digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at whirljack.net

If You Put That Picture On The Internet I’ll Call My Lawyer

whirljack.net — This guy was on the corner of Stockton and Columbus in San Francisco yelling at a homeless man. Anger, conflict, drama — sounds like a great shot to me.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thomashawk, on 05/07/2008, -5/+333what a prick.
    • 507projex, on 05/07/2008, -2/+127indeed.
      "I assured him that his photo would be on the internet," equals a lol for me.
    • Haeretik, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3Yessir indeed!
    • Belldanime, on 05/07/2008, -3/+74Indeed. If he hadn't been such a douchebag, no one would've given two ***** about the picture. It's his drama queen attitude that made him our lolcow.
    • noahgelman, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4thats sum major douchebaggery
    • ByteGuerilla, on 05/07/2008, -0/+45He's got one of those ridiculous ***** earpieces too.
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 05/08/2008, -4/+41Mirror: http://www.whirljack.net.nyud.net:8080/jeremybrook ...
    • qwerter, on 05/08/2008, -0/+59The bluetooth earpiece really completes the picture.
      • Iamironman, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6don't forget the leather jacket and slicked back hair
    • antonio97b, on 05/08/2008, -19/+15I don't see him being a dick really. Yeah he went about it the wrong way, but I would feel violated if some asshat just started taking pictures of me on the street. That is a rude thing to do. Legal or not some things are just rude.
      I guess I'm alone on that thought.
      • TheJokerV, on 05/08/2008, -2/+13I wouldn't. While I probably wouldn't want someone just takng pictures of me without my permission one must realize that you're in a public area nad thus have no expectation of privacy. I would simply just try not to be a prick and ask the photographer nicely if he please stop/delete the photos. In other words, I would just behave like a decent human being.
        • antonio97b, on 05/08/2008, -9/+4Thanks for saying the same thing I said...
          Not everyone likes their picture taken, so it would be nice if they asked first.
          • TheJokerV, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4Woops sorry. Read your comment a little too fast. Anyway, now that I read it again I just want to say I am in total agreement.
        • Belldanime, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13"Excuse me, sir. Can I please take a picture of you as you harass that homeless guy?"
        • badjoke, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I got my picture taken with a sleeping homeless guy in Spain last month. Nearby cops threatened to smash my camera if I didn't give it to them. Then they told me that they'd smash my teeth if I didn't give them. Seeing as I didn't want to be in jail or without a smile the day before I left I showed him that I deleted a picture and he went through and deleted the previous 5 pictures of night scenery. What a dick!

          Thankfully he didn't delete or see the picture of me drunkenly peeing into the harbor. ;)
          • GawtMilk, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"NTFS Undelete"? Put that card in a card reader and you're golden...always carry two cards. The second you delete a shot you didn't want to, switch cards -- and undelete it later.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2You're correct. Im a photographer. I've had a few people ask me not to use their photos. If they ask nicely, they get what they want. I had a toughguy POS like that tell me he's gonna break my camera. His photo went up on flickr (I don't like connecting my flickr account to my digg one...so no link)...

        You come at me like an asshat, I'll damn well put your picture out there for the world to see.
    • danomagnum, on 05/08/2008, -0/+19If he is in the witness protection program, he might be boned now...
      • SpyDerMann, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5I bet he has MANY enemies anyway....
    • nevetando, on 05/08/2008, -22/+1Prick yes, but I also believe he was within his rights. Regardless of where I am, be it public street or park, if somebody starts snapping my picture it is an invasion of my privacy. You can be seen, looked at, comment on etc... but picture taking is another level. An don't for a second think that the photo was NOT for personal gain... It went on a personal blog he wants to generate traffic to and display a portfolio on. you cannot profit from or gain personally from a photo with out permission from the subject. It may not me monetary, but just look at the fact his blog crashed. this guy got thousands of hits on his site that never would of come otherwise, and chances are a couple people bookmarked the page and will check back. all based on a photo collected without the permission of the subject.

      Sorry, in my mind this boarders on paparazzi...

      That, and I know if I was with my two young daughters and some random dude took a couple pictures of them... I WOULD of walked away with his camera, and he would of been a crumpled heap on the ground. sorry, but you cannot trust anybody, ever.
      • sillyoldbear, on 05/08/2008, -1/+13Which makes you exactly the kind of deuchebag that would have been yelling at a homeless guy to begin with.
      • REBELinBLUE, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8"you cannot trust anybody, ever."

        What a sad, scary world you live in, it must be horrible constantly living in fear.
        • thetinguy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I have a bridge that I am selling ...
      • Iwantawii, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2WOULD *have
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7Good job, tough guy. Then I come after you.

        Assault,
        Battery,
        Theft (camera)
        Fleeing the scene of a crime
        Willful Negligence (leaving someone to die)

        ...

        I would OWN you...and then I would put your picture on the internet.
    • Radan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Edit: Ah, Stockton. I seriously read that as Stockholm (capital of Sweden). Aright, I got no knowledge of the US justice system when it comes to this area. Nothing to see here folks.

      The site has been taken down and I seriously can't make anything out of that description. Was he in Stockholm or Columbus? If the picture was indeed taken in Stockholm he has his full legal right to deny publication of the photo, dumbass or not.
    • schibs, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2JAEGER BOMBS!
    • jmkiii, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1This will get out of hand.
  • nontrivialMatt, on 05/07/2008, -9/+104good for you, standing up for your rights.
    • lukemandese, on 05/08/2008, -19/+5Is this really news?
      • stabbingkittens, on 05/08/2008, -1/+15No. Stupid posters putting stories under the wrong sections again. It should be under offbeat>people.
        Wait..
        • flangepiece, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Why isn't there a beat-off section, that's what I want to know.
    • ell0bo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3See, if you have something you don't want many people to see, submit it to digg. After a few diggs, the server goes down, and it's a legal take down of a server, as we see here.
    • Gabberwok, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6Is it really within your rights to post a random picture of someone on the internet though? I feel like the legal issues might be a bit more complicated than we're making them out to be. (Considering professional photographers have to get people to sign releases all the time, I think this is probably at best a gray area...)
      • YoshoKatana, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5If it's a public place (not only public property, but also private property open to the public) you can take pictures of anything. Anything.

        Taking pictures of people on the street is perfectly legal.
      • coldfusion1970, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Dont you see all the paparazzi pics online?
        Whats the difference?
      • rajulkabir, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Professional photographers have to get releases from non public figures if they want to sell the photos.
        Sticking it on your blog or on flickr is quite different.
    • moush, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Are you talking about the guy telling him not to put his picture online?
  • LegendX, on 05/07/2008, -7/+257I salute you sir for this awesome shot.

