You can find pictures of the two buildings in at least one of the linked articles. And you can see into the windows of the top floor from the street, unassisted.
She should have known better than to wear such a short skirt to a frat party. All she had to do was wear a burqa and nothing would have happened!
1 Like
Thatā¦ that was a pun wasnāt it?
1 Like
Except in that situation the is an undeniable victim and crime, which is why itās victim blaming.
These people feel like victims of a crime, but a judge sensibly said they arenāt. So they can suck a shit.
2 Likes
Was waiting for this.
Didnāt find āLikenessā or āPersonalityā rights when I searched for the words on this page.
Whilst it may not have been technically illegal in this case, it sure seems unethical. I canāt find any other way of describing it that fits than āvoyeurismā. The fact that the person is an artist (the qualification for which generally involves a person stating āI am an artist and this is artā (also art school helps)) is probably the main (if not sole) exonerating qualifier in this case.
Anyway, the skeevy arsehole should pony up.
(Didnāt fucking google have to start blurring peeps in their homes?)
ā¦
Also. Iāll bet he has blinds or curtains up by now but didnāt I hear about some new anti-scattering technology that can recombine (visible) light paths into a usable image, even through materials like clothes? ā¦searching
Yup
āReasonable expectation of privacyā is going to have to evolve with the times.
1 Like
This guy is going to make money off of āmodelsā who did not consent and were not recompensed in any way for their āworkā. Thereās got to be some way to make him pay, you know?
When you have to start redefining people in your story to better fit the narrative, maybe the narrative isnāt quite right?
The guyās making money off photos he spent his own time and money on producing. The people in the photos didnāt consent because he doesnāt have to get their consent and it would change the end product and meaning of the work. These people didnāt do a single thing to help him, except exist. If these people didnāt exist then it would have been another family. They have no right to any compensation and a judge even agreed.
I canāt find any other way of describing it that fits than āvoyeurismā.
If you think voyeurism isnāt an integral important and common trope of art, then Iām guessing youāve not studied a lot of art history. Itās art-pure and simple.
The fact that the person is an artist (the qualification for which generally involves a person stating āI am an artist and this is artā (also art school helps)) is probably the main (if not sole) exonerating qualifier in this case.
Aaaand this is where you show your hand. The qualification is complicated, and really, thereās no proper qualification other than āexhibitedā. Saying you are an artist kind of works, but until someone else calls you an artist, you arenāt really one.
Another good measure is your body of work. Since the dudeās 52 and has been making art for a while (his first solo show was in 1987) itās pretty safe to say that the armchair art critics here calling him a ānon-artistā are talking out of their arse.
Generally if you read what the artist has to say youāll save yourself a bit of time on the olā assumptions. Hereās this paragraph from his personal websiteās bio page (which, I notice, this bru-haha has pushed to the top of the google results):
Personally I donāt find his art very interesting but, like speech, Iāll endlessly defend his right to make art within the bounds of the law, especially against people who donāt know what theyāre talking about. You can see more of his different collections on this page and thereās a consistent theme in all his work. Iām guessing if Xeni had blogged his Strays series for Caturday, youād all be bestowing upon him piles of internets.
Anyway, the skeevy arsehole should pony up.
Because you say so with mean words? No. People should get a fucking art education, thatās what should happen.
1 Like
Ahem.
About which this entire article concerns? Yes I had noticed that.
Unless you are an āoutsiderā or part of your art is never showing it or a million other reasons. But apart from those, Iām sure you have a point.
Iāll let this slide because you are operating under a false assumption. Denying anyone is an artist who calls themselves an artist should only ever be predicated on their not being able to find somebody to describe āwhat they doā in art lingo. Literally you can put one of those little description cards next to an empty space. VoilĆ . Art.
In fact, perhaps the art really lives in those little cards. Wouldnāt that be a turn up for theā¦ books.
Ah. The irony. Now you are my art.
Yup, thatās my point.
Hey! I have just as much of a reasonable expectation of my word being an underlying law of the universe asā¦ well, you.
Iām glad we had this stupendously ignominious interaction. Iāll put in in my dream diary.
That counts as art right?.
1 Like
Are you drinking?
Your comments seem less considered than usual.
Hey! I have just as much of a reasonable expectation of my word being an underlying law of the universe asā¦ well, you.
Except I actually studied the subject.
2 Likes
Fluids. All day. Every day.
And my comments are never considered. No solicitors here, please.
Perhaps you were not asking if I thought the man should do as I say because I said so āwith mean wordsā. Itās just that the words you used in the combination you chose indicated you thought I thought I had some kind of power of ediction.
And your diatribe is still all based an a misassumption.
Unless your argument is āI studied art, I winā, Iām failing to see the point you are making.
And unless you are about to hilariously segue toā¦
ā¦I think we can safely relegate this conversation to the dustbin, nay, the burning pile of books of history.
Iām happy to let the boingers decide.
What is my faulty assumption, by the way? That me might actually discuss the subject?
Oh that was foolish of me, I know.
Please do.
Oh guys, I was earnestly trying to start a conversation about the legal consequences of ekphrasis and all you saw was unbidden sarcasm.
Iām doing both!
Edit: lol. Doing both. I do not consist of sarcasm and a desire to discus the legal consequences of ekphrasis. That would be absurd(ism).
Do tell?
Actually, itās MORE creepy to me if he took the photos and didnāt display them as art, because then it really is just straight up voyeurism.
I think the problem here is that people are getting caught up on the fact that they were in their apartment, so it feels like a violation. But they were in plain view of all of their neighbours (and based on the picture I posted, you really could see into the top floor windows of that building from the ground floor, as somebody else mentioned), doing innocuous, everyday things. If they were walking down the street, and he had taken their picture, it would have been exactly the same legal situation - both in terms of privacy and in terms of compensation.
See my previous comments regarding likeness rights and commercial usage in this thread. tl;dr summary: ācommercial useā is generally defined as something used for an advertisement (or a cover for a novel, something like that). Basically, a non-artistic use of the likeness. Taking photos of somebody (as long as there is some ātransformative useā of the personās likeness, and much as I donāt enjoy this guyās work, he is trying to make some kind of artistic point) and displaying them in an art gallery (and even selling them) doesnāt violate any likeness/personality rights, and their lawyer likely knew this, which was why they were trying to argue invasion of privacy. But when a building is across the street from your window, and there are open curtains, and you could wave to your neighbour and say hi to them, thereās no reasonable expectation of privacy, unfortunately.
Street photography?
No one involved was in the street or the public domain. They probably couldnāt be seen from the street either.
Iād take a different tack since they lost in civil court. Dig around NY state stalking & peeping-tom laws & file a criminal complaint. In fact I would have done that first. Looks like ample evidence of stalking & peeping-tom behaviour, if there are laws regarding it in NY, which seems likely.
1 Like
Sorry, after reading your reply I thought you gave up. Lots of words with no actual substance. How could anyone meaningfully reply to something like that?
Go learn some high-school physics. Then it will all make sense.
Thatās my point.
Telephoto lens.
And what are you basing this on?
Here are the both involved buildings, as seen from the street:
See that building on the left, the one with the glass windows, from our street-level perspective?
Can you see anything in the top floor of that building?
#Why, yes! Yes you CAN see into the building from the street!
1 Like
Something something retinal resolution.
