New Delhi: As the concern around online and offline privacy continues to grow in the age of technological advancement, an artist who discreetly captured a few images of his neighbor as part of an art exhibit has been relieved of the charge of invading their privacy.
Although the New York state appellate court called the act a 'technological home invasion and exposure of private life,' but said that artist Arne Svenson used the pictures for the purpose of art and hence he was not liable for punishment.
The ruling stated that the invasion of privacy, caused due to Svenson's using of a telephoto zoom lens inside his own Manhattan apartment to capture his neighbours through the window, is not actionable as the use of images in question was not for advertising or trading purposes, Ars Technica notes.
Svenson's works have appeared in museums and galleries in the United States and Europe. His exhibit, 'The Neighbors,' has some of the subjects' faces obscured while some of the children's faces remain visible. His website reads that for his subjects 'there is no question of privacy; they are performing behind a transparent scrim on a stage of their own creation with the curtain raised high.'
The pictures showed children's identifiable faces: one of a boy in a diaper, another of a daughter in a swimsuit, and another of a mother holding that daughter. The distressed family in question then hired a lawyer to demand removal of their children's picture from the artist's gallery and website, to which he complied.
However, one of the pictures was featured in NBC's 'Today Show,' showing the daughter's face in a segment titled 'Art or Invasion of Privacy.' The building's address also appeared on a Facebook page.
The family then sued Svenson and sought unspecified damages. But, with the latest ruling, Svenson has been saved from any charges for art's sake.
The appeals court had no other way but to apply the law as it existed. It said that even though the manner in which the photographs were taken was intrusive, such complaints were best addressed to the Legislature, which could revisit this issue.
Comments
0 comment