Gay Talese, author of The Voyeur’s Motel. (Image via Wikipedia)

These last few weeks have seen a remarkably busy media cycle for all the Gay Talese buffs out there. First, there were his recent remarks about how female writers didn’t inspire him, followed by ritual outrage/thinksplaining.

Then, the New Yorker excerpted (at length) The Voyeur’s Motel, Talese’s upcoming nonfiction book chronicling the squicky life of Gerald Foos, which was met with immediate polarized reactions along with the announcement of an upcoming film adaptation directed by Sam Mendes. (Fingers crossed for a Michael Shannon top billing.)

Foos is a Denver resident and former motel owner who systematically spied on his guests for decades, taking assiduous notes throughout. Along with witnessing a lot of sex, Foos claims to have seen a murder in one of the rooms. It’s a very creepy and unsettling story of a wildly flawed man, i.e. Talese’s specialty, but with a high profile come questions of the legal and ethical ramifications.

Foos is still alive, and while his motel may have been sold and demolished years ago, former occupants who may be featured in the book were never consulted and would likely be nastily surprised by recognizing themselves in print. This inevitably means we can expect legal recourse against Foos, Talese, and possibly his publisher. After all, this is America. Our brand is litigation.

But would such a suit have a chance? Jordan Steffen of the Denver Post spoke with one local attorney to find out.

“At the end of the day, common sense dictates that you can’t invite guests to stay at your motel, promise them privacy for a fee and then use the guest’s trust against them to violate their privacy in the most outrageous manner imaginable,” Denver attorney Ian Hicks said. “Common sense and the law are in agreement under these facts.”

Still, any guests who file lawsuits face the difficult task of showing they stayed at the Aurora motel decades ago and that they believe they are one of the people featured in any publication.

Plaintiffs face differing standards of validity to their claim, depending on whether they seek criminal or civil prosecution. Civil trials require a lower burden of proof, so if a couple could prove they stayed at the motel during the period Foos documents, and that it was more than likely that Foos spied on them having sex or similar private act, they might have a case for emotional distress—the key word being “might.”

Denver attorney Edward Hopkins Jr. said any such claims likely would be unsuccessful.

“A half-awake defense attorney will look at your complaint and knock it out,” Hopkins said.

A successful lawsuit would require plaintiffs to prove they were at the motel, probably through details in Foos’ notebooks or Talese’s book, Hopkins said.

However, both Hopkins and Hicks agree that the greatest liability in any hypothetical civil claim lies with Talese.

“The author is in an even more precarious legal position, arguably, than the operator, because he is attempting to substantially profit both financially and professionally from this whole ordeal,” Hicks said.

Whether Talese intended to break the law when he watched the couple having sex doesn’t matter. He’s liable either way, Hicks said.

The Voyeur’s Motel will be published by Grove Atlantic on July 12th.