By Carlos Miller
The New York Times photo blog posted an incredible collection of photos by Michael Wolf, who specializes in cityscape photography.
The photos of the buildings he takes are riveting with their constrained geometric patterns and sharp details.
But the photos he takes of the people inside their sanitariums of solitude are almost as compelling, if not more.
The question that has arose on the NYT blog is about whether or not Wolf was invading these people’s privacy?
Or did these people have an expectation of privacy by leaving their blinds open even though they knew they were surrounded by high rises?
The Times did not even think about this issue when they posted 20 of Wolf’s photos in a slideshow yesterday. It wasn’t until a few commenters started raising the issue that they were forced to post an update. Those damn commenters.
Update | 12:44 p.m. A number of readers (Comments 2, 4, 6 and 19) have wrestled with the question of whether Mr. Wolf crossed a line of privacy in showing people so recognizably in their homes and offices. As we understand it, the legal question is whether the subject of the photo had a reasonable expectation of privacy. In most states, the courts tend to side with photographers who are on public property, or their own property, and take pictures of things that could be witnessed by any passer-by. The thinking is that people have no expectation of privacy if they have placed themselves where strangers can glimpse them. In the next week or so, we hope to revisit this whole subject in greater depth.
I’m a little torn on this one because I can see both sides. But I will have to side with the photographer in this one because if those people truly wanted privacy, they could have drawn the blinds.
Perhaps they will once they see these photos.
Popularity: 1% [?]
13 responses so far ↓
1 Pinandpuller // Jul 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM
I guess that those people never lived in a college dorm.
2 Catinthewall // Jul 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The headline seems weird. If there’s no expectation of privacy, how can one invade it?
3 bj // Jul 3, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
(from krages.com)
There are also limitations that deal with long lens.
4 Difster // Jul 3, 2009 at 11:28 AM
If you are in a high rise and there is no one close enough to actually see you, then yes, you have an expectation of privacy. If the next nearest facing window is 1000 yards away, no one can see you without a powerful lens and you should have privacy.
Then again, someone didn’t set up a camera in your home and take pictures. I’m actually torn on this one. I have to think about it more.
What about someone who’s back windows face a forest where the nearest property line is too far away to see anyone in the windows with the naked eye? Does that person have a privacy expectation if a picture is taken.
A completely separate matter are the legal issues. A ‘moral’ right to privacy is different from a legal one in some cases. It’s not a cut and dried issue at all.
What if it was the police taking pictures of people in this way as a general policy and not part of a specific investigation? What if the set up a hi-res camera on the top of a building that could capture everything going on in the next building? That would certainly be an invasion of privacy by government in the opinion of most.
What if the owner of that same building wanted to set up such a hi-res cam that would do the same thing for his own private purposes? Would that be any different than the police doing it?
5 Douglas // Jul 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM
I use a long telephoto regularly, and generally do not use it to “spy” into buildings or windows that maybe within my field of view. The subjects of these photos clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the point being made re: the police taking the same type of photographs is true.
They are not photos I would feel comfortable taking or publishing.
6 Simon Jester // Jul 3, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I think a lot of it has to do with people not knowing how the human eye works. They think that if it’s dark and they can’t see out, then people can’t see in. They don’t realize that when you are in dark place looking into a lighted place, you can see about ten times as far. I camp a lot and I know how to use my night vision. People with flashlights are nearly blind compared to me, being only able to see just beyond that tiny spot of light.
7 Enhager // Jul 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Reaching back to my days to the course, Photography and the Law, with Bill Greer at the University of Arizona, if you can take the picture without the use of extra equipment – a telefoto lens or a helicopter – then you are not invading their privacy if you are on public property.
8 Jay R. // Jul 3, 2009 at 3:11 PM
any passer-by does not have a telephoto lens. That’s the difference between expectation and invasion.
Unlikely, but very possible, scenario: [You] are visiting a naturalist camp. The camp is surrounded by fences and trees. Someone goes to the top of the nearest hill and uses a long telephoto lens to take recognizable photos of you.
In my opinion, you had a definite expectation of privacy, and from my understanding of the law, that’s how it would be handled.
If you are going to lengths to see something that the average passer-by can’t see, you are being invasive.
9 Catinthewall // Jul 3, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Jay, why would naturalists require privacy? they just study nature, it’s not like they run around naked.
As for naturists,I thought the point was to shed all privacy.
10 Jay R. // Jul 4, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Catinthewall, yes, my slip-up.
The idea isn’t to shed all privacy – it’s to exist in the ‘natural’ state, but it was just an example; Just because something can be seen does not mean there’s no expectation of privacy.
Using binoculars to look through people’s windows will still get you cited and/or arrested as a peeping tom.
11 Ariel // Jul 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I get a gut feeling of discomfort looking at those two pictures, telling me to look away. Sometimes privacy has to given by the observer too.
12 genewitch // Jul 5, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Reasonable expectation of privacy.
I think the photo of the woman is pushing the line, but the one of the guy (depending on what floor he’s on) is fine.
Someone with blinds down can reasonably expect privacy, someone with their window wide open can’t.
IMHO.
13 Spokker // Jul 5, 2009 at 4:16 PM
All he’s doing is taking high-res pictures of buildings and zooming in on people using an image editor.
Leave a Comment