[Leica] a photographer sued

[michael.t.russ at gmail.com (Michael Russ)]

I'm conflicted by this.  On the one hand, his project seems creepy, but 
only because the subjects weren't asked to participate.  I have not seen 
the pictures to determine if they would interest me if I had known the 
subjects had been asked to be photographed rather than been photographed 
unknowingly.  Also, has he really invaded their privacy if they leave 
their curtains open for anyone to see into their homes?  Privacy is 
something you have to create for yourself through the use of barriers, 
and if you willfully drop your barriers, can you complain of the 
results?  After all, he did not physically set foot in their homes. 
Violation of social mores against doing such things is another matter 
and possibly not legally actionable.

Just musing, but would there be more of a problem for the photographer 
if the subjects had taped signs to their windows stating that taking 
pictures in their homes was forbidden?  Would this also work for people 
walking down the street who don't want street photographers taking 
pictures of them (admittedly, this is stretching the concept a bit, but 
when hasn't the law not stretched itself by accident . . .)

I think the more interesting outcome may involve what the photographer 
could do with the images without model releases, since the photographs 
were not taken in public spaces.  I have never quite fully understood 
the fine details of the distinction between editorial and commercial 
uses of a person's image.  Since the photographer is selling pictures of 
the subjects but not using the subjects to sell other things, perhaps it 
doesn't matter that the subjects didn't consent to their photographs 
being taken, and he can sell the pictures without model releases.

Mike


On 5/26/13 11:50 AM, Montie wrote:
> This individual is in for a hard ride IMO...no effort to get permission
> or a release, invades their pivacy, documents the invasion, then attempts
> to use the results for personal gain? Geez...maybe worse than voyeruism.
> Guess it depends on how identifiable the subjects are.  I would have
> gone for silhouettes!  :-)
>
> Montie
>
>>> I was actually quite surprised a gallery agreed to represent and sell 
>>> what
> seems to be the work of a Peeping Tom at best, a voyeur at worst. At any
> rate, some definitive case law should come out of it, which should clarify
> the dos and donts for the future.
> Cheers
> Jayanand
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>