Could this be combined with this?
Would it be reasonable (legal?) for me (while in my house) to point a gun at a neighbour photographing me?
1 Like
Sorry, not a summary. Summaries use your own words. I already know what the novel is as I heard the news when it was published.
If he thinks Heinleinâs long lost novel is so interesting, he can write a paragraph or three summarizing why instead of expecting us to go do his work for him and figure it out. Make an argument, not a one-liner or just a link. Iâm not going to go do his research for him as I simply donât care.
1 Like
2 Likes
I tried looking this up, and all I could find was this page saying that as of 2012, only 2 states had changed their laws to make consent required when photographing children that donât have an expectation of privacy. It would appear that New York isnât one of those states, based on this ruling.
1 Like
InterestingâŚthanks! But what is the âexpectation of privacyâ for minors in the other 48 states?
As I said, Iâve had to sign a lot of affidavits over the years for my children, and have had numerous artists request my verbal agreement before photographing them. There does seem to be a different level of legal privacy with regard to minors rather than adults.
1 Like
Iâd take exception to the recording for posterity part. I have nothing to add on the legality of this, just saying that if I had to whisper in my house to retain the expectation that my private conversation can legally remain private, then it must be true that there is no such thing as an expectation of privacy.
But as Rev. Lovejoy reminds us: âOnce the government approves something, itâs no longer immoral!â
The judge said it was OK, I must be wrong.
Many artists ask for consent where not legally required. It unfortunately can give people a misimpression of the law. Some artists do it to avoid trouble and some do it b/c they never want to photograph and unwilling person or their child even if the law says they could.
People are super careful when it come to kids but not always b/c of a clear legal requirement.
4 Likes
Some of it may also be a model release, should they use those images for stock purposes. The verbal ones are people simply being nice, if you are out in public in New York thereâs no requirement to ask before taking an image in a public place.
1 Like
As far as I can tell, minors have the same expectation of privacy that adults do. That is, if they can be seen without trespassing (or using crazy telephoto lenses), you have no expectation of privacy.
Thatâs not to say that itâs not common courtesy to ask permission beforehand if youâre taking pictures (and just generally a smart thing to do, lest you get punched in the face and your camera smashed⌠Itâs all well and good to be within your legal rights, itâs still better to avoid those situations and be a nice guy, rather than the creep taking pictures from teh shadows), but it doesnât ap
pear to be a legal requirement. I think a lot of photographers donât actually know the rules on this either, which is why, to be safe, theyâll just have parents sign agreements any way.
But again, this changes when you start getting into âcommercial usageâ (ie using it outside of the context of a creative work). In commercial usage, you definitely need releases or you will run afoul of likeness rights laws.
Nobody said anything about whispering. The post you responded to said âvia ânormalâ human sensesâ. If youâre talking at a normal conversational volume within your own house, nobody should really be able to hear you well enough to record you (unless you live in a semi/townhouse/apartment with super thin walls - in which case you should be aware, by being able to hear your neighbours, that your conversations can be overheard, and thus you still donât really have any reasonable expectation of privacy). Privacy is maintained. If youâve got your windows open and youâre yelling, thereâs no expectation of privacy. Just like if you stand in front of a big window where anybody can see you from the street, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Hang on a secâŚthe guy in this story used a crazy telephoto lensâŚwhy doesnât that count?
1 Like
I didnât see anything about what actual lens he used in the two linked articles, other than âtelephoto lensâ - which could mean anything from a 100mm to a 1000mm lens. But looking at the apparent photo of the apartments in question:
There would have been no need for a telephoto lens to take the photos he took. Those could have been just as easily captured with a regular lens, and cropped. When I say âwith a crazy telephoto lensâ Iâm talking one of these, taking a photo from 1000 yards away the way paparazzi photographers take photos of celebrities on their yachts/in their backyards):
The distance between those two apartment buildings would absolutely not suggest any kind of reasonable expectation of privacy if your curtains are open, in my opinion.
They should just rotate that giant Stop sign by 90 degrees.
5 Likes
That took me a second to get, then I actually LOLâd.
At [his own website][1], it states: âin this case he inherited a bird watching telephoto lens from a friend.â
That suggests the ability to see a level of close detail not available via normal camera lenses.
[1]: http://arnesvenson.com/theneighbors.html
1 Like
I agree. If all he did was look, or even take photos that were never in the public eye (so who would know?), I donât see a problem.
Itâs the using a special lens to take secret photos which are then used professionally against the express wishes of his victims â oops, I mean models â that is the crux of the issue for me.
1 Like
Because you can!!!
Acrylics are probably better than oils . . .
How about enema painting?
Oh, sure I agree that itâs art, given todayâs wide latitude of definition. Itâs even kind of pretty, in a kind of yellowish sort of way.
Whatâs a ânormalâ camera lens? 5x zoom? 8x zoom? Or whatâs on my misplaced 1000-fps Casio Exilim, 20x zoom? Do we count attaching a normal pair of binoculars to a normal 5x camera (which I can try in the morning when the light gets usable for a no-tripod handheld-alignment test)? Where (and why) is the threshold where ânormalâ technology ceases being ânormalâ?
He did, but he did so based on his own mistaken assertions - ones that obviously come from someone who isnât familiar with the world of art. I admit it was overly rude, but typical knee-jerk reactions to stuff like this annoy me. People are so sanctimonious about their own privacy when the family themselves didnât act to guarantee it. If itâs so fucking precious now why wasnât it then?
He took pictures of people in their homes through their windows (legally)
and exhibited them without their knowledge or consent (which isnât required)
and he is pissed about his artistic rights being infringed on, (no heâs not, he got taken to court where they found in his favour)
Iâd say the family are, at least, on the same level of dickishness, since heâs now been put through all of this despite acting legally. All the family had to do was close their curtains if they didnât want to be seen and potentially photographed. Unless Iâm to believe they arenât familiar with how windows, curtains or cameras work.