    But this post does draw a point.
    Watch what you say or do because you might be on a flickr or youtube. Hi mom!
    • RoflMyWaffle, on 05/07/2008, -2/+54Hi son :)
    • endlessoul, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11That's a good rule in general for the internet.

      Anything you say, anything you do on the internet will stay there. Forever.
      • InvisibleKid, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Not as long as forever... but yeah... It'll stay there for a looong time
      • below413, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13Except the internet has ADD and everyone will forget about you in a day or two...
    • dazparkour, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Don't say that - what I say or do is mostly post text comments. I thought having JPEGs of pieces of paper as articles was bad, I would HATE to think this post may appear in a Youtube video.
      *FLASH!*Have you seen why I love digg?*FLASH!*Look at this*FlashComments*It'sJustTheRofl*FLASH!*
  • nikkirmz, on 05/07/2008, -23/+6Probably a criminal or something who doesn't want anyone to know he's still alive. LOL! What a jerk.
  • urothane, on 05/07/2008, -43/+36There is a thin line one must be careful of. If you take a photo in a public place and person is in it but not the subject then you are in the clear to use it commercially. If you take a photo in a public place and a person or persons are the main subject then you can not use it commercially even under a creative commons license.
    I respect Jeremy for taking a great shot and I doubt he will sell it to anyone. I also don't see any ads on his site so it doesn't appear that he is making any profit on this photo. If this is the case then he should have no issues. However a good lawyer could argue that he earned business by the traffic generated by this photo, thus is being used in a commercial manner.
    • dssstrkl, on 05/07/2008, -4/+31Probably not, considering the "***** you" nature of both the shot and the story. Commercial use tends to be things like selling the shot to an advertising agency or using it in your photo book of assholes you've been in contact with that sells for $50 on Amazon. You don't need to clear rights for shots that end up in the news, and yet photojournalists still get paid for their work.
      Noncommercial != does not ever come into contact with something that generates revenue
      • SoonerRoadie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+9Commercial is usually interpreted as "proposing a commercial transaction." Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. So he wouldn't be able to use in an advertisement. However, he could sell this image as art and be protected by the first amendment, which trumps the right to privacy of the subject, as least where they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, e.g. on a public street.
    • skiboy352001, on 05/07/2008, -5/+28Actually, there would be no paparazzi if you were correct.
      • mediaphile, on 05/08/2008, -0/+14Actually, there is a separate set of laws allowing for photographing newsworthy people and celebrities.
        • varmit, on 05/08/2008, -5/+2I would say its news worthy.
        • TheJokerV, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Then the photographer could just argue that the asshole was newsworthy. problem solved
        • mciampa1214, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8I would also say Paris Hilton is never news worthy... ever.
    • EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4Funny, I don't recall seeing the word "commercial" occur within the text of the 1st Amendment.
    • sqlparse, on 05/07/2008, -11/+5It’s not only about the money if you take a photo of someone then defame them or poke fun of them in a public format you can also get in trouble it’s called defamation of character. For instance if I was to take a random photo of some put it up on a public site and say they gay or a child molester or asshole in this case even if it’s true you can have a problem. If this guy would lose money or anything tangible such a client do to this photo he could possible sue.
      • luchid, on 05/08/2008, -9/+12Don't put gay people and child molester in the same category. You're being a retarded ignorant asshole.
        • mysedai, on 05/08/2008, -3/+8Eh, give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that rather than equating homosexuality and child molestation he just mentioned two things of which people don't generally like to be falsely accused.
          On the other hand, I feel pretty good about burying you for the unnecessary insults.
        • sillyoldbear, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3He did use an "or".
      • ooby, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0For it to be defamatory, it has to be false. For example, to say that Vioxx causes heart attacks wouldn’t be defamatory even though the statement may have been made maliciously and resulted in economic loss because the statement was true. However, to say that Vioxx causes cancer would be defamatory if the statement had no basis in fact.
    • mediaphile, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3If I recall correctly, there was a case in New York where it was determined that if the photo of a person in public has artistic merit, it can be used commercially. Think Cartier-Bresson.
  • noelty, on 05/07/2008, -8/+69Total prick. I feel badly for his daughter. Perhaps his daughter should sue him for being a prickstein-douche-nozzle!
    • hermslice, on 05/07/2008, -5/+14wow im impressed to see that combination of words strung together. DUGG
    • endlessoul, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Prickstein-Douche-Nozzle. Sounds like something Al would say to Sam on Quantum Leap.
    • Chamis, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Comment dugg for use of Douche nozzle -originally coined by Adam Carolla of course (all rights reserved)
    • leif77, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6you feel "bad". Badly is an adverb. Its like saying the mechanism that allows you to feel is broken.

      gotta love kiss kiss bang bang.
      • DubiousDrewski, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Love that movie. Great opportunity to use the quote too.
  • shozdijiji, on 05/07/2008, -6/+11Amazing, seems one would be pleased to have their photo taken, well that is unless they are ashamed of what they are doing in the photo I guess :)
    • Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8That's a ***** line. The same one ass holes in the government use when they say those of us not committing crimes have no problem being searched.

      You're missing the point. He has every right to take his picture because they are in a public space so his being a douche only lead to it's immediate posting online. But that says nothing of whether or not we should be watched by anyone.
    • celotil, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0I often wonder exactly what it is that people like The Sartorialist - http://thesartorialist.com - say to people when he encounters them on the street and wishes to take their picture.

      Seriously, I think he encountered one model in Italy or France and yet, everyone he posts pictures of stands there smiling and happy, looking positively pleased to have their picture taken by a total stranger.

      Sure, I bet he encounters people who don't want their picture taken, and I'm sure he respects them enough to not do so, but you have to wonder sometimes what those people, who are happy and smiling, are thinking when he takes the picture. Are they self-consciously checking themselves out to make sure they don't have spinach in their teeth? Are they worried that they might be seen by someone they don't want to be seen by?

