digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
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.

Who dugg this? Made popular May 7, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

408 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thomashawk, on 05/07/2008, -5/+340what a prick.
  • lfreitas, on 05/07/2008, -3/+284here is a mirror for the story:
    http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/if-you-put-that-pict ...
  • LegendX, on 05/07/2008, -7/+261I 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!
  • nextbigthang, on 05/07/2008, -5/+195douchebag bluetooth earpiece FTW
  • brjohnson789, on 05/07/2008, -9/+179So, 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.
  • AshamedAmerican, on 05/07/2008, -2/+134The 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.
  • 507projex, on 05/07/2008, -2/+128indeed.
    "I assured him that his photo would be on the internet," equals a lol for me.
  • nontrivialMatt, on 05/07/2008, -9/+108good for you, standing up for your rights.
  • Belldanime, on 05/07/2008, -3/+76Indeed. 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.
  • IDIGTHEDIGG, on 05/07/2008, -8/+72Let's all digg up this story so we all know about this big douche and piss him off
  • noelty, on 05/07/2008, -8/+71Total prick. I feel badly for his daughter. Perhaps his daughter should sue him for being a prickstein-douche-nozzle!
  • qwerter, on 05/08/2008, -0/+59The bluetooth earpiece really completes the picture.
  • Thrash16, on 05/07/2008, -4/+60am i the only one who thougth "Mr. Overreaction-man" was holding a gun in the thumbnail?
  • picciano, on 05/07/2008, -3/+57He looks like the Fonz. http://cueballcol.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/fonz ...
  • RoflMyWaffle, on 05/07/2008, -2/+55Hi son :)
  • sundancekid503, on 05/07/2008, -1/+48Pat Riley wants his haircut back
  • mandahax, on 05/07/2008, -4/+51Dugg for the word lolcow.
  • ByteGuerilla, on 05/07/2008, -0/+45He's got one of those ridiculous ***** earpieces too.
  • DaviDTC, on 05/07/2008, -1/+42Once 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.
  • twiztidsinz, on 05/07/2008, -3/+41Looks kind of like a young DeNiro
  • dfsjdkflasjk, on 05/08/2008, -4/+41Mirror: http://www.whirljack.net.nyud.net:8080/jeremybrook ...
  • imacmike, on 05/07/2008, -1/+38Anger! conflict! drama! That shot is worth at least 3,000 PP. Achievement Unlocked.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • frelk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+33Good ol' North Beach. Nothing like $4 cannolis and jerks with bluetooth headsets
  • inactive, 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.
  • 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.
  • 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!

  • 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 ***** 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
  • 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.
  • inactive, on 05/07/2008, -4/+30i say get a big crowd to rickroll him.
  • inactive, on 05/07/2008, -8/+33So, why were you yelling at the homeless guy anyway?
  • floridiot2, on 05/07/2008, -5/+28weherus his myspacae?!!
  • skiboy352001, on 05/07/2008, -5/+28Actually, there would be no paparazzi if you were correct.
  • fuzed, on 05/07/2008, -0/+22EYYYYYYY Stop taken mah picture, capish?
  • ECas123, on 05/07/2008, -3/+24Repost this image everywhere!
  • 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?
  • 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
  • mongoh8fire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+19leave the camera...take the cannoli
  • danomagnum, on 05/08/2008, -0/+19If he is in the witness protection program, he might be boned now...
  • 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.
  • Roshz, on 11/27/2008, -3/+20how many times has this happened to me? Apparently ladies aren't fond of gentlemen in their bathrooms and changing rooms =(
  • MackenzieArbour, on 05/07/2008, -4/+19That wasn't funny.
  • stabbingkittens, on 05/08/2008, -1/+16No. Stupid posters putting stories under the wrong sections again. It should be under offbeat>people.
    Wait..
  • inactive, 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 *****, there's going to be an immutable record of it.
  • mediaphile, on 05/08/2008, -0/+14Actually, there is a separate set of laws allowing for photographing newsworthy people and celebrities.
  • 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 *****."
  • below413, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13Except the internet has ADD and everyone will forget about you in a day or two...
  • Belldanime, on 05/08/2008, -0/+13"Excuse me, sir. Can I please take a picture of you as you harass that homeless guy?"
  • 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.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 414 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.