Who designed and sculpted those? There is no mention of the artist and I would love to find out who. — Megan Oliver on Seen & Heard: New Flower Shop

The new park is fantastic. My only complaint is the handles on the gates. It's like they're designed to cut you every time you try and use them. Ouch! — David on Inside the New Dog Run

I agree with Liz. Sadly though, common sense isn't all that common these days. "People who live in glass houses . . . . should buy curtains." — Lorri on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

The use of a powerful telephoto lens is what really pushes it to creepy for me. I think there needs to be some respect for individual privacy. If I am changing in a locker room, which is a public space to some degree, does that make it ok for people to take photos of me? ( without my knowledge or permission) .. — Sheila on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Curtains and window shades are beside the point. The point here is when you are in your home, it is your space, period..!! You expect and should get your privacy and it should be respected, period..!! The courts made the correct decision based on law and the 1st Amendment, but in regards to the morality of what Arvenson did was a case of non-sexual Voyeurism in the guise of photography/art. — Fred Windberg on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

This is a good call by the courts. Not fun for the neighbors, but that's what window shades are for. Still glad it's not me... — Rowan Gillson on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

This goes beyond creepy. He's using their images without permission. Don't most works like this have to have written permission of those being photographed before they are published in any way? If anyone was taking pictures of kids in the park you can bet the cops would want to talk to them but because here it is "artistic" this idiotic judge lets him off scott-free...what a joke. — Scott on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

I applaud the court for it's ruling, but I think any photographer would tell you, shot what you can, get the image, but be sensitive to the environment and to your subject. This is where I believe Arne Svenson stepped over the line. He was neither sensitive to the intended environment [Private Space] or sensitive to the intended subjects [people who are either working or living in these private spaces]. Some years back, it was called Peeping Tom's and if caught, you would be arrested and jailed for the offense. I just wonder how he would feel if the shoe were on the other foot..?? — Fred Windberg on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Legal yes! Still very creepy!! If it was my wife or kids I wouldn't have sued him, just punched him in the face a few times!!! — brett lind on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

The true victim here is the stuffed bear, as his face is clearly visible and identifiable. As a member of the stuffed animal species, he has no brain and therefore was not aware that he is fully visible to the outside world via floor to ceiling glass windows. Humans should know better. A little common sense might go a long way. A good rule to follow is that if you can see your neighbor thorough the window, then they can see you. If you don't want your neighbor to see (or film) you, then invest in some curtains. — Liz on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Perhaps it would be of some solace to the victims . . . er, subjects, if the photos weren't incessantly reprinted on this site. — Hudson River on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Telephoto lenses and other photographic enhancements make this a slippery slope--no? — cami on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Middy...I agree with you. I photograph in public spaces where there are dozens and dozens of people photographing with their cell phones...and yet I'm the one who is often stopped, pushed back, and questioned. As a freelance photojournalist, my mantra has been and is...if you do it within sight of my camera and you're in public displaying yourself for everyone to see, you're fair game for my camera. What a camera sees through a window....the rest of the world can see as well...and yes, the world is looking. We just want to think they're not. — Debilynn on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

longue centre-ville en direct Liz ya did good! — Michael Collazo on Remembering Liz Berger

I'd just like to suggest that those who find it creepy are identifying with the subjects in the photograph. Except that onlookers who don't know those subjects see them only as human beings, bodies in space, and as such they can detect beauty and humanity without the taint of suspicion and treachery. That's why these images work for some people and to others they are an outrage. That's just my opinion, but that's why I agree with the opinion of the court. If I can see you from the street you are in my view, and that equation is fixed. I may choose to record what I see in images or writing, and I am entirely within my rights to do so. If I tell you right now that I can see the guy across the alley from where I'm sitting, in a green shirt, smoking a cigarette, and if I describe him very explicitly, am I invading his privacy or chronicling my experience in some manner? It's hard to make a legal distinction between verbal and pictorial recording in this case. I cannot see anyone reading this now, but I'm completely aware that anyone reading this can now go find a wealth of information about me. We must get a grasp on what anonymity means in society in cities, online, etc., before we make claims that our privacy is being "invaded". — David G. Imber on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Now if CDAS keeps people from stealing photography from facebook and the rest of the web they would be true heros. — Peter on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

Check out the Subaru Tribeca SUV — Milo on A Piece of Tribeca® (Part 4)

It's about time Tribeca got a boutique flower shop! Cannot wait to stop by when it formally opens. — Susan on Seen & Heard: New Flower Shop

You should stop in. I used to have a studio in this building and got some great music from the little store. This building with it's "discount" store is one of the few left as the block has been converted to residential. The entire block used to be filled with these stores full of bargains and surprises. It was fun to shop there. — Judith on Valentine No. 32

@Minny1018: You can not have an expectation of privacy if you are in public view, whether you are in your own apartment or walking down the street. So yes, it is fair game, creepy, but fair game. — Ariane on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

FYI: Yogurt from the same company that makes the ayran is available at the Associated oops I mean 55 Fulton Market at Southbridge. I think it is all made in the U.S., not imported from Turkey, as there is no country of origin listed but there IS a plant number at which it is manufactured. — Suzanne F on First Impressions: Simit + Smith

If you want privacy, close your curtains. Anything I can see from my property, or from public property, is fair game for a photo. — Middy on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

It isn't the "first time" NYS courts have decided in favor of artists rights. — Mark Kalan on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

That's great... give me your address and I'll wait in the building across the street and photograph you when you are doing your most private things, not tell you about it, then sell them for profit. This is a huge invasion of privacy, not art. — minny1018 on Artist Wins Dismissal in Suit Over Voyeuristic Photos

New name, new attitude, new atmosphere, Dahli's is the place to be on Thursday and indulge in a Double Headed Monster!!! — Lilly-Vet on Zona Tribeca