      I can't imagine The Sartorialist taking a picture of the belligerent prick in the article, but I can imagine the prick being paranoid and worried that someone he _really_ doesn't want to meet is going to pass him on the street one day, or, as in this case, see his picture online.
  • jeremybrooks, on 05/07/2008, -6/+9@urothane: Thanks for mentioning the limits on commercial use of photos. I never consider using photos of people commercially simply because I don't want the hassle of managing and tracking model releases.
    • RustyJ, on 05/08/2008, -1/+13Please, click the reply link. It's easy, I promise.
      • jjustice, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Amen. It's almost as bad as people on Facebook "tagging" me in a note when they want to send it to me. Tagging is for when I'm mentioned in the note - if you want to send something to me, I have an inbox.
  • brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -9/+175So, the real question is can this become popular enough so that someone recognizes the douche and gives all his personal details? I sure hope so.
    • floridiot2, on 05/07/2008, -5/+28weherus his myspacae?!!
    • DaviDTC, on 05/07/2008, -1/+41Once the info comes up a good prank would be to sign this guy up for that fake paparazzi service where 10 people follow you around like you are famous and take your picture.
      Although I dont think anyone is willing to put up the money for it.
      • dynelol, on 05/07/2008, -4/+30i say get a big crowd to rickroll him.
        • Soave, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Except only us people from the internet understand RickRolling :/
          • dynelol, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3His confusion would have him more angry and hilarious.
      • sillyoldbear, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5We could hold a fundraiser. I'd kick in a fiver.
      • orangekid13, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1i'm sure there's a bunch of diggers around san francisco that could take thier lunchbreak off to go find him and follow his pompus ass around for a while.
      • Mike89, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Yeah, we'll hold a fundraiser for it. I can go around my neighbourhood and pretend it's an aid campaign for Burma :)
    • quisph, on 05/08/2008, -3/+23Personally, I think it's enough just to embarrass this guy by putting his picture and the story the internet. But I guess there's always going to be some wannabe internet vigilantes standing by to take it that next unnecessary step further. What could possibly go wrong?
  • thomashawk, on 05/07/2008, -58/+19Aggressive dude calling his lawyer.
    Aggressive dude: Hey Mr. Lawyer man. Someone took a photo of me and put it on the internets. I want to sue his ass.
    Mr. Lawyer Man: Uh, sorry Mr. Aggressive dude, it's not illegal for someone to photograph you or post your photo on the internets.
    Aggressive Dude: But Mr. Lawyer Man, it's on digg now and my friends are starting to mock me over it.
    Mr. Lawyer Man: Sorry dude, maybe you shouldn't have been such an asshole to the guy.
    Aggressive Man: What, (in the best jerky boy voice possible), what kind of lawyer are you? how about I SUE YOU then!
    Mr. Lawyer Man: Goodbye. And please pay me my $150 bill by the due date this time.
    • Handonam, on 05/07/2008, -3/+33out of all the comments on this article, i chose to read this!?!?!?


      ugh. calling my lawyer because this was a waste of time.
    • MackenzieArbour, on 05/07/2008, -4/+19That wasn't funny.
  • lfreitas, on 05/07/2008, -3/+283here is a mirror for the story:
    http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/if-you-put-that-pict ...
    • mike4410, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1Thanks for the link! The other is not working -wonder why? :-)
    • onionbagel724, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the link. Apparently he already called is lawyer and made the first link forbidden!
      Forbidden:
      You don't have permission to access /jeremybrooks/2008/05/06/if-you-put-that-picture-on-the-internet-ill-call-my-lawyer/ on this server.
      404 blah blah
    • tifosiuno, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the link stupid websense is blocking the site.
  • IDIGTHEDIGG, on 05/07/2008, -8/+72Let's all digg up this story so we all know about this big douche and ***** him off
    • WNW3, on 05/07/2008, -2/+31I think the bluetooth thing in his ear did an excellent job showing everyone he was a douche bag. Hey! Buddy, you're not Borg!

    • amercer, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7When you aren't logged in, the censoring has your comment come out like this:
      "Let's all digg up this story so we all know about this big douche and **** him off".

      Sounds a bit dirty.
      • DubiousDrewski, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I'm sure none of us would mind ****ing him off.

        Oh wait, what did I just say?
  • Thrash16, on 05/07/2008, -4/+60am i the only one who thougth "Mr. Overreaction-man" was holding a gun in the thumbnail?
    • KixEvilCereal, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4I thought he had some kind of strange octupus-tentacle-mouth affliction.

      And really that's the only reason I'm here.

      = (
    • xNarrowSoulx, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Nope. I was expecting to read the story and find that the camera was recovered from a dead body...
    • anizzle, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1That is the funniest ***** i've seen all day. I didn't see that at first, but when I went back and looked I definitely lol'd.
  • oMeSSiaHo, on 05/07/2008, -23/+15Just so I get this straight. Cameras on stoplights, on street corners and in stores is an invasion of privacy. Posting a picture of some dude (who could very well just have been suffering a bad day or have mental problems) is ok.

    I just want to make sure I am getting this right.
    • lukas88, on 05/07/2008, -7/+9One key difference is who is taking the pictures and why. If it is a private citizen or a store owner, that is one thing. If it is the federal government that is another thing. I don't think cameras on streetcorners or in stores are an invasion of privacy depending on how the information is used. But I also don't think it is the same thing as an artist or reporter publishing a picture that they took legally.
      • Joshuarr, on 05/07/2008, -4/+16I personally see a big difference between art and surveillance.. Am I missing something?
        • oMeSSiaHo, on 05/07/2008, -4/+7This picture isnt art. Its intent wasnt for someone else to enjoy, it was for revenge against this guy.

          Nice try though...
          • merripen, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2There's no reason that a piece of art can't be used for revenge, or any other number of malevolent intentions.
          • Joshuarr, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5Try to prove that picture isn't art.
        • jellygraph, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2It doesn't matter who is taking the picture or whether its for art or revenge. As I have mentioned below, it matters if it is for tracking someone and infringing on their privacy (surveillance). Taking a picture of someone in public is not a form of surveillance. Paparazzis, for example, are on a very thin line between doing something illegal or not
    • jellygraph, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5One picture in public is not an invasion of privacy. However, being able to use a network of cameras to track your movements, where you go and who you see and what time is an invasion of privacy. That's really not all that hard to understand, but if you are still having difficulty, imagine you meet someone on the street - that's not an invasion of privacy, is it? Of course not... Now, imagine if that person began to follow you everywhere you went all the time?
    • oMeSSiaHo, on 05/07/2008, -10/+5This picture isnt art, its punishment. If it was just they guy minding his own business that would be fine. The only purpose of this picture and its posting is to defame this guy.
      • lordthor, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3so?
      • goldfishey, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1If the accusation is a lie its defamation. If the accusation is True its news reporting.
    • teamgwho, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2one person taking my picture once: not stalking, not harassing, not an invasion of my privacy, doesn't make me fearful.

