![]() In the decision of the Appellate Division, Dianne T. In August 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Svenson on the grounds that the photographs were protected under the First Amendment “in the form of art.” In September that year, the plaintiffs appealed. The plaintiffs argued in the complaint that they were “frightened and angered by defendant’s utter disregard for their privacy and the privacy of their children,” and furthermore that the photographs were used for commercial purposes, to promote an exhibition where they would be put up for sale and were also on sale online, and thus constituted advertising and trade. ![]() Foster, originally filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court in May 2013 on behalf of themselves and their minor children James and Delaney Foster claiming that Svenson had photographed them and their children without their consent, resulting on images including one that showed Martha Foster holding her son James (in a diaper), with her daughter Delaney (wearing a bathing suit) standing beside her. Svenson had been taking pictures of New York residents inside their lower Manhattan apartments with a telephoto lens, and without their consent, thus confirming one of the biggest fears New Yorkers have concerning their privacy.Īfter seeing the photographs published in an article in the Tribeca Citizen, a neighborhood weekly, in the lead up to the gallery show, a couple of the subjects seen in the photographs, Matthew and Martha G. When Svenson’s show “The Neighbors” opened at Julie Saul Gallery in 2013, it was met with outrage, followed by legal action. Arne Svenson, from his series “The Neighbors” (2012)Ī ruling of the Appellate Division, First Department, of New York State Supreme Court, in favor of photographer Arne Svenson brings troubling news for privacy advocates (already distraught by Edward Snowden’s Smashed Laptop Displayed at the V&A).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |