Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/05/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 Sent from my iPad On 26-May-2013, at 8:15 PM, Gerry Walden <gerry.walden at me.com> wrote: > I read about this guys work elsewhere and my immediate thought was that he > was skating on very thin ice legally. It will be interesting to see the > outcome of this, but in my eyes it is a very clear case of invasion of > privacy, and I feel that even the defence of 'in the public interest' will > fail here if he attempts to invoke it. > > Gerry > > Gerry Walden > +44 (0)23 8046 3076 or > +44 (0)797 287 7932 > www.gwpics.com > > On 26 May 2013, at 15:38, scleroplex <scleroplex at gmail.com> wrote: > >> even i have to agree they have a case here. >> he was not on a public street shooting what is in plain sight. >> >> http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/24/57929.htm >> >> bharani >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information