New Yorkers threaten to sue artist who secretly photographed them in their OWN apartments

[Bear Dale]

New Yorkers threaten to sue artist who secretly photographed them in their OWN apartments and is selling prints for $7,500

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...0-dollars.html

[WhoDo]

I would too! That's definitely an invasion of privacy and the same as putting cameras IN the apartment AFAIC.

[jim]

Rather creepy, and the images are uninspired, but if they successfully sue him over them, it could make things a bit knotty regarding shooting buildings from the street, etc.

[WhoDo]

Yeah, but what do you expect from an "artist" whose previous project was "sock puppets"? He should have used the lens for what it was intended ... bird watching (feathered variety).

[ricktas]

remember that this is how the paparazzi work, they can take photos as long as they are on public land, even if the subject isn't. Where it gets messy is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' clause. It would be this clause that (in Australia) you could use to fight it. It would be interesting to see how any court case pans out, even though a US court decision does not automatically mean the same can apply in Australia.

However, looking at those photos, there is nothing in them that could be construed as anything 'private' in my opinion. If I don't want someone photographing me from the street, at my place, I close the curtains

[arthurking83]

More than anything else, I'd question the sanity of anyone that would pay $7500 for a peepshow print!(no matter who the artist is).

[ameerat42]

Another non-event from the annals of the unabated states of a merry-go-round.