How Would You Feel Being Secretly Photographed in Your House For An Art Exhibit?

How Would You Feel Being Secretly Photographed in Your House For An Art Exhibit?

Residents of a luxury building in the Tribeca neighborhood of New York City are quite upset over the recent news that an art exhibit will be featuring photos, shot of them, through their house windows. How would you feel if you heard a photograph of you sleeping or bending over in your house is now part of an art show and selling for thousands of dollars? Would you feel like your private space was violated? Is this even legal? Read on to learn more about the photos and the legality surrounding the whole issue.

Photographer Arne Svenson started a project called "The Neighbors" which entailed him hanging out behind the curtains of his second story building and secretly shooting photos of his neighbors across the street through their windows. The photographs, which don't show any faces, are now being sold for up to $7,500 each at the Julie Saul Gallery. The residents of the luxury penthouses heard about the display of photos and are now fuming. Some residents have pointed out that there are photos of children in the display which means Svenson could have been looking through the window for sometime with his telephoto lens invading their children's very private space.


Fstoppers Svenson Exhibit 1

Fstoppers Svenson Exhibit 2

According to the New York Post, one parent Clifford Finn said, "A grown man should not be able to photograph kids in their rooms with a telephoto lens. You can argue artistic license all you want, but that’s really the issue here. I’m sorry, but I’m really bothered by this.” The photographer Svenson is unapologetic and feels he has every right to do what he would like. In a statement about the work Svenson said, "For my subjects there is no question of privacy; they are performing behind a transparent scrim on a stage of their own creation with the curtain raised high. The Neighbors don’t know they are being photographed; I carefully shoot from the shadows of my home into theirs. I am not unlike the birder, quietly waiting for hours, watching for the flutter of a hand or the movement of a curtain as an indication that there is life within."


Fstoppers Svenson Exhibit 3

Fstoppers Svenson Exhibit 4

Fstoppers Svenson Exhibit 5


The New York Post talked with experts in privacy law that have said because the photos do not show any full faces there is likely no misdemeanor criminal case that could be brought up against Svenson and that the residents would probably have more luck filing a civil case instead. So what do you all think about this? How would you feel if you saw a photographer across the street with his 400mm lens pointed into your window? Even though the photos he has released do not show full faces, who is to tell what other photos Svenson might have secretly snapped. Some might argue that if the residents want privacy they should close their window curtains, but I feel that we should not have to do that while in our own homes. Let me know how you feel in the comments below.

Photographs by Arne Svenson/Julie Saul Gallery

[Via PetaPixel, Via New York Post]

Trevor Dayley's picture

Trevor Dayley (www.trevordayley.com) was named as one of the Top 100 Wedding Photographers in the US in 2014 by Brandsmash. His award-winning wedding photos have been published in numerous places including Grace Ormonde. He and his wife have been married for 15 years and together they have six kids.

Log in or register to post comments
95 Comments
Previous comments

Exactly what I was going to say. I love some light and fresh air. I don't mind if people could glance into my windows, whatever that is part of normal life and its gonna happen, but someone staking out my place to make a profit would be super creepy.

This is what happens to movie stars, all the time. In fact, its their life. While its despicable, you don't find people getting outraged when it happens to movie stars.

movie stars get mad all the time, they generally don't like the papparazzi, but at the same time most recognize that is the price they pay for fame is lack of privacy. It's not like these other people chose to pursue a career that would put them in the public eye all the time.

I actually think papparazzi who take pictures of private moments, upskirts, famous people eating in restaurants, etc. are scum of the earth. I do get outraged for all the good it does me.

Personally, I think that a lot of them should be arrested for being peeping toms and laying in gutters to get a picture of a woman's crotch.

Call me crazy.

Crazy

Photos of movie/theater/opera/whatever stars outside their property are one thing, but they should certainly be free from pictures taken through their windows. Anyone w/ public life should have privacy in their homes.

I don't think people should have to keep their blinds pulled all the time just to keep themselves from being photographed in their own homes.

Interesting thread. Photographers are usually careful to get a signed model/property release before commercially using a photo of an individual or their building. The general exception is the taking of a photo of someone in a public place (and taken from a public place), and even then a model release is advisable. There are some big law firms representing plaintiffs in such actions against photographers and winning big cash awards. The only difference I see here is that the subjects were unaware of the images being made of them and their home interiors.

I find it interesting, too, that had the photographer just been peering through the window from just outside it, he'd be considered a peeping Tom which MAY be a misdemeanor along with trespassing.

I think the victims (yes, they've been exploited) should hire a good attorney (one of the biggest in the biz lives in NY) and sue the photographer and wherever the exhibit is being shown. Taking photos of people in their own homes without their knowledge and consent and using them commercially is wrong on any number of levels and should be challenged.

Just my $0.02 .

photos aren't being used commercially. They are artwork. Just like the Jewish fellow who tried suing a NY street photographer who sold his photos in galleries back in 2005, that case was dismissed. Making money off a piece of art doesn't make it commercial, using photos to sell another product is commercial and requires a release.