      One person taking pictures of me every single place I go? is harrassment, is stalking, is an invasion of my privacy and makes me fearful.

      LOTS OF PEOPLE doing that: even more fearful.

      LOTS OF PEOPLE doing that and they have access to my job history, credit history, criminal record, school records and anything else they want to check into because they're the government and they don't need a warrant in this day and age? EXTREMELY SCARY.

      So yeah, you have it exactly right.

      besides all that's gonna happen to this dude at best is his friends poke fun at him for a while. All those cameras, all that info, available to government agencies who are supposed to need warrants and reasonable just cause and that nonsense, a lot worse could happen to me. If Bush says you're aterrorist, then you're a terrorist. Your citizenship doesn't matter and anything can be done in the name of "liberty and justice and freedom". So ***** yeah, I am all for restriction of the government doing that sort of thing, and all for the rights of the average citizen to be able to report what he witnesses to the world.
  • zovres, on 05/07/2008, -25/+6There are only 10 types of assholes in the world. Those who wear bluetooth headsets and those who don't.
    • daiguitar, on 05/07/2008, -2/+33That was lame.
      You might want to mention the word "binary" since you ripped off that joke.
      And yes, bluetooth headset users are douche bags.
      • jonathan70, on 05/07/2008, -4/+14I resent that, Sir. My bluetooth headset is blinking blue at your outrageous slur. And when it blinks blue, that means that I resent that.
        • PopcornDave, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4What did you get? The Captain Pike model?
      • TeagueSterling, on 05/07/2008, -1/+14They may be douchy, but in California come July (I believe) you can't drive without some form of a headset, and not all phones support wired headsets. So if you talk on the phone in the car, you've gotta accept the added douchbaggery that will accompany it.
        • caramba420, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5There is a good amount of douchebaggery inherent in trying to have a conversation on the phone while operating heavy machinery that can very easily kill someone. That applies with or without the headset.
        • gnimsh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3I have to use one in NY, where its illegal to talk on your phone without one but honestly they can get to be a pain. I'd rather not talk at all... other than that, I only wear it when I'm in the car, and when I leave I take the phone with me and leave the headset. It reconnects when I come back anyway...
        • mikhial66, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3You shouldn't be talking on the phone while driving, anyway. I don't care if it's hands free or not. You're still a douche bag either way.
          • BryanJK, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2what about commercial drivers who drive for hours on end, people get lonely
            bluetooth headsets in a vehicle doesn't bug me, it's just when they are sitting next to me chatting away to what looks like the air
          • mikhial66, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2And I'm sure some of them are horny, too. That doesn't mean we should let them have sex while driving
        • PopcornDave, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Actually Costco has a device that clips to the visor in your car so you don't have to have that stupid earpiece in. Besides, don't a lot if most new cars have bluetooth already built in to the vehicle?
      • dynelol, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2The binary joke ***** sucks anyway.
        • quisph, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7It was okay the first time I heard it, but that was 0b110 years ago.
  • picciano, on 05/07/2008, -3/+57He looks like the Fonz. http://cueballcol.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/fonz ...
  • ileftfark, on 05/07/2008, -29/+12This seems passive-aggressive. I could understand breaking up an altercation between a homeless man and some out of control douchebag, but taunting him by taking pictures and then threatening to call the police seems a little weak. It reeks of smugness, and didn't help the situation at all. "I'ma get up in your grill, but if you come close, I'm callin the cops".
    • jeremybrooks, on 05/07/2008, -6/+39You have it reversed. I did not get "up in his grill". I did not threaten to call the police until he physically assaulted me. That's not smugness, it's defusing a situation without resorting to violence -- I had no desire to fight some guy on the street. I was not "taunting" him. I was taking photos on the street of whatever was interesting, like I do every single day.
      He decided to make an issue of it, not me. He got up in my face. He pushed me and he grabbed my camera. If he had just kept walking, there wouldn't have even been anything particularly interesting about the photos I got. If he had been decent and asked me nicely not to take his photo, chances are I would not have. But he was a jerk and out of control. He thinks by being a bully he can have his way. That doesn't work with me, and should not work with any adult.
    • thesio, on 05/07/2008, -3/+91. he said the guy walked up to him
      2. he didn't take the photograph with the intent of taunting him, "Anger, conflict, drama — sounds like a great shot to me." Sounds aisthetic to me (and i do mean aisthetic - from greek aisthetik - meaning sensuous perception.)
  • jonathan70, on 05/07/2008, -1/+34What was he yelling at the homeless man? And why? Sounds like a little photojournalism was being perpetrated here.
    • WNW3, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2What's the difference between a homeless man and a bum?
      • giveer, on 05/07/2008, -1/+15"Well, you don't need [to be homeless] to [be a bum] man. Take a look at my cousin... he's broke, don't do *****."
    • RepubOperative, on 05/08/2008, -11/+6The "homeless" in San Francisco are almost a professional organization. Yea you still have folks that you might find anywhere else but the youth that hang out and are "homeless" are nothing but drugged out ***** that should be terminated.
  • bossm4n, on 05/07/2008, -31/+16Yes, the photographer was within his rights to photograph Mr. Angry Man since it took place in public, but it seems to me that Mr. Obnoxious Photographer is just looking to stir up ***** by taking someone's photo that does not want to be photographed. First of all, no one knows what the altercation was about that he had with the homeless person. Maybe he had a valid excuse for being *****.

