• Sun
  • Nov 23, 2014
  • Updated: 11:25am
NewsHong Kong
PRIVACY

Residents angry at 'rear window' photographer

Inhabitants of a Sai Ying Pun apartment block say German artist Michael Wolf's voyeuristic - and telephoto - images violate their privacy

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 14 February, 2013, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 14 February, 2013, 8:36am
 

Angry residents of an apartment complex claim a well-known photographer may have invaded their privacy - taking pictures of people in their homes with a telephoto lens - without their approval.

"If I see the photos on a gallery wall, I'll rip them down," said resident Clinton Mack, 33. "I don't care if he's some renowned artist. He can't profit from anyone's image without their consent."

"If I see the photos on a gallery wall, I'll rip them down. I don't care if he's some renowned artist. He can't profit from anyone's image without their consent

The latest project by award-winning German photographer Michael Wolf, titled "Window Watching", has raised legal concerns that it violates the privacy of people in Hong Kong.

The photos, taken through windows, capture moments such as a woman helping a child with homework, a girl lying on her bed talking on the phone and a man doing push-ups in his living room. In a few of the sample photographs, which Wolf published on his website, the subjects' faces are visible. In others, they are blurred or obscured.

Each of the more than two dozen residents who spoke to the South China Morning Post, and two security guards, have identified the apartments in the website photos as their building in Sai Ying Pun. A spokesman for the building's management office, however, said they could not identify the building from the photos.

Wolf, an internationally exhibited photographer who lives in Hong Kong, has told the South China Morning Post that the series is not yet complete, and that he plans to publish a book featuring the photographs. He refused to respond to questions about legal concerns and complaints from residents.

"It's a horrible thing he did," said Dai Bo, 33. "Now that I know there's some man taking photos of people in my building, I'll keep my curtains closed all the time and avoid going on my balcony."

"The children in the photographs could have been my kids," said another resident, Stephen Chou, 48. "I would definitely consider filing a complaint."

But lawyers and privacy experts say that if the residents cannot identify themselves in any of the photographs, they would probably not be able to take legal action against Wolf.

Barrister Robert Tibbo said: "[Seeking] recourse through the courts for breach of confidence may be possible, but that's something the very wealthy are better positioned to do. The most practical way would be for those who have identified themselves in the photographs to file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner."

A spokeswoman for the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) said failure to comply with the data-protection principle under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance "does not constitute a criminal offence directly". But if someone contravenes the ordinance then fails to follow an enforcement notice, they can face criminal prosecution, a fine up to HK$50,000 and two years' imprisonment.

The number of complaints made to the PCPD has increased in recent years, from 1,001 complaints in 2009 to 1,213 in 2012.

 

Share

Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
8

This article is now closed to comments

thung01
A true artist would not need to be a Peeping Tom to be creative.
Camel
There is no question about it. Mr. Wolf violated the privacy of the people and it is like robbing them.
If something like this is allowed, how about publishing pictures of a couples in their bedroom making love? Or what kind of TV programm the people in their apartment are watching? Mr. Wolf did commit crime in robbing the privacy of people he photographed and should be punished by law.
If I would recognise myself in one of the pictures of this pevert I will sue him until to his last cents in his pockets.
gemdiverstation
Camel, there might be privacy issues with Michael Wolf's photographs here but in all fairness that does not make him pervert. Sometimes, in photography there is a fine line between art and pornography and voyeurism is indeed one movement of photography. You might perhaps like to refer to the works of Nobuyoshi Araki and others. The issue here is not the photographs themselves; it is the act of taking the photographs where the subjects are clearly depicted, but are not consulted beforehand. That's the problematic part.
gemdiverstation
@IRDHK: Wait, since when is taking a picture of a child a crime?
Camel
The minute you publish the picture, without asking the person or parents of the person in the picture, and gain benefits out of it. Then you commit a crime.
How about I photograph you and your partner making love and publish in the internet? Not a crime as well?
gemdiverstation
@Camel: read the original comment, which said 'say he took a picture of a child then he could be in jail for a long long time' - the keyword is took, not publish. Notwithstanding the issue about privacy, which is very well valid, I find the author's insinuation that taking a picture of a child results in jailtime (suggesting pedophilism?) is highly disturbing.
On the privacy issue, being a photographer myself, the golden rule before taking any photograph of a person/person(s) where s/he is the subject is to ask for permission first. Some of Michael Wolf's pictures are more generic in nature (windows) but others that zoom in really close are more problematic. The issue here is not whether benefits are gained. No matter whether the photograph is for sale or not, permission should always be gained if an individual is intended to be the subject.
14u2nv
appalling.
HK-Explorer
Taking pictures though someone's window using special means like lenses is just as bad as people taking up skirt photos in MTR stations. People expect a certain amount of privacy when in their homes. Lets say he took a picture of a child then he could be in jail for a long long time (and he should be).

Login

SCMP.com Account

or