Don't want to split hairs or argue semantics, but the photographer is selling his photographs of people without a release ("The photographs, which don’t show any faces, are now being sold for up to $7,500 each at the Julie Saul Gallery."). If that isn't a commercial enterprise, nothing is. The fact that he virtually "invaded" their private property without permission to do so is another whole can of worms. Each of his neighbors should sue him.

What if someone doesn't want to have their curtains closed? In the end, it's their own home and that should be respected. It's a silly and pervert excuse to say that the photographs were taken from outside and that there were no curtains to impede to see through; in any case, it's privacy invasion.

Moreover, art is being devalued nowadays. Please someone tell me why that work is considered art.

I agree unethical and creepy. I wonder how the photographer would feel if this was done to them?

Well, at least I know that I will never be the creepiest photographer alive.

The question might be not whether he publishes identifiable photographs but whether he has them in his possession, especially of any children. Execute a probable cause search warrant to see what he has and then decide if a prosecution can be sustained.

See... these windows... not so clean. Honestly, when I am shooting my kids playing in the yard or shooting in hoops out front I am so careful to not include the neighbors in my photos. I think if they wanted me to catch them living they would ask. Isn't this how a plot to an Alfred Hitchcock movie begins? Poor taste IMO.

This is why we should all dress as superheros when hanging around at home.

The brilliant thing here is being able to sell these for upwards of $7500 - I applaud the photographer for his ability to create that much value for the buyer so simply

I'd be shocked if this is legal. Here in Ontario there are a number of different laws that would have been broken by doing this.
We have laws against Peeping Toms and photography in private space without consent.

how is this different from the cops doing a steak-out and taking photos, should this act be ilegal or need a warrent as well?? i understand that it is creepy, but if you can be seen from a public place, even with a telephoto lens, you are considered to be in "public" in California at least.

They weren't seen from a "public" place. They were seen from this guys apartment. I doubt anyone could see in from street level.

I believe that a person has the right to expect privacy in one's own home. It is not a public place. These people are not outside of their home walls (on a fire escape, etc.). People glancing in a window as they pass by is not an intrusion into your life (and most of the time unintended); however, purposefully photographing someone in their own home without their knowledge is an intrusion. It is reprehensible. I would also consider it to be stalking, and I would seek whatever legal avenues I could - especially a restraining order. Restraining orders can cover things other than distance from a person. Even though a face may not be shown, I can prove an image is recognizable as me - especially if it is taken in my home. As a person who has been stalked before, I can't tell you how scary this story is. Take my picture from inside my home and profit from it without a model release, you can expect not only a civil suit, but I will do everything I can to see you go to jail. One does have the right to a legal 'expectation of privacy' in your home. To quote from lawyers.com, "Under federal and state laws, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s residence and property". I sincerely believe that if these residents decide to take action, this photographer better get a very good lawyer.

I'm on the same side as the photographer.

This is creative in a 12 year old with a new camera kind of way. It should anger every photographer who spent more than 10 minutes learning anything about your trade.

Artistically, I love the photo's and part of that is because it is an area that we do not often see photographed. This is the same as many other things like lightning strikes, rare birds, solar flares ... etc. My point is that from a photographic perspective it does appeal to me.

From an ethical perspective it does meander close to the line (whichever side of the line you perceive it to be).

If the "artist" had, after taking the pictures, knocked on the front door and said, "Hi, I took these as part of a project and am willing to destroy them or, with your permission, use them?" What would you say to that? It adds a gamble to the end result but does give full disclosure...

Thoughts?

Invasion of privacy! Would you take a car just cause its parked? Not cool!

As a 27 year professional photographer, I quite honestly think Arne Svenson makes our profession look bad, and is not only unethical, but Unprofessional, and the photos are plainly in bad taste.. Trevor is 100% correct in posing the question "Even though the photos he has released do not show full faces, who is to tell what other photos Svenson might have secretly snapped." As a private citizen, I would like to believe we could enjoy the view of the city from our Lofts, Apt ect.. and let lots of sunlight in without having to worry that some scum bag snapping pics of us at home in a private moment..We shouldnt have to be made to feel like we have to have the curtains closed all the time. I dont know about anyone else. But I wants of Sunlight in my house. Arne Svenson is about 10 steps below a Paparazzi.. and then to be trying to sell the photos for $1000s at a Gallery.. Stalker and Creepy are two words that come to mind when I read this story!!

NO ONE, UNDERSTAND IT ALREADY, NO ONE HAS OWNERSHIP OVER LIGHT! NO ONE! Light is free and travels throughout the universe! If you can see something or you can capture an image of something is because light has crashed onto that object and then traveled to your eye or lense or whatever! You don't own photons even if they crashed on you and then went other way! YOU DON'T OWN PHOTONS!!! Even if there's an artist that takes termal pictures of people inside their houses won't be bad because heat is also free and no one owns it NO ONE!!! Gosh, people is so stupid this days. This things are easy, very easy to explain with science. Don't try to make a stupid "Ethical" problem about this. This is art, and happened because people let light go out to the public domain. PERIOD!

There are these things you can buy, I don't know if the offended people have heard of them... they come in two broad categories: curtains and blinds. Really worth a look if you like your privacy.