    Furthermore, Mr. Obnoxious Photographer goes on to say that anytime he photographs someone in public and they ask politely not to have their image published on line, he obliges, but if they are an asshole, that's an instant upload. Just remember Mr. Obnoxious Photographer, one persons rights are an invasion of another persons freedom. Put yourself in their position and have a little respect for people. Maybe Mr Angry Guy isn't the asshole in this situation. Keep up that smug act and photograph the wrong person, and someone might not just threaten you, more likely they'll beat your ass to a pulp.
    • nblsavage, on 05/07/2008, -8/+33So, why were you yelling at the homeless guy anyway?
      • bossm4n, on 05/08/2008, -6/+5I expected some pathetic, lame reply such as that. Actually I'm a professional photographer and I am more concerned with this photographers code of ethics and respect for others in public. I'm not defending the guy yelling at the homeless man, but merely posing the question. Instead of questioning both sides, it's typical sheep mentality that the subject in front of the camera must be guilty. If you actually read the article, you would have seen how arrogant the photographer was in this situation and others. The question is why? Sounds like he's walking around looking for trouble instead of great photographs.
    • motogoat, on 05/07/2008, -6/+18I kind of agree here. It's a matter of public decency. If you're going to demand respect out of random strangers, you best be ready to offer up some respect yourself. I wouldnt have a problem with someone taking my picture in a public place and putting it on the internet but if I was in a situation (who knows exactly what the situation was with the homeless man...maybe he was badgering him for money...bums are known to do that from time to time) and I asked someone not to put it up, then the photographer is no better than I am (if I was indeed acting like a dick in said situation).
      So the bottom line is it's kind of sad that your way of showing that you're right and he's wrong by doing exactly what he requested you not to do. He shouldn't have threatened to take your camera but by waving it in his face that you're putting his photo up on a website is just as immature as the way he acted.
      Therefore, you are well within your rights to do what you did but you are both crybabies. I sentence you to a year of a dirty fisheye lens and 2 years of dirty diapers.
    • thesio, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8Freedom, sir, of any kind, thought, speech, existence, also comes with the inseperable right to offend and right to be offended. Your comment of, " . . . one persons rights are an invasion of another persons freedom" should say, "One person's exercising of his rights is the application of another's, and his own, freedom.
      • bossm4n, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4I agree. The knife of freedom cuts both ways. Everyone is so quick to hang this guy out to dry.
    • allan17, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8I have to agree with bossm4n here. How did you think the guy was going to react? You don't know why he was yelling at the homeless guy to start with. The guy was more than likely just some asshole, but you are asking for trouble when you start photographing people when they are already upset.
    • Phyraxus, on 05/08/2008, -1/+9Odds are though, that guy was an asshole before the homeless guy got to him.
    • SillyRabbits, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4I don't know why people are digging bossm4n down. What if the homeless guy started pestering them and reached for his daughter. That would be a pretty valid reason to react. Then, on top of that, have some guy come up in the middle of that and start snapping pictures of you and your daughter. I'd be pretty ***** too. Maybe not in San Francisco, but if a photographer tried that many other parts of the US he'd probably get knocked out - people get pretty protective when strangers start invading their space with kids present. And when the cops came, they'd more than likely side with the guy with the kid. The photographer really comes off as just as big of an ass.
  • sundancekid503, on 05/07/2008, -1/+48Pat Riley wants his haircut back
  • AshamedAmerican, on 05/07/2008, -2/+133The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

    http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of- ...

    V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay.
    • davidrools, on 05/07/2008, -10/+12naked kids swimming in the fountain? minimum 5 years in prison. be careful.
      • Ikulus, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11Incorrect.
        • Foofoofoofoobar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Whoosh!
        • breezytrees, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5What. Is it six years or something?
        • tnoy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10Child porn is OK if its shot in public.
          • breezytrees, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3ORLY?
          • Ikulus, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Child porn is never okay.

            Naked children, however, are not child porn.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

            Legal definition:

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

            (8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—

            (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

            (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

            (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
        • Maver1c, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2772/pedobear1o ...
    • Pyroteq, on 05/08/2008, -6/+3Sorry to play devils advocate but I'm pretty sure someone specifically telling you NOT to publish a picture on the internet is a breach of privacy.
      • D4CH, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Wrong.
      • GordonV, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1When I take photos of costumers @ Anime Cons, I ask everyone if it's ok to put it up on the Internet. Not because I'm being courteous, it's so they visit my site. (cue link to website....) ... (http://www.animejutsu.com/) Yes, I'm cheezy.
  • davidkeithjones, on 05/07/2008, -14/+4Meow, meeeeeeeooowwwwwwwww.
  • albinorhino101, on 05/07/2008, -23/+7The question everyone is wondering, was the daughter hot?
    • Ceaser57, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6"I have a great shot showing her looking up as if saying 'Oh boy, here he goes again'"

      Judging by that statement his daughter is a minor, so no she isn't hot... pedo.
      • tippmann1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10every one knows that if they look like their 18 then it's ok. Plus it kinda sounds like a generic teenage girl with her father. Not necessarily a minor.
      • dougmc, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Could be a minor, could be over 18 -- could go either way. People don't magically start avoiding dad just because they turned 18. Though if my dad walked around yelling at homeless people wearing a headphone, I'd probably avoid him too. (Fortunately, he does not.)

        And for the record, just because they're jailbait, that doesn't mean they're not hot. (I'm talking 16 or 17, not 6 here.) They're just hot ... and you go to jail if you touch. Sounds like entrapment to me, but I doubt that argument would hold up well on court.
    • crazyjake, on 05/07/2008, -4/+0only you were wondering that!
      in the article it says the daughter was looking up at her father. this means she is young, way to young for you!
  • diggester, on 05/07/2008, -13/+6Mirror:

    http://www.linkinn.com/static/_If_You_Put_That_Pic ...
  • drewedman, on 05/07/2008, -10/+4Thanks to digg this idiot will find out where is picture is on the internet and steam clams with his earlobs and throw another hissy fit.. woo hoo! go Digg!
    • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1That would be a great story. I would digg it.
  • Jo9100, on 05/07/2008, -13/+7Two words: Patrick Huard. (http://artv.ca/info_courriel/images/huard.jpg )
    • marcus1060, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1I don't get it.
    • diggamatron, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Yeah, most people's names are two words.
    • ATH500, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1HAHA T'AS BIEN RAISON :P !!!!!!!
      I'm a Quebecer so I get it...
    • bonedead, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Oh so you've got to be gay to get it, hmm.
  • nextbigthang, on 05/07/2008, -5/+191douchebag bluetooth earpiece FTW
  • gimmeslack12, on 05/07/2008, -3/+13Mirror:
    http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/if-you-put-that-pict ...
  • MasterTroll, on 05/07/2008, -15/+4Pics of daughter or it didn't happen.
  • mdavis, on 05/07/2008, -13/+1Hey Mr Tough Guy-Go F U C K yourself.
  • gdagreat, on 05/07/2008, -9/+11come on digg mob....unite and send this to the top!

    im sure before the end of the day were gonna know his name..occupation and so on...
  • FatLoser, on 05/07/2008, -32/+11I'm clearly in the minority, but ***** people who take pics of strangers in public. In order to function as a human being one has to be a part of a society. If you want to eat you pretty much have to go to a restaurant or a grocery store. No respect for privacy.

    Take pictures of public officials and others who are paid by "society" but don't take pics of private citizens unless they are doing something illegal and you are going to use the photo as evidence in a court of law. Otherwise get your ***** Nikon out of my face.

