Judge: Hey, What's Wrong With Secretly Photographing Young Kids Through Their Windows

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Aug 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    There’s creepy. And then there’s creepy. Not only did an “artist” photograph young kids – unbeknownst to them or their parents – through the windows of their home, a judge said he had every “right” to do so.

    “Artist” Arne Svenson took the pictures of the kids – his neighbors – for an exhibit titled “The Neighbors.” Controversy erupted after the kids’ parents learned that they were being photographed without their knowledge – and that the images were being exhibited and sold for up to $10,000 each.

    As reported by the New York Post, a Manhattan judge ruled this week that “artistic freedom” trumps the rights of parents who don’t want their kids secretly photographed through the windows of their homes. Who in the heck – the parents, I mean – think they are?

    Judge Eileen Rakower threw out a lawsuit brought by the parents against the Tribeca artist. Here’s the judge:

    “The value of artistic expression outweighs any sale that stems from the published photos.”

    You don’t suppose she’s a liberal, do you? Here’s what a friend of the parents said yesterday:

    “What are the implications here for parents? You can just have people shooting your kids in their bedrooms, and nothing can be done about it? You can’t just hide behind the word ‘art’ to behave poorly.”

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/719...g-pictures-of-children-through-their-windows/
     
  2. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    It is indeed creepy. But I can't see anything ILLEGAL about it as long as the warped minded sounding individual does not set foot on somebody else's private property to get his shots.

    Papparazi get shots of celebrities with long, lens shots all the time and all they can do is make sure the inside of their homes is shielded at all times.

    Unfortunately, as long as no laws are being broken these folks can sit across from a playground or anywhere else and take all the pictures they want.
     
  3. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    Well, I thought there was some restriction to using photos of RECOGNIZABLE folk sans a written/signed release.

    'Course a "public" figure waives that right by virtue of being a "public" entity, but private citizens & families in their own home??????

    A well placed pellet round into a camera lens would put a wrinkle in a snooper's ambitions!:thumbs:
     
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole notion is sick. Had I caught someone doing that to my kids when they were growing up, that camera would have been three feet down his throat. Here is a clip from the Steve Wilkos Show, as he confronts a legal pedophile. The guy he confronts had a web site of how to approach children and take pictures of children without getting caught by the authorities.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U6N7AMHzIU
     
  5. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's not a "liberal" thing at all. It may sound revolting and it certainly isn't the epitome of moral decency to photograph someone's kids in their own home without their knowledge, but it is perfectly legal.

    In some cases, having the law on your side on this one can be awesome if you're trying to catch someone being an idiot. (say, a married judge entertaining a prostitute in his home or the like)

    If you're on public property, you're free to photograph. Of course if the minor children were not properly clothes, the photographer could be sued up the ying yang for all kinds of stuff.

    But...being on public property gives you the legal right to photograph.

    I once had an officer try to throw his weight at me over photographing at a public event. LOL So stupid. I was there as press. A woman he was talking to got mad when she saw me shoot the photo so he swaggered over and tried to show off by intimidating me. The most he could do was take my name, ask for id, and call me in to see if I had warrants. He kept asking if I was recording and demanding I turn off the audio and video, kept looking right at it and saying to turn it off.

    Silliness. A simple "could you please not publish that" would have led me to delete it and keep my mouth shut, assuming he was married (not my business) or talking to a DV victim who didn't want her photo in the paper. Since he acted that way, I was *tempted* to publish it, but didn't in case she was a victim of DV, but given his attempt to bully me, I assumed the first instead and was sooo tempted. (and he did end up pulling me over and giving me a ticket the next day...I so should have published his photo after that, I was moving the same day, he couldn't have done anything, hehe, I'm way too nice and just paid the dumb thing)

    So no, it isn't illegal. It's just that some people are jerks and choose to use the freedom of that law to harass people or in morally reprehensible ways.

    I don't get why it's a "liberal" thing. Argh! Why does everyone here seem to throw that label on anything they don't like?!
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, except for rare instances, you have the right to photograph anything. However, as parents, our number one responsibility is to protect children. My right to protect my kids trumps anyone's right to take a picture of them through their bedroom window, especially if that camera ends up crossways.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,304
    Likes Received:
    784
    Someone may not care if the law catches them photographing my children in our home. But they do not want me to catch them.
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,647
    Likes Received:
    223
    Using high-power equipment to bring one into intimate distance of someone else is a form of trespass, and a real judge would have understood it. Folks have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes. If it can't be seen with the unaided eye from the public rightaway, then it's trespass.
     
  9. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Please quote the law.

    There are so many laws that it may very well be that this is unknown and a lot of people now have the right to sue for violations, so post it on up here!
     
  10. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    That's OPINION. It is not a law. If that were the case,the US government is doing a lot of trespassing with their drones and satellites. :laugh:

    There are high powered cameras that papparazzi use so that they don't have to trespass. It's perfectly legal. Disturbing, but perfectly legal.
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,647
    Likes Received:
    223
    Look at the judge's argument, then Google peeping tom laws.
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Aaron, no. I knew the laws when I worked. We had to.

