Privacy in public place: When does window peeping give way to "artistic expression"?

The exhibits apparently were quite successful and sold a lot of prints.

Is window peeping bad, but window imaging is ok?

Does this mean that as long as I'm not standing on the owner's property (e.g. on public right-of-way or another property) I can aim a telephoto lens into someone's window?

Does this mean that model releases are now passé? If you don't need a model release in this situation, why would one be required when the relationship between the photographer & subject is more obvious?

NY Post: Judge backs the right of creepy Tribeca artist to photograph people through their windows (Aug 9 2013)

A Manhattan judge ruled this week that artistic freedom trumps the rights of parents who don’t want their kids secretly photographed through the windows of their homes.​

​

Judge Eileen Rakower tossed a lawsuit brought by two parents against a Tribeca artist who snapped pictures of their children through their apartment windows as part of a controversial exhibition this year.​

​

“What are the implications here for parents?” said a friend of the plaintiffs yesterday. “You can just have people shooting your kids in their bedrooms, and nothing can be done about it? You can’t just hide behind the word ‘art’ to behave poorly.”​

 

New York and certain other jurisdictions make a distinction between "commercial representation" and "artistic representation."

"Commercial" typically requires more extensive "release" than "artistic."

 

This is just plain wrong. The commercial use of these things should require a release. What do think happens when justice is denied like this? The photographer will be found floating in the East River.