pictures in question were taken in other circumstances, doesn't that require a warrant signed by a judge?

I personally feel the artist crossed a line but perhaps we need to think about where that line actually is.
There is an old saying about people in glass houses not throwing stones but perhaps we should add that they should get net curtains as well.

I agree that the artist crossed the line here. Not in taking the pictures perhaps (although I'm not too sure there), but certainly in publishing them w/o permission.
And having curtains in front of the large windows all the time defeats the idea of having those large windows in the first place...
Then again, engaging in activities you'd rather not have observed, I'd stay away from large windows facing the street (or the neighbours).

I wouldn't take pictures in this situation, and even less publish them in any form. But unless he had to use a long tele lens, or was fairly high up (2nd floor or above?),
I'm not sure what he did is in any way illegal. We get back again to the notion of 'reasonable expectation of privacy': ground floor rooms with such windows facing
a public area would have NO expectation of privacy, unless there were curtains...

[Mike Buckley]

I'm apparently the odd man out when it comes to my views about this situation.

1) That the photographs are being displayed is just not all that important, at least not in the context of the happenings that occur every day in New York City where these photos were taken. We have far more important things to be considering.

2) Of the photos I've seen from this show, I wouldn't be the least bit concerned if I had been the person being photographed. That's because the subject is not doing anything wrong. I think I would be humored at the least upon learning that a photograph of me is included in the show. I might even be proud of it.

3) The proof of the severity of the situation would be the attitudes of the people who were photographed should they somehow be awarded money, which from everything I have read and heard is highly doubtful. I would be willing to bet that they would be glad that their photos were displayed in the show just so they could receive the money.

4) If the issue is privacy, how are we to define privacy? Consider that the people who were photographed have the means to live in an apartment building that perhaps only 1% of the world's population could afford and they knew they could easily be seen. Now consider the famous picture of the nude girl in Viet Nam who is running down the road and screaming because of the napalm burning her skin. Which situation is more private?

[RustBeltRaw]

I'm still wondering how Mr. Svenson is able to slap $7,500 price tags on these photos without model releases (because the individuals aren't recognizable?). Taking a photo of someone's clothed butt pressed against the window is one (debatable) thing, but using that photo for a large print with a hefty price tag strikes me as pretty brazen. Regardless of whether this is legal, I can't say I'll ever agree it's right.

Now consider the famous picture of the nude girl in Viet Nam who is running down the road and screaming because of the napalm burning her skin. Which situation is more private?

Privacy is one of many things wartime has little concern for. In this case, as with many war photographs, I believe the right to privacy is overridden by the world at large's need to understand and feel the consequences of armed conflict. The photographer, Nick Ut, put down his camera after taking the shot and got Phuc to safety. Those points suggest a need greater than privacy, and prove the photographer's honorable intentions, despite violating Phuc's privacy. While Svenson does appear (at minimum) aware of the privacy issues, since he shielded the subjects' identities, he cause is unlikely to be as worthy as Ut's.

[Mike Buckley]

I understand your points, Lex. You stated them well.

Even so, war photographers hope to get paid for their photos, just as Svenson hopes to happen. So, I'm not inclined to give them a pass on privacy issues in the name of providing helpful information about armed conflict. To do that would be the same as encouraging (not just allowing) photographers to capture provocative, private images for the sake of informing the public. It doesn't wash for me that it's acceptable to violate a person's privacy so long as the photographer and his or her clients feels that a greater good is being accomplished. It seems to me that a photographer who feels that he or she is on the verge of violating a person's privacy shouldn't release the shutter.

Moreover, after giving Svenson's situation careful thought, I am very curious why there seems to be so little emphasis on the responsibility of Svenson's subjects to do their own part in maintaining their privacy. The activities within my home are kept private when I want them so. Otherwise, they are easily seen and photographed and I have no problem with that.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas!

[Andrew1]

I take a photo of some woman's butt pressed against a window and you cannot see her face nor identify the building.

I paint a picture of some woman's butt pressed against a window and you cannot see her face nor identify the building.

Is there any difference in the ethics of either image?

