Supreme Court Rules Photographing Neighbors Through Windows is Legal

Is it art? It's an age-old question, but as the centuries pass and technology continues to flourish, the question only seems to get harder to answer. The New York State Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of photographer Arne Svenson who was brought to court by a family who he had photographed in their Tribeca apartment without consent.

This may remind some of you of the story we published back in 2012 about the French photographer who had a lens powerful enough to capture Princess Kate sunbathing topless from what seemed like miles away. The Royal family pressed charges against the French gossip magazine, "Closer," who published the photos. A spokesperson for the Royal family stated that they were "hugely saddened" by the invasion of privacy and that "the incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana." The Royal family won the legal battle in the French court, but the Tribeca family that was the subject of Arne Svenson's "The Neighbors" exposition was not so lucky. 

Svenson, represented by Julie Saul Gallery in New York City's Chelsea neighborhood and Western Project in Los Angeles, debuted "The Neighbors" at the Julie Saul Gallery in 2013 to immediate public outrage. Martha and Matthew Foster, being among the most outraged, led Svenson into a lawsuit when they discovered that photos of their toddler-aged childen were among those featured in the exhibition, calling it a "technological home invasion." 

The critically acclaimed artist reportedly spent countless hours pacing his darkened apartment for the families to be within view of his telephoto lens to capture simple moments of their everyday lives, without showing their faces or identifying them. The first trial ruled in favor of the lensman and the case was appealed and brought before the New York State Supreme Court who have now deemed that Svenson's work fell "within the ambit of constitutionally protected conduct in the form of a work of art" and that he was therefore protected under the First Amendment with his rights of an artist.

The Fosters, residents of the seven-story glass "Zinc Building" in lower Manhattan that's easily viewed from the street, claimed Svenson is nothing more than a peeping tom. Svenson's lawyer Nancy Wolff said the Fosters' "expectation of privacy was perhaps reduced when they chose to live with floor-to-ceiling windows and not draw the curtains in a city where we take a certain level of intrusion for granted." Wolff added that "[T]he photos are meant to speak to the anonymity of life in New York" and "[T]here was nothing personally identifiable in the photos, or sexual, and no one would have known it was the Foster's children if they had not filed suit and chosen not to request to proceed anonymously."

In other words: buy curtains.

What do you all think? Were the photographs an invasion of privacy? And what if Svenson had used photographs that included their faces? Would that change your opinion?

To read the court case in full, you can find it here in the New York Law Journal.

Photos courtesy of the Julie Saul Gallery.

If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.