Using a zoom lens to look in the window of a house

2 Hungry Dogs

Well-known member
Recently I was covering the house of Jill Kelly, the socialite who started the investigation that forced Gen Patraeus to resign. There were many cameras representing many news media outlets on all sides of her house. One day in particular Ms. Kelly sat in a chair in front of an uncovered window for a period of about 30 minutes. She was doing nothing special, just going about her business. As she had come home earlier and seen the cameras, as well as complained about them to the police, she as well aware of their presence. To my knowledge all the cameras stayed on the sidewalk.

It is my understanding that using a zoom lens to look into a window of a house, covered or not, can be considered an invasion of privacy. While a wide shot of the house would be acceptable. I am very glad I as not there at the time this happened, as I would have been uncomfortable zooming in to her, but would have felt extreme pressure from the producer to do so. I was worried it would happen again and I would be forced to make a decision. Thankfully I was not.

Please comment on your experience with this type of situation, and what would you do, as well as what SHOULD you do. I understand that would and should are not always equal. If anyone has actual case law that would be great, especially if it is a Florida case.
 

cyndygreen1

Well-known member
In the 1990s California had a new law that pretty much did the same thing - made using a zoom lens an invasion of privacy. I was out doing a pedophile story a few days after it passed...and was staking out the house of the perp. He walked by the large front room window and into the back yard of his house. I could plainly see him walking around. Called my news director, told him what I saw and why I was not shooting it with a tele lens. No problem (good ND).
Have wondered off and on how that applies to fires and crime scenes on private property. I never had a problem zooming on flames or crime scene details (evidence cards, shell casings, etc)...but have wondered if the law applied only to people or objects also.
 

satpimp

Well-known member
zoom lens & privacy

It varies state to state. Here in Florida, a two party consent state, it might play out like this:

An invasion of privacy or failure to aquire second party consent complaint is filed by the allegedly aggreived socialite.

The media lawyer claims consent was given when she sat unperturbed in the window long enough for everyone to get b-roll.

Socialite's lawyer says she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her home.

Media: She is a public figure because of the scandal dejour in the news cycle.

Socialite: But in her private space on private property.

Media: She knew there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and went as far as to call the cops to clear the media hoarde after which time she sat in view backlit in a window in clear sight of the cameras.

The media lawyer would feel good about it. The pundits would declare a victory for the fourth estate and a jury will rule for the hottie forcing at best a settlement.

The photog gets fired. The producer that demanded the shot goes network and the lawyers get paid.

Aint That a B*tch!
 

csusandman

Well-known member
Why not?

As long as you're on public property, why can't you shoot what you want, whether it be in/on public/private property? If the subject is on private property and wants their privacy from the public's sight, cover the windows. Can you expect a right of privacy if you're galavanting about in the public's line of sight? How is this any different that people walking on sidewalks in a downtown setting looking into windows that happen to be people's residences? Or a school playground? Or a park? Or... blahblahblah.

Private citizen vs public figure? That's another wrench in the works.
 

AKinDC

Well-known member
Why not?

As long as you're on public property, why can't you shoot what you want, whether it be in/on public/private property? If the subject is on private property and wants their privacy from the public's sight, cover the windows. Can you expect a right of privacy if you're galavanting about in the public's line of sight? How is this any different that people walking on sidewalks in a downtown setting looking into windows that happen to be people's residences? Or a school playground? Or a park? Or... blahblahblah.

Private citizen vs public figure? That's another wrench in the works.
Seriously? You don't see the difference in using a massively powerful zoom lens to look into your window and someone looking with bare eyes? You have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your private property. If someone needs a 2000mm lens to see you, you're clearly not "galavanting about in the public's line of sight."
 

csusandman

Well-known member
Seriously? You don't see the difference in using a massively powerful zoom lens to look into your window and someone looking with bare eyes? You have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your private property. If someone needs a 2000mm lens to see you, you're clearly not "galavanting about in the public's line of sight."
Yes, I am being serious. I'm also playing the devil's advocate here...

If there's something you don't want people to see do you flaunt it? Do you keep it out in the open? No, you usually take steps to keep it from prying eyes, whether they're intentionally looking or not. Of course you have an expectation of privacy from others, we all do. But are you gonna bitch out someone each and every time they drive/walk/ride/etc. your house and happen to glance in your living room window? Nah. That's too much nit-picky work. But someone with a "massively powerful zoom lens"? Sure, you can bitch 'em out, but they don't have to comply if they're not on your property. A 2000mm lens just means they really wanna see you. And if you're at a window or in your yard, you're making it easier for them to do so.

Going back to the OP's post though, Ms. Kelly noticed the cameras and complained to police (I'm guessing they took note of said complaint but didn't do anything with it as the cameras had remained on the [public] sidewalk.) but then she went in and sat in front of an open window for 30-ish minutes in plain view of anyone either walking by or camped out on the sidewalk. Really?! She should know that, in this day and age, if you want privacy, don't hang out in the open. Should/would the OP have gotten the shot? Should/would we have? There's no right or wrong answer here, it's not as simple as "Yes/No". It's up to each individual photog. And whatever they choose, they have to deal with that decision and whatever comes with it.

Would I? Honestly, I might've rolled for :10 sec and then been done with it. I don't think it's necessary to roll the whole time or for any longer than that, but that's my personal take.
 

Tyna

Well-known member
What if a kid walked by, stopped, took video with his ipod, went home, zoomed in on it using video editing software, and then uploaded it to the internet?

In Canada, we're lucky. We can legally shoot anything that we can see from public property. Period. Would we air 30 minutes of a close up of her sitting in her window? Nope. But we'd use 5 seconds of it, between a wide and medium shot of her house.