It seems that there is only a problem if the woman in the photograph knows about it. So if that's the case, are pictures taken of people in the nude only a problem if the subject knows about it?

For their own benefit, many governments don't want you to have property or personal rights that are too entrenched as it's usually some level of government that is the first to tread on them. It's all about varying degrees of acceptability and that's almost impossible to legislate for. Someone has to draw a line in the sand and address it legally and nationally or continue to deal with these types of conflicts.

[Ady]

I'll expose myself as one of those apparently in the minority.

From what I've seen of the images I don't have a problem, If the subjects are not identifiable then I'm cool. Having lived in the centre of London and other large cities, including some time at the top of a large tower block I am perfectly aware of the lack of privacy in urban areas.

Even in my current rural location at the edge of a small village I will exchange a wave with passers by who look in through our living room windows. If I want privacy from the street (or the tower block opposite) the I'll put up curtains, blinds or similar. If the passers by (or folks in the opposite tower) don't want to see my naked butt (or worse) then they shouldn't look. To be honest if they want a picture for personal use (they probably need treatment!) or to stick in a gallery I really couldn't care less. Personally I wouldn't mind if I was identifiable or not but I am aware that I care less about such things than many people.

The point is if you expect privacy then don't put yourself in the public eye line and certainly don't live in a glass walled apartment block in the middle of a city.

Keep the comments coming, its interesting to see the opinions of photographers and how they feel being on the other end of the lens.

Cheers,
Ady

[RustBeltRaw]

I'm similarly aware that, as an urban dweller, my privacy is somewhere between an eggshell-thin veneer and totally nonexistent. I've made my peace with that for a variety of reasons. While I seem to be the noisiest of the writers with concerns about these photos, and I don't want to raise too much of a stink, there are a few points I'd like to address.

First, my concern is only partially for the subjects' collective privacy. I agree that a modern urban environment is a place where one should expect a deluge of frequently-unwelcome scrutiny, and most city-dwellers are probably aware of that on some level, even if they're not totally comfortable with it. This case is also about the public perception of photographers. Even if none of us had objections to this, there's a large, viewing, paying public out there we need to think about. While part of our job is certainly to amaze, astonish, freak out, and expand their minds, I'm not sure something like this is the right way to go about it.

I take a photo of some woman's butt pressed against a window and you cannot see her face nor identify the building.

I paint a picture of some woman's butt pressed against a window and you cannot see her face nor identify the building.

Is there any difference in the ethics of either image?

If the painting isn't based on a real scene, yes. The former is a real person. The latter came from your imagination. As such, it has no rights, privacy concerns, or easily-offended sensibilities.

It seems that there is only a problem if the woman in the photograph knows about it. So if that's the case, are pictures taken of people in the nude only a problem if the subject knows about it?

This is like saying a robbery isn't a crime of the victim doesn't notice.

The point is if you expect privacy then don't put yourself in the public eye line and certainly don't live in a glass walled apartment block in the middle of a city.

The photo below is by Bebeto Matthews of AP, and features in the original story.



Given their location and construction, there's definitely merit in Adrian's point. These apartments are really open, have blinds, and are right next to a sizable pedestrian plaza. The fact that most of these scenes could probably have been observed from the street level with almost no differences (Svenson lives on the 2nd floor), and that every tenant could easily have covered their windows, weakens the subjects' (and my) case.

[jcuknz]

I have large windows and lace curtains and do not believe I am defeating the purpose of the large windows ...I also have thick insulated curtains for when I want privacy and warmth. I think one needs to consider relative lighting levels as to the effectiveness of the lace curtains.

[William W]

I had a close look at many of the images.

What I wonder is - how any particular person’s expectation of privacy has been ‘invaded’ if each of Arne Svenson’s images render only parts of, or silhouettes of human forms; which appear to me to be NOT enough to identify beyond reasonable doubt, any one of the Photographic Subjects as being - “that person there”, if they were standing in a court room in a line-up, of similar shaped persons.

(Sure that's my personal opinion that the 'Average Joe looking' would NOT be able to identify any of the Subjects - but it is also somewhat based on me having been used for my photo-forensic expertise and how robust a match is required, to nail an accused).