    I thought maybe you found an obscure one that could be used in such cases. It would be doubtful as those laws are combed over to ensure the legality of what photographers/reporters do, but it once in a great while, someone does happen upon some obscure thing buried very deep that can turn everything upside down and change the whole landscape of everything we thought was legal.

    I thought maybe you found that.

    It wouldn't be found on a google search. LOL Don't be implying exciting things that could turn everything we know upside down when they're not true!
     
  13. Max Fenster

    Max Fenster
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,647
    Likes Received:
    223
    The existence of a statute is immaterial. The judge cited no law. The judgment, if not overturned, effectively increases one's right to trespass and exploit intimate moments in the privacy of one's home, and reduces a parent's power to protect his children. Case law is used to hone and shape the application of existing statutes and ordinances.

    The fact of the matter is that one's artistic freedom does NOT trump a parents rights and responsibilities.

    You agree it's morally reprehensible. If it is, then it violates God's law somehow. I simply told you how. It is trespass.

    The judge could, and should have used her power to broaden family and civil law statutes on the books to limit one's freedom to trespass against and exploit others. A good judge would have.
     
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,620
    Likes Received:
    158
    So you are advocating greater freedom ... did you argue for or against the NSA ease dropping?
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,647
    Likes Received:
    223
    Comrade, if I judge surveillance by a private individual as trespass, why would I argue for the NSA eavesdropping?
     
  17. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Aaron, no way the judge should have done that. We simply do not live in a theocracy nor has that style of government done well historically.

    It was interesting to go through The Scarlet Letter with kids and then read them Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and have them look into theology and what it really says. What was going on with the Salem witch trials? What happens when people decide they want to interpret holiness one way and make laws based on their interpretation of the Bible?

    Humans are historically terrible at this and end up doing horrible things to each other in the name of religion.

    I'd rather just live in a nation that used common sense and quit having zillions of laws and writings to explain them, along with loopholes and the need for people who study for years in order to be able to interpret the laws.
    There should be gray areas and room for circumstance.

    That way someone being an idiot and taking pictures of people's children like in this story could be ruled a jerk by the majority and not get away with it, while someone who took photos for the greater good, (ie busted a criminal who kidnapped someone and held them in their home and someone snuck and got the photos to use as evidence) would be excused because of the circumstances or if they were mistaken, it could be determined they made an honest mistake and it wasn't in their normal nature and past behavior to act that way.

    Common sense just isn't common anymore and that's sad.

    I just don't believe the laws should be black and white like they are. It isn't working. It hasn't been working, and it won't magically start working.

    But you can't say a judge should start making rulings based on religious standards. What if he is a believer but his theology is screwed up? What happens then? Is it worse for someone to screw up in the name of God or because he/she simply screwed up?
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,647
    Likes Received:
    223
    There are laws against trespass. One doesn't need the Bible, just some open eyes looking at nature.
     
  19. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    photographing, or photography, whichever one wants to call it, is a touchy thing.
    oftentimes, it all boils down to cooperation.
    the photographer may have his rights and may be allowed to photograph anyone if he does it in a public place, and the subject/s in a private place like their homes, as in the case in question, or the subjects in a public place like metro stations or malls and the photographer in his own private space like his vehicle.
    I have a nikon d5100 which I like to practice on, and could sit in my car and photograph the arrivals and departures at a park and ride at my city, but I figure it's a privacy thing, you know, traveling to and fro, by private individuals and so I don't do that, except in very exceptional cases, like a service dog faithfully seating himself in FRONT of a blind man to prevent him from stepping across into the street and in front of a moving vehicle. I like that.
    One other time I was in a mall and noticed all these young women with very short shorts Miley Cyrus would blush to be seen wearing, so I photographed scenes at the mall intending to publish the indecency being flaunted, and a Mall guard approached me to ask if I was taking pictures (musta seen me thru CCTV) and feeling indignant I said, "no, I wasn't".
    The guard said there was a rule posted before one enters the mall that said no photographs of storefront or other shoppers. I said this is a public place and I can shoot photos where I damned well want.
    But thinking about it, there IS a sign that said you cannot photograph OTHER shoppers, or storefronts, so I just deleted my stuff.
    It all boils down to cooperation.
    I guess the photographer or the parents have axes to grind vs each other.
     
  20. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    It would be nice if businesses were publicly owned, and their parking lots too. Especially when your car gets hit in the parking lot of a store. *sigh*

    That's about the smartest thing stores did, renting their parking lots from private owners. "Oh, we don't own the parking lot so we're not responsible for anything that happens in it" and then the police don't bother with anything because the lot is privately owned. Grrrr...

    Make it a law that every business has to be a storefront off a public road so we can take pictures. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...