    And to people who claim it's okay because it's not for "commercial purposes" -- what the ***** do you think the ads on this guys blog are for? What do you think artists use in order to get money so they can stuff their faces and buy cameras? Hint: your pictures! Used in some way or another.
    • Ades, on 05/07/2008, -8/+14you.. are.. a.. douchebag
    • caramba420, on 05/07/2008, -1/+15There is no expectation of privacy in public. That's why it's called "public." Anything that can be seen with the naked eye can be photographed. Don't like it? Move to the boondocks. That's the risk you take by living in civilization. People can see you. You said, "Take pictures of public officials and others who are paid by 'society' but don't take pics of private citizens..." The problem here is that at the moment you decide that it's more appropriate to photograph one class of people over another, the decision of who it's appropriate to photograph must be made. Then we must ask the question of who decides who should be photographed. From there, it becomes a very slippery slope. That road would inevitably lead to a society in which it is illegal to photograph the powerful.

      There should be accountability for the way people behave in public. I think it should be reasonable to expect that if you act like an asshole, there's going to be an immutable record of it.
      • FatLoser, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2It's not a slippery slope at all. People who get paid by tax dollars (police, government workers, teachers, etc) can be photographed in public. People who work at Staples who have to stock up on groceries every once in a while are not part of "public property" and you have no business photographing them and exploiting their likeness on your blog or elsewhere.

        And how do we know this guy was acting like an asshole? Maybe the guy who runs this blog called him a faggot just to get an angry reaction out of them, then made up some story about how he was harassing a poor homeless person.

        Also, why was he yelling at the homeless person? Perhaps the homeless person cat-called his daughter or said something terribly rude.

        You all side with some idiot who has a blog without the slightest idea of what actually happened.
        • luchid, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Don't use the word faggot. It makes the inbred redneck in you shine bright.
          • FatLoser, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3You're not the brightest bulb in the shed, are you? Thanks for pointing out the importance of context for our other viewers.
    • dynelol, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Since when did he take the pictures in his face? Ignore someone with a camera...jesus.
    • EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5wear a burka if you're so anal about everything like the rest of the camera fearing superstitious natives
    • jeremybrooks, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9My blog doesn't have ads. If it did, it would probably be hosted on a better server and be keeping up with the load.
      And if private citizens don't want their photo taken in public, they can ask nicely. If somebody is making a spectacle of themselves, people are going to notice them. And some of those people will have cameras. Oh well.
      • FatLoser, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3The "friend" who happily posted his mirror certainly does have ads...

        Also, please provide some explanation for the yelling at a homeless person. Clearly you must have been around for the whole encounter in order to side with the homeless person. What started this altercation?
        • Drull, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1What does it matter? your argument dictates that that doesn't even come into play, so long as the person being photographed is employed by society.

          Do you have any idea how many times a day your picture is taken by security cameras, weather cameras and so on, without your knowledge?

          Also, based on your stupid idea that being out in public, somehow doesn't make you public, how do you know this guy isn't in fact a government employee of some sort?

          Wait, are you the idiot in the picture?
    • killahron, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3did you ever hear of the pedophile who took pictures of little girls in public and posted them on the internet? how about the creepy guys i see on the subway that take pictures of the girls there? i know what the law says, but if someone randomly took a picture of me i'd be upset too. photographer and subject are both douchebags
      • FatLoser, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Just like the old guys at beaches with cameras.

        I'm against regulation when it comes to personal privacy and personal rights. But personal rights end when you start exploiting or harassing others.
    • fuzed, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Do you have any clue how much history we would lose out on if we followed such a flawed logic?
      • FatLoser, on 05/08/2008, -6/+23 whole years of facebook antics... GONE.

        Get permission before your "innocent" exploitation of another human for commercial or other exhibition becomes harassment. Why is it so hard to ask permission? Oh, that's right, because more often than not you'll find people don't want their likeness stored on your blog or hard drive, or in your advertisements for your photography or graphics design business.
        • sillyoldbear, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Taking a picture in public isn't harrasment but shoving a private citizen who was well within their rights is most definately assualt.

          Oh and if you don't want your picture taken, ask nicely. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3The reason taking pictures in public places is allowed is because, if it was against the law, then that could be used to harass or intimidate journalists. Drawing a distinction between public and private figures isn't always easy, and that difficulty might cause someone to not photograph something that they are legally entitled to photograph. For example, what if you saw a business owner passing a man on the street and handing the man an envelope as he passes by. Can you shoot that? Well, just because someone owns a business doesn't make them a public figure, and simply handing an envelope to someone isn't illegal, so, under your rules, you shouldn't be allowed to snap that picture. But what you may not know at the time is that the man who received the envelope was the brother of a local politician who was responsible for awarding a contract that the business owner was bidding on. If the picture can't be taken, the connection between the two people can't be made. The photographer may have a hunch that something fishy is going on, but he or she may not know for sure, but someone else who sees the photo may be able to recognize the man as the official's brother. But, under your scenario, the photographer faces arrest if they take the picture. So they're faced with a choice: take the photo and almost certainly get arrested and, if they don't get arrested, have some unknown chance of possibly uncovering a scandal, or not take the photo and walk away yet never find out what just happened when the envelope changed hands.

      Do you see the chilling effect here?
      • FatLoser, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1You can do whatever you want, but the moment you exhibit it to others you've just infringed on the privacy of somebody else. I'm still waiting to hear why the man and the homeless person were arguing. Perhaps the homeless person called the man's daughter a "piece of ass" or something. Anybody would have a right to get into a shouting match in such a situation. And if a nosy ass comes by with his huge camera to snap some shots of you out of context, then one can see how easy it would be to become belligerent.

        This guy should have kept these pics private if he so absolutely needed to take them.
        • ISurfTooMuch, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4"I'm still waiting to hear why the man and the homeless person were arguing."

          And you just proved my point. We don't know that, and I doubt the photographer does either, but you cannot base the legality of the photo on the reason.

          Here, try this example. Suppose the photographer saw the man punch the homeless man and snapped the picture. Was a crime committed? Was it OK for the photographer to shoot that? If the man had just punched the guy because he was begging or for no reason, then, yes, he committed battery. However, if the homeless man had hit him first, then he was defending himself, and he committed no crime.

          The problem, both in the scenario I just wrote, the scenario in my previous post, and the scenario in San Francisco, is context. We simply don't know the full story in my two hypothetical situations and the real one, and it's likely we won't know, especially not at the time we shoot the picture. If the context behind the event we're witnessing can't be known for certain, and if that context is what determines the legality of taking a picture, then very few pictures will get taken.
          • FatLoser, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1I see merit in your points and I'm inclined to agree with you in principle. I guess I'm just frustrated when I see some nameless individual being branded an asshole, with pics to "prove" it. People are too accepting of what they are told, and I imagine if this man's personal details were to come out he would be harassed by phone or email by keyboard vigilantes.