The one exception I note is the photo of the dog looking out through clear window glass: which is full body, facing front on at about 45° profile and shot in good, front-diffused light.


I wonder what argument will the plaintiff put to the Court? . . .
“Oh that one over there is me and I can prove it – look here I have the same sized and shaped bum and a green dress just like that woman in the picture – so that proves it is me and that it was MY PRIVACY which was invaded.”

But, perhaps the dog could sue? -

And what would be really funny: if the person in the green dress kneeling down on all fours, with their bum in the air facing the camera, is a man: . . . and not a woman, as is being assumed and subsequently reported as a fact, by the press.

WW

[jcuknz]

You have a wicked sense of humour William

[GrahamH]

Continuum.
If you want to be safe on the streets (without being attacked by nutjobs), stay of the street. The more you stay off the street, the safer you are from whackos ON the street.
If you want privacy, close off all access to your space. That means soundproofing so external noise does not enter or exit, curtains/doors all closed preventing light to enter or exit, seal the premises so smells don't get in or out. Don't use the radio or TV or internet as they can all be monitored by someone willing to go to an extreme - and so on. The more you isolate yourself, the closer to absolute privacy you get.
You don't want to close your curtains???? Well, you are further from absolute privacy and take an increased chance of an invasion of your privacy.
You stand on a street corner at a busy crossroads at a busy time, then you are even further removed from absolute privacy.
It's a continuum and it's usually within your power to choose (within reason) where you stand on that line. (As in most things, the extremes are harder to achieve).

As for an expectation of privacy - you are allowed to live in a fantasy world if you so desire, just don't expect others to live in the same world.

Saw a video clip the other day (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyd0ey_FXB8), the 'perception' of right/wrong changes with context.

Graham

[blakemcguire]

I also believe there is no invasion of privacy if the subject is not identifiable. I think people are just uncomfortable with the idea that someone can see them. Perhaps they just weren't thinking about it before and have come to a sudden realization.

[Carl in Louisiana]

Perhaps they just weren't thinking about it before and have come to a sudden realization.

There's money to be made here!

[Ken MT]

I hope that he had a model release for the person in the foreground!

[Andrew1]

An update.....

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../20884316.html

[John 2]

I can only speak for the UK and say that with some significant exceptions, here it is not at all "illegal" to "take" photographs in a public place or a private place although in a private (privately owned ) place, the owner can ask you to stop and ask you to leave. Illegal is defined as illegal under statute law and the exceptions are for the most part associated with photographing defence assets, taking photographs in aid of a terrorist act or the minefield of photographing children. Where the problems do arise is in any subsequent publishing of the images where

a)the subject might claim an invasion of privacy or
b)the subject might claim a proportion of any earnings from the publication.

In both cases a model "Release" is a contract pre agreeing the ultimate use of the images and "releasing" the photographer from any other obligation to the subject.

Where problems do arise, it is a matter for the civil courts not statute law. Judgement will depend on the circumstances and any precedent set by similar cases.

In the example that started this thread off, if the ladies rear end is anonymous and the location not readily recognisable to the world at large, the only way that privacy will be breached is if she by bringing a court action, takes ownership of the rear end on view and I would be surprised if the photographer could be held liable for her privacy being jeopardised. However this argument might have been undermined to some degree by the fact that Arne Svenson has let it be known that these images are of his neighbours and so the location is perhaps more identifiable that it otherwise might be and of course none of this takes account of either ethics or good taste.

Just as a further aside, someone mentioned that situations pushing the boundaries like those described are the reason why more and more legislation comes into being - further restricting photographers rights. I have read of two cases in the UK recently that represent an interesting twist on this. The police in the UK have on occasion felt a bit bruised as a result of images capturing activities that have been shall we say, a little over enthusiastic whilst doing their job. They are therefore not wholly comfortable with the right of photographers to take photographs in a public place. On the two occasions I mention, instead of upholding a photographers rights to photograph in a public place, because the subject being photographed has objected, the police have charged the photographer with a breach of the peace and at least in one case, the courts upheld the charge......so beware.