Judge backs the right of creepy Tribeca artist to photograph people through their windows

Photo courtesy Chad Rachman/NY Post

Photo courtesy Chad Rachman/NY Post


NY Post: Keep your shades down, New York. 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.
Judge Eileen Rakower tossed a lawsuit brought by two parents against a Tribeca artist who snapped pictures of their children through their apartment windows as part of a controversial exhibition this year.
“What are the implications here for parents?” said a friend of the plaintiffs yesterday. “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.”
Artist Arne Svenson photographed his Greenwich Street neighbors for an exhibit titled “The Neighbors.” Making use of their floor to ceiling windows, he captured his innocent subjects engaged in a host of mundane activities, from cleaning the floor to playing with their kids.
But controversy erupted after Svenson’s models learned that they were being photographed without their knowledge — and that the images were being exhibited and sold for up to $10,000 each.
Matthew and Martha Foster sued Svenson — who likened himself to a “bird-watcher” — after realizing that their kids’ pictures were being used to promote the exhibit in California and at the Julie Saul Gallery in Manhattan.
Arguing that his behavior “shocks the conscience and is so out of keeping with the standards of morality in the community,” the couple asked the court to bar him from showing or selling the images. They also demanded that he turn over all of the images not being used in the exhibit.
But Rakower ruled Monday that Svenson’s artistic freedom superseded their privacy concerns, and dismissed the case outright. “The value of artistic expression outweighs any sale that stems from the published photos,” Rakower wrote.
The judge also said the end of the exhibition and Svenson’s promise to scrub his Facebook page and Web site of the images figured into her dismissal of the suit
Sources said that photos from the exhibit have sold briskly, and that the Harvard Business School snapped up one shot of a woman in a green dress cleaning her floor.
Wonder how the judge would have ruled if it was pictures of her children/grandchildren?
DCG
 

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Beverly
Guest
Beverly

This is very upsetting .What else did he take photos of that he did not publish . The old saying One mans junk is another mans treasure. I bet he has a lot of photo’s he considers treasure for his own uses. This is really spooky! This guy should be classified a Voyeur. People should be hanging him and the judge, not literally but professionaly. They need to get a new Lawyer. Is there one out there that reads this and will respond to these people, I hope so .

Christy
Guest
Christy

Wow! Unbelievable. Artistic freedom outweighs privacy of people in their own home. Kind of a common theme these days. This judge is incompetent and I hope soon she ends up a victim of privacy invasion as well.

Mike
Guest
Mike

The judge and the photographer both sound like sickos. Remember when art elevated men and women? When it brought beauty to the world? Most of what passes for art today is trash.

PMB
Guest
PMB

Oh. So now we have the “art” of perversion….:0( Depraved idiots!

PMB
Guest
PMB

That guy’s not an artist—he’s a maggot.

nova1984
Guest
nova1984

In the photography world, I think she’s wrong, another argument for the guy being a pervert. If people are in public, you can photographic them. After all, if you are at a memorial or some other public venue how can you take a picture of it without including others? But photographers are, from what I understand, NOT supposed to use pictures of individuals without a release. This judge and photographer are 100% wrong. Professional photographers should speak up about this.
And can’t the police arrest him for being a peeping Tom?

lindarm
Guest

He’s a peeping Tom, plain and simple.

Dave
Editor
Dave

I’d love for this creep to try this crap here in East Cobb County, Ga.
LOL – Can you say return fire?
-Dave

Number 41
Guest
Number 41

Well, thank goodness he wasn’t taking photographs of a publicly-funded government building, or publicly-funded police officers filming him, then it would really be serious.
https://dailycaller.com/2011/07/08/the-governments-war-on-cameras/