            In a perfect world, people would be able to take pics of everything and they would have the good sense not to exploit others. I guess in the world we live, the guy in the pics could in fact get his lawyer involved and potentially win an injunction against the photog blogging about and posting pics of an altercation that he doesn't even know the context of but is all too willing to make baseless assumptions.
    • earther, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3You will hate my guts then.

      http://earthsworld.com
    • milkmage, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1what ads? I see slides, links to other blogs, photosets, and RSS feed, categories and archives. wait.. are YOU the guy in the picture? FatLoser - seems to fit.
  • Rosh37, on 05/07/2008, -3/+20how many times has this happened to me? Apparently ladies aren't fond of gentlemen in their bathrooms and changing rooms =(
  • twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2008, -3/+41Looks kind of like a young DeNiro
  • killq, on 05/07/2008, -37/+3Sounds like both are douchebags. If I ran into either of them in person I would kick the ***** out of them. I know, I know, Internet Tough Guy. .. but really I would kick the living ***** out of both of them. I would like to see photo queer call the cops when I bust out his teeth and shove his phone up his ass. The other guy I would probably just break his arm and stomp on his nuts so he lies there crying in front of his daughter.
    • jellygraph, on 05/07/2008, -2/+15I presume you are writing this comment from prison? Because, if not, either you are going there some day soon or you are actually a skinny nerd who wants to feel tough, but in reality would probably run away at the first sight of conflict.
    • Qeveren, on 05/07/2008, -0/+12Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
    • giveer, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1150 bucks says you just gave yourself a boner. You should probably just go yank in front of a mirror. Again.
    • fuzed, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Your new name: Digg Tough Guy. Be sure not to drop the soap in jail after the cops haul your dumb ass away. EPIC FAIL
    • dynelol, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6You sound like more of a douchebag.
    • dougmc, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7And then you'd take the daughter, roughly, in her pooter as her dad watches and cries -- and she loves every second of it?
      And then you'd wake up.
    • logan074, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8You come off as more off a douchebag than everyone involved in the photo.
    • ctony, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You are kidding right? WTF is this guy talking about?
  • Indrius, on 05/07/2008, -5/+32What a douchebag. With that stupid hands-free crap, thinking he's some kind of mafioso and owns everything and everyone. Bloated ass ego idiot.
    • barf314, on 05/07/2008, -0/+12But you *need* both hands to harass bums and threaten photographers. You don't expect him to be able to pull off all this douchebaggery with one hand, do you?
      • logan074, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1The bum easily could have started it though and the photographer may not have seen it, this would put him in a ***** mood when dealing with the photographer. I have had an altercation with two bums because if I say I don't have any change and you lay a finger on me you are getting your nose broken.
        • TheSlinky, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Internet tough guy + douchebag = logan074
        • Alexandru25, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I feel you man, I just got in a near fight some homeless tweaker a few days ago. The asshole walked up to me and demanded that I give him a cig, I only had four so I could not spare one at the time. The guy expected me to give him one and he started pulling the "im homeless and crazy" routine on me. ***** that *****, if you have enough sense to beg for smokes you can take your ass to the SS office and beg for some government aid.
    • tnoy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2It will be illegal to talk without one in California while driving next month, pretty much everyone is going to have one here.
  • compgeek, on 05/07/2008, -0/+20gotta agree with jeremy on this one. he photographed a situation he found interesting. guy gets up in his face and assaults him. if it were me it would be instant upload call the cops and have him arrested then keep the photo use it as evidence of his assault as well as of his temper
    • tgunner, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Really? I'd just have clocked him in the face had he grabbed an expensive possession of mine.
  • Haon, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Its the bluetooth bandit!
  • frelk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+33Good ol' North Beach. Nothing like $4 cannolis and jerks with bluetooth headsets
  • Ades, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5the only thing i wanna know is what camera did you capture that image with?
    • jeremybrooks, on 05/07/2008, -3/+7Canon xti, 50mm f/1.4 lens.
      • Professr, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Wow, I have an XTI too, but the best lens I have is an f2.8 l-series :( I am now jealous of your low-light shooting prowess...
        • spitsnaugle, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2You dont really need much more than F2.8, I have the 5d and the 50mm 1.4, and i wont use it below F2.2 - 2.5 ... any lower and the focal area is so shallow its almost impossible to get what you want exactly. Most of my shooting is done on the 24-70 f2.8L... i only use the 50mm for bands in dark shows...
      • pault107, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Gotta love the 50mm 1.4 - my favourite lens.
  • ECas123, on 05/07/2008, -3/+24Repost this image everywhere!
    • EmporerTitus, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Print it out and post it up and down the street, so people bother borg-douche for his autograph on them.
  • chesscat, on 05/07/2008, -16/+6The guy in the photo might have a case according to NOLO:
    What rights do I have for unauthorized use of my photo on the Internet?

    QUESTION:

    What rights does a person have if their picture was taken and then posted to an Internet website without their permission? Are they entitled to any profits of the website? Can they sue if the picture was uncomplimentary?

    ANSWER:

    You can stop the use of your image at a website for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.

    Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.

    Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.

    You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.

    Learn more about Online Issues.
    • Rizmaster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3Dumbass, the only one of those you could possibly argue is defamation. And then you'd have to prove what he wrote wasn't factual. It's his word against the ass holes. The only gray area is ass hole's daughter.
      • endustry, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3Are you the man in this photo?

        The only thing Chesscat is doing is providing additional information about the larger issue of posting public photos of people online, "dumbass." Oh, and Asshole is one word, asshole.
        • chesscat, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Thanks endustry. Apparently some people mis-read this post as somehow being written by me and ignored the fact that it came from NOLO. Or some people just like to shoot the messenger. lol
          • endustry, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Some people just take any opportunity to practice for "cliche teenage internet poster of the year." Calling anyone a dumbass, idiot, moron, etc. is entry level stuff followed by misspellings. Having the word "master" in your username is another telltale sign. I bet the only thing Rizmaster is master of is the local slurrpy machine (either that or Gizmaster was already taken.)
      • chesscat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Um, apparently you've missed the first sentence of the posting that tells you that it came from NOLO legal and that I didn't write this. As Endustry properly pointed it was merely meant for purposes of providing general information on the topic.
    • bizkit00, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3not in a reasonably private place
      not used to sell a product
      not misrepresenting him to defame him
    • tattoomcface, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4...and please point to where he "might have a case" in your example. Don't just Google anti-privacy laws and post random nonsense without having read and understood what it says. Was he portrayed falsely? Was his finger-pointing photo-shopped? Oh my, what an outrage! No names were distributed, half of his face was covered, and he was not falsely accused of a crime. He wasn't accused of anything unless you take some implied accusation of him being a dick.
      I agree with the above response, your best bet would be defamation. However, re-read your argument on defamation for this sentence: "The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation." Even if he made this a civil case, the burden of proof would be on the Fonz by a preponderance of the evidence.
      Buried.
      • chesscat, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I think the operative word here is 'might' which you've so proudly pointed out. I never said I agreed with it. I merely posted this as general interest in the subject and nothing more (it came from the NOLO legal site, I did NOT write this, or wasn't that obvious from my first sentence?). You and a previous poster, however, feel the need to kill the messenger. Whatever.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/07/2008, -12/+21Hmmm...