Would I feel like I'm invading her privacy? Perhaps. But the law is clear here, and on my side in that situation, so I do my job, which is to make the people who are signing my paycheck happy. I know that shot will make them happy, it's completely legal, so I shoot it. Done.
 

svp

Well-known member
If she wants privacy, she can shut the blinds or close the curtains. If a person was standing naked in their home in front of an open window where the public could see it, they'd be cited for it. You, as the homeowner still need to exercise some responsibility in ensuring your privacy. Personally, I would have no problem zooming in through the window. Like you said, she knew the cameras were there.
 

zac love

Well-known member
I really think it comes down to the Justice Stewart quote of "I know it when I see it"

I think there are always exceptions to invasion of privacy & there is no "one size fits all" definition of where a reasonable expectation of privacy begins & ends.

The zoom lenses on a ENG camera can easily invade someone's privacy, so it really comes down to the photog having solid ethics of what shots to get & what shots to avoid.
 

code20photog

Well-known member
From my media law class, and this applies to print, so I don't know how it exactly translates to video. In CA, the law states that you can shoot into an open window of any private residence while standing on public accessible property, while using equipment that has a reasonable expectation of general consumer use, which has been determined to be a focal length of 210mm. (70-210s were all the rage at one point) If you're standing outside and shooting through a window with a $5,000 600mm f/4 lens, that lens obviously does not have a reasonable expectation of consumer use.

The question I've had with our legal team, and we still don't have a solid answer, is how far UP does your privacy extend? If you have a 10 foot solid block wall around your backyard, and you're sunbathing naked, and we fly over in the helicopter, is there a reasonable expectation to privacy that extends vertically?
 

code20photog

Well-known member
What if a kid walked by, stopped, took video with his ipod, went home, zoomed in on it using video editing software, and then uploaded it to the internet?
Again, this is where the "reasonable expectation of consumer use" comes into play. Everyone has a camera phone these days, and what can be seen with a camera phone through an open window, is perfectly legal. It also brings up "professional vs consumer" quality. If you go to a MLB baseball game as a spectator, they will let you take all the photos you want with equipment not deemed "professional quality." Walk in with a 400mm f/4 on a EOS-1Dx, they turn you away.
 

zac love

Well-known member
In CA, the law states that you can shoot into an open window of any private residence while standing on public accessible property, while using equipment that has a reasonable expectation of general consumer use, which has been determined to be a focal length of 210mm. (70-210s were all the rage at one point) If you're standing outside and shooting through a window with a $5,000 600mm f/4 lens, that lens obviously does not have a reasonable expectation of consumer use.
I hope this is a general guideline & not so specific. Technology changes so fast that what you could see with a 210mm in 1980 is a lot different than what you can see today.

Get a micro 4/3 camera & adapter, that 210mm gives you the 35mm FOV equivalent of a 420mm lens. Depending on the quality of the chip in that camera, you could potentially take better pictures than "consumer" 35mm film, meaning you could crop the photo even more & have an even more "telephoto" photo.

All of this with, still, very consumer equipment.

---

I really do feel this isn't something you can write in stone, it has to be a case by case basis on what is the reasonable expectation of privacy.

You can use guidelines, but those guidelines have to evolve with technology & society's expectations.
 

code20photog

Well-known member
All of this with, still, very consumer equipment.

---

I really do feel this isn't something you can write in stone, it has to be a case by case basis on what is the reasonable expectation of privacy.

You can use guidelines, but those guidelines have to evolve with technology & society's expectations.
Which is exactly where "reasonable expectation of consumer use" comes in to play.

Technology changes, 10 years ago, a 12mpx camera in a phone was unheard of, today it's the norm. And camera equipment is more accessible these days. I know with my 100-400L Canon lens for my EOS, there's a serious question as whether it's "consumer" "prosumer" or "professional" It's a $1,900 price tag, which can put it out of the "consumer" range, but I've argued, and won, with MLB officials, that it's not "fast" (f5.6) enough to be considered "Professional" and have been able to bring it in to MLB Spring Training and Regular Season games. But, it's a staple of most professional still photographers, so is it a "professional" lens?

There's a lot of grey areas out there.
 

PAD Imaging

Member
Hm. I thought the tabloids got away with that all the time on the still side?

I can't answer for the media side, but from the law enforcement side, the US Attorney General for our circuit wouldn't accept it for so-called 'routine' surveillance, but would take it under review on a case-by-case basis if a serious felony or death was captured.

Even aerial stuff. I used to be able to use a thermal imager from a rotary platform all the time, but then the courts ruled that too intrusive.

Now that I'm trying to be a multimedia stringer, I'd shoot anything I could see, from whereever, and then 'minimize'. I'm not out trying to embarrass people or shock the conscience of the viewing public. I realize there's big money to be made from that, but I've starved before.

On the other hand, if it's an investigative story, my lens is going where the story is.

If y'all are interested in how Big Government looks at it for non-National Security cases, google 'curtilage'. That's the golden line.

-Shawn
 

Ben Longden

Well-known member
Set in stone too.... here we dont have any such laws, just a case of 'push the boundaries'.

What usually happens is that if one network gets the extrame long lens shots from five Km away of a celeb in a topless bikini then the other networks do a story on the moral implications of that method, using censored photos/vision of the end result.

The thing is to try and embarrass each other when sprung, but secretly wish they had the scoop vision.

The next thing is for the celeb to take civil action claiming to be a victim of stalking, which is used a lot in the courts here, especially with domestic violence.
 
Top