[Leica] a photographer sued

[jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)]

I saw the photos some time ago and quite liked some of them as well. That 
does not take anything away from the fact that he was photographing scenes 
that were not public. Who knows what photographs he has and is not showing?
Cheers
Jayanand

Sent from my iPad

On 26-May-2013, at 10:38 PM, "Bill Pearce" <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote:

> I am conflicted by this project. Some of the samples I have seen on the 
> net interest me, and I would certainly hang them in my home. It seems to 
> be the logical extension of the seventies photographers that shot 
> "landscapes" that attempted to show the banality of American life, a thing 
> that I recognised but didn't want to see reinforced. So I like some of the 
> results but don't like the concept. Ugh!
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Russ
> Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:30 AM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] a photographer sued
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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