    A lawyer who disagrees:

    Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals
    You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.

    Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

    Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event.

    Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.

    Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers and models are accustomed to signing these releases.

    http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html
    • tattoomcface, on 05/08/2008, -0/+17It's flimsy but you may have an argument about the commercial gain from posting the picture due to website advertisement revenues. I doubt it would hold up in court though. The privacy argument wouldn't even be a consideration since he was in a public area.
    • MMSQ3, on 05/08/2008, -1/+8Yeah, he was in clear public, and the photographer isn't gaining any money off of the shot; so i don't think it would be a valid argument. Good points to know though.
    • werries, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1how about that its not really voiding any privacy, nothing about it is private. he's simply pointing on a public street. and hes not a celebrity. hes not intruding on solitude or seclusion. no private facts.
      as far as publicity goes. i dunno.
      and restating everyone, its not really commercial. thought not necessarily noncommercial
      • Nescirian, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0We'll be right back after Schrodinger's Commercials.
    • nem0, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4The blog labels the guy with a derogatory name, and the tone of the blog suggests the image was published as an act of vengeance. The guy's actions were inappropriate, but a judge might feel that global humiliation is unwarranted. I bet a decent lawyer could nail the photog with libel or slander.
      • aboyd, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1??? Libel and slander only apply if the person is maliciously lying. It's not enough to be malicious. If it's mean but true then it isn't libel, and isn't slander. And it's not enough to get a fact wrong. It has to be deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to make the subject look worse than he really is. Decent lawyers wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. There's no case, unless the entire story (the homeless guy, the scuffle, the daughter) was made up just to make the subject look bad.

        If you look bad because you really are behaving badly, then people can document it, and you can't stop them. Not legally anyway. The only legal way to prevent this stuff is to not be a douchebag in the first place.

        Considering the photographer has more (unpublished) photos of the guy, I suspect the photographer can substantiate his claims. Hence, no lying, no slander, no libel.
        • tyme, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1[WARNING: GRAMMAR NAZISM INCOMING]

          Also, since this is written and not spoke, it would only fall under libel. Slander is spoken.
      • profcornbread, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Additionally, we don't know the guy's name or address or anything. He's just a random, run-of-the-mill douchebag. I can hardly imagine it is a case of libel because he isn't identified.
    • zarrel40, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3yeah, but jeremy isnt making money off of it, so there is no commercial gain and he is legally within his rights to publish the picture.
  • Barackalypse, on 05/07/2008, -18/+12Dugg down for automatically assuming this guy didn't have a good reason for yelling at the homeless man. I've had those bastards step in front of me to block my path on a sidewalk so they could beg for money and I even had one start following me because I ignored him.
    • sintaxi, on 05/08/2008, -9/+5irrelevant
      • xgkx, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1agreed Are you homeless. Don't be so quick to judge a homeless person.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Are you suggesting I can't judge a person's actions unless I've been in the same situation as them? I've never killed anybody either, but I'm certainly capable of judging murder as being wrong, just as I am able to recognize intimidating panhandling techniques and judge them wrong without having ever been homeless.
      • Barackalypse, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Posting a one word reply to a coherent statement on an anonymous web forum is the very definition of irrelevant.
    • bagelmaster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2If they're homeless they're probably underfed and malnourished... why can't you just shove them back?
    • vanzan, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1right on Barakalypse, diggers are acting without thinking..
  • killahron, on 05/07/2008, -7/+11wtg mr. passive aggressive san francisco photographer man
  • imacmike, on 05/07/2008, -1/+37Anger! conflict! drama! That shot is worth at least 3,000 PP. Achievement Unlocked.
    • retral, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4This sort of makes me want to play dead rising.
      • JesterOZ, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I was thinking the same thing. The posted picture even reminds me of Dead Rsing's main character (Frank) a little bit. Without the bluetooth, of course.
  • drewzilla, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Call Jackie Chiles.
  • Suzilla, on 05/07/2008, -1/+14This is how we communicate anymore? With LAWYERS?

    What ever happened to "I'd really prefer you didn't take my picture."? (I'll bet Jeremy would have been decent and demurred from taking it had Mr. Angry Overreacting taken that approach instead.)
    • andymci, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3When you're in a bad mood and already in a confrontation, chances are you won't suddenly become Mr. Courteous with a random photographer snapping pictures of you.
      • Qeveren, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6"Just because you're having a bad day doesn't excuse you for being an asshole."
        • natertots, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1try to explain that to him while he stabs 50x and your waiting for the cops to show up 30 minutes later in time to write a police report.
  • sillyjoobs, on 05/07/2008, -29/+14Wow the guy who took the photo is a huge douchebag. Look at how ***** smug and arrogant he is. "I'll be nice if YOU act nice to me." Is there anything more childish than this? He purposely takes pictures in hopes someone will act like this guy so that he can troll for attention on the internet. What a piece of *****.
    • mrhedges, on 05/07/2008, -7/+13Wow, you're a huge douchebag. I really don't see how the person who took the photograph is an asshole for defending himself against a dumb, ignorant gino-wannabe.
      • FriendofUsers, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Maybe you're the douchebag for not trying to see it the other way: the photographer didn't have permission, people have the right not to be photographed (if not legal at least ethical), and the photographer WAS smug and arrogant.
        • pault107, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Like I've said before elsewhere - it isn't illegal to take a photograph of a person in a public place. How do you think the paparazzi make a living?
    • bizkit00, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3he's making money by ***** off a douchebag who goes around yelling at homeless people. he's a superhero.
  • PopcornDave, on 05/07/2008, -7/+9I can haz pictur bak plz?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.