"Peeping Tom" artist wins court case.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Now that's a really bizarre decision. It seems to take no account at all of the precedent it has seemingly set.

I doubt it actually set a precedent. This must have been addressed before with surveillance cameras, etc.

While legal, I do think that photographing people in the privacy of their own home without their knowledge or permission is going too far.

Yes, but AFAIK, publishing or otherwise distributing surveillance photos or video footage can land you in very hot water.

I have to say that I've never heard of any instance where this has been the case.

I'd be more concerned about the aspect of photographing kids in their bedroom/s. - That's something the authorities would definitely apply as leverage in a case over here...legal and innocent or not, I think.

[Warren Dew]

The couple should have sued for money damages instead of trying to block him outright. Blocking him implicates his free speech rights, so the ruling on the case as presented was probably correct. However, they could almost certainly have presented a credible claim that the exhibition would do future harm to them and their children, and sued him for enough to force him to settle, since he obviously didn't get model releases from them.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't seen the pics, but I recall one article(?) or perhaps it was another commenter on the internet mention that the neighbours aren't readily identifiable in the pictures. If that's the case, then they really only had the "privacy" angle to go for.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I haven't seen the pics, but I recall one article(?) or perhaps it was another commenter on the internet mention that the neighbours aren't readily identifiable in the pictures. If that's the case, then they really only had the "privacy" angle to go for.

If you look at the article in the op you can just about see some of them in the gallery - taken through the window.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

The couple should have sued for money damages instead of trying to block him outright. Blocking him implicates his free speech rights, so the ruling on the case as presented was probably correct. However, they could almost certainly have presented a credible claim that the exhibition would do future harm to them and their children, and sued him for enough to force him to settle, since he obviously didn't get model releases from them.

...Or they could take photos of him for a couple of months and then see if a gallery wants to buy any of them.

[pErvinalia]

I haven't seen the pics, but I recall one article(?) or perhaps it was another commenter on the internet mention that the neighbours aren't readily identifiable in the pictures. If that's the case, then they really only had the "privacy" angle to go for.

If you look at the article in the op you can just about see some of them in the gallery - taken through the window.

Yeah, I thought that was funny..

[rachelbean]

If you don't want people to see in, get some curtains. Even very light/sheer ones can let in light and air and still stop anybody from seeing in. Otherwise, you are essentially doing what you're doing, in public.

[Clinton Huxley]

This photographer chap is in want of a damned good thrashing if you ask me.

[Warren Dew]

I haven't seen the pics, but I recall one article(?) or perhaps it was another commenter on the internet mention that the neighbours aren't readily identifiable in the pictures. If that's the case, then they really only had the "privacy" angle to go for.

They obviously got identified some way.

[pErvinalia]

That was explained somewhere in some article. Can't remember how or where, though.