Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can understand if the pics were taken when people were in the streets, but inside people's own
apartments is kind of too much and unacceptable to me. Can you imagine this old creepy guy hiding
in the shadow of his apartment looking at you or family memebers for hours and taking pics of you
without you knowning about it? And then turns around and call it art, sold for up to $7,500 each at
the Julie Saul Gallery without your consent.
isnt that illegal, especially when he's selling it, wouldn't he need my permission to sell/publish it?
Pretty sure its only illegal if he circumvents privacy barriers to take the photos. If they are out in the open it would be legal and there are no faces so it would be even harder to prove it was the person.
If this is the same incident that was described in The New Yorker a couple of weeks ago the artist is busily contacting the subjects for permission , belatedly.
If this is the same incident that was described in The New Yorker a couple of weeks ago the artist is busily contacting the subjects for permission , belatedly.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's suddenly hustling to get permissions. Lesson he should learn: if you want to take photos of people in their homes through their windows, don't do it in a neighborhood as rich as Tribeca where everyone probably has a lawyer on retainer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.