I did a similar series on prostitutes in south east Asia from a car fitted with black out windows: http://hankfan.com/2013/02/21/babylon/

It's Art.

I wish I could just photograph whatever-the-f@#! and sell it for $7, 500. Ridiculous!

I don't really care for him... I would look into those who actually purchase those images though, because they are the ones who enable these kind of people.

Moral issues apart, who would pay 7500 for crappy pictures? I mean, who would really like to hang these "pieces of art" in his own house and show them to neighbors or family. This is utterly stupid.

I find this kind of tabloid sensationalism pretty poor, and overall detrimental to photographers... as it perpetuates the myth that taking a picture of a fully clothed child is a crime.. and therefore you must be a peadophille... wtf? the only way to commit a crime taking a picture of a child is if it is sexualy explicit.... and as for invasion of privacy if you live in a gold fish bowl and dont want to be seen then get some mirror glass or some blinds? we live in a world where we readily expect to be observed by others and have our image recorded thousands of times a day by cctv etc, so get over it, who cares if an artist take your picture? I doubt anyone would object if you painted there picture........

You are part of the problem if you think it's acceptable to invade the privacy of everyone around you.

This is an interesting conversation. I really have no privacy where I live. At any given time I expect to see a neighborhood kid peering in my window if the curtains are open; but that's the point. If my curtains are open, I fully expect less privacy. Is it creepy and unethical that this guy photographed people through their windows? Yes, I'll give you that. However, given my experience with nosy neighborhood children, I'll have to admit that not everyone is taught the same level of morality and respect for others. In an age where people are sharing so many intimate details of their personal lives online, I expect that a lack of privacy in the 'real' world is sure to follow. I think it is human nature to be curious of others; but it is the individual's responsibility to set his or her own boundaries and realize that these boundaries may not always be respected.
Svenson's photographs are beautifully executed, though. I especially like the one of the girl in the green chair. It has the feel of a classic oil painting in the sense of composition and lighting.

I think it is incorrect - in actually if not legality - to say that simply because someone's face is not shown it follows the person is unidentifiable. People can be identified from behind by their stance, posture, clothing, etc. The photos for the exhibit that I've seen online are well-composed and artistic. Shame the photographer utilized his talent in such a creepy manner.

It is wrong only because of there is evil in this world and it open the door to other type of individuals.
If we could trust other there would be no problem with them photographying us in our house, but we can't.

Alois Riegl, one of the founders of the discipline of Art History, would have considered these shots to be produced from a "scientific" worldview. The portrayal of the subject matter comes from a stance that is unfeeling, uncaring, and detached. In other words, the photographer views his subjects in the same way that a scientist views his laboratory experiments.

Not illegal? I wonder how these same law enforcement people would fare in getting a search or arrest warrant for something they saw through someones window?

"The law refers to it as "reasonable expectation of privacy""

I think this person should have obtained permission, at a minimum after her captured these candid - no "full face" images. Perhaps included these homeowners, with a private screening and a portion of the proceeds going to them. Of course, this would have been a risk, and could have led to no images being released - as those people could have said "no". OR, this photographer could have been regarded as doing some unique and good, had he followed some basic ethical rules. Instead i feel this person is a creeper and saddened by the lack of respect for privacy! Instead people say these homeowners should live in fear/seclusion by closing blinds for the random act of dis-respect - just wrong!!

At least for what I see in these small set of pictures there is some real artistic composition and desicion making to put together a serious exhibition...the images here not of bad taste or even edgy for that matter. Legally he is not trespassing so he is not even breaking the law to create these images.

I honestly see nothing creepy here for morals and pitchforks to start coming out...

Did you see the POTD of last month? A picture of a naked kid won a spot there, is it considered pedophilia? What if some pedophiles take it and use it that way? Is it art or not? DOESN'T MATTER!!! The guilt goes to the one that took the picture not to the others using it however they want! It's the same with the houses, the guilt goes to the ones not closing the blinds on their FANCY FULL CRISTAL HOUSE!

What if some guy goes out flashing his genitals to every woman? Who is to blame there? The flashing guy or the womans? IT'S THE SAME!!! You don't asked for the light crash your eyes or your lense! It's an invasion the other way around! I repeat, if you don't want something to be seen DON'T SHOW IT!

I must be a bumpkin, because I have a very stupid question regarding the floor-to-ceiling window style and it is this: Weren't people afraid before? Granted, I live in the country in New England so could not speak coherently on the topic, but as most people, I greatly admire the spectacular condos and penthouses in Boston and New York - I just can't get over the privacy issue.. I often wonder if the glass is "treated" somehow whereas the residents can see out, but nobody could see in, but was never sure. After reading this story, :( I guess not. I wish they were.

It's definitely an invasion of privacy. But, let me ask this-- how is this any worse than people who photograph random strangers on the bus/train/airplane/street/inside Wal-Mart and then post their photos on social media in order to make fun/mock/take the piss or profit from them? And why is it socially acceptable to photograph homeless people on the street and then profit from their misery? Svenson is a product of his environment where people stopped respecting each other's personal space and privacy.