If You Put That Picture On The Internet I’ll Call My Lawyer
Posted by jeremy on May 6th, 2008 filed in Photography, Photos
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. I crossed the street but was unable to get anything interesting, since I only had my 50mm lens on the camera and I was just too far away.
However, Mr. Angry Overreaction Man decided that he now had a problem with me. He confronted me, demanding my camera. Of course, I refused. He got in my face and started threatening me, telling me that I cannot take his photo without his permission. I told him that yes, in fact, I can. He then walked up and bumped into me, trying to act tough. I told him that one more touch and I would call the police.
Of course, he didn’t like that very much, and at that point told me that if I put his picture on the internet, he would call his laywer. I assured him that his photo would be on the internet, and he then walked up and grabbed my camera lens. Well, that’s just not something that I will put up with, so I pulled the camera away from him and reached for my phone and started dialing. Once he saw that he turned away, still yelling threats, and continued on his way.
I felt bad for his daughter, who was with him, because she was obviously embarrassed by his antics and kept pleading with him to stop. I have a great shot showing her looking up as if saying “Oh boy, here he goes again”. But I’m not going to post that one, as she was not acting like an idiot and I don’t want to embarrass her. Mr. Angry Overreaction Man seems to do enough of that.
So, Mr. Angry Overreaction Man, your photo is now on the internet. Call your lawyer. Tell him somebody on a public sidewalk took your photo while you were on a public sidewalk. Then tell him you physically assaulted the photographer. See what he says.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Good decision not to post the photo of his daughter. She already has enough problems as it is, if her father acts like this on a regular basis. Once is bad enough.
On the plus side, you’ve taken a great portrait under difficult circumstances.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Thanks for doing this Jeremy. People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, especially in public.
Oh and Celine is absolutely correct, thats an amazing shot, you managed to make the guy look like DiNero. If I were him I’d love this pic of me being on the net.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Jeremy, I would not have been that patient. The moment he crossed into my personal space, he would have found himself tackled or punched to the ground in self defense.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
He looks like a guido.
I’m sure he regrets his explosion by now.
You never know what’s actually going on in a person’s life that drove them to this point.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Jeremy,
I’m sorry this happened to you. This guy is obviously a prick. I hope someone recognizes him at some point and publishes his name.
Thanks for standing up for your rights as a photographer.
I blogged about this here: http://thomashawk.com/2008/05/if-you-put-that-picture-on-internet-ill.html
People should also consider digging this story here if so inclined: http://digg.com/people/If_You_Put_That_Picture_On_The_Internet_I_ll_Call_My_Lawyer
May 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
What’s the world coming too when you can’t even harrass a homeless person in peace?! Seriously, you handled that situation very well all things considered Jeremy.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
What a tosser!
May 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Neat guy. Feel bad for his family.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
34 diggs. This thing should be on the front page of digg within an hour or two. Let’s see how he likes his photo on the internet then.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Great shot of this crazy, angry man. I’m glad you didn’t publish the photo of his daughter. I’m sure she is embarrassed enough by his ways.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
On reddit here: http://reddit.com/info/6ijt4/comments/
May 7th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[...] Check out Jeremy’s accounting of the incident on his blog. [...]
May 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
[...] You can read the full story on Jeremy’s blog. [...]
May 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Pretty much what Thomas said! Kudos for blogging it… I’ve dugg as per Thomas.
I’ve blogged about this as well here: http://www.pixelens.com/2008/05/07/if-you-put-that-picture-on-the-internet-i%E2%80%99ll-call-my-lawyer/
May 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Pwnz0rz
May 7th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Well done, and handled, Jeremy. Here’s hoping he sees what a jackass he’s made himself out to be.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Way to stand up and not back down, Jeremy. What a fine example he’s setting for his daughter.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
[...] Check it out here. [...]
May 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Bet he’s mobbed-up, and now that Tony knows he’s well and good and living on the west coast, his days are numbered.
It’s like driving recklessly with a busted tail light when you’ve got 200 kg of smack in the trunk.
If he wanted to stay incognito, he should’ve at least tried to fly under the radar, and not performed his douchebaggery in front of someone with a camera. Karma is a biatch.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
It seems incredible to me how people, with an obvious complete lack of factual information on the subject, feel they have the right to physically assault someone over a perceived breach of their rights. Beyond the clear mental disconnect in thinking that he can physically assault you to protect his “rights,” he needs to realize that if he doesn’t want people to know what he does in public, he shouldn’t do it in public. Thanks for standing up for the rights of all photographers everywhere, even if it did mean you had to talk to this jerk.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Good job, Jeremy.I’d say he got of easy with just a picture and blog post. Let us know when you get that call from his lawyer.
Dugg.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Wow you’re an asshole
Jesus, just leave people alone
May 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
That is a great shot. Hopefully once the guy cools down he’ll realize this and make use of the pic.
Jeremy should offer him the commercial use license condition. (I think it’d go great on a business card.)
May 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hey!!!! Isn’t that Guido the Neck??!!! Entered the fed’s protection program a few year’s back after testifying in Jersey.
Nah, can’t be him. Guido was way too classy to wear such a lame jacket and would be at least 30 years older than this mug.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
You should have told him that you were photographing him for a collection entitled, “Douchebags with Bluetooths”
May 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Well done! You’ve inspired me to want to carry my camera at all times… You never know when you will witness a douchebag in action.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
look at the earpiece. obviously a douchebag
May 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Another reason to carry nunchuks.
Let’s hope it gets back this douchebag. Great shot! Dugg.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
his poor wife
May 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
If I was that guy I would have knocked you right the fuck out, taken your camera and kicked you in the fucking face a few times.
you sir, are a faggot.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I hope his lawyer bills him for the wasted time if this guy actually finds out about this, and does what he said he would.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Heh. I witnessed the whole event, as I live in that neighborhood and am familar with this particular jackass. Had he grabbed *my* camera lens I would have smashed him in the face with it, but that’s just me.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
He looks like a gangster. By lawyer maybe he meant Jimmy F. Lawyer, the hitman…
(yes, I’m joking.)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Two words:
Blue Tool
At least that’s what we call them here in Chicago.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
i’m more interested in why he was yelling at a homeless man.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
[...] Long story here. [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Angry overreacting man might be cured if he could have that giant, grey barrette surgically removed from his right ear…nice job, Jeremy!
May 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
at the risk of sounding like a geek…
is that a jawbone bluetooth handfree? one that block out background noises?
hahaha sorry I was jooking there.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:46 am
A LOT Of assumptions have been made about the angry guy.
Maybe the homeless man said something derogatory to the little girl as they walked by?
What would those of you who have daughters have done or said if the homeless guy said something innapropriate to your little girl?
The photographer was across the street and therefore not in any position to hear what was said. He also made no mention of seeing the incident begin, just that he saw someone yelling at a homeless man, so he started taking pictures.
This IMO is where libel can take place. The photographer made assumptions without knowing all the facts and posted as such. Calling him Mr. Angry Over Reaction Man. His blog has a lot of comments too, some with very derogatory comments and name calling.
Is it over reacting to yell if a dirty, homeless man says or does something that endangers, either physically or emotionally, a young child?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Reply to #39: While it is possible to yell at a homeless man for insulting your daughter, why threaten the photographer?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Hi, I love taking photos of people all the time. I agree that you have the right to shoot anything in a public place but maybe sometimes we photographers cross the line and we do bother people? If he doesn’t want to be photographed the you have to respect that. It’s his right his personal right not to allow you to take his photo. Of course he shouldn’t have yelled to you or threaten you but this game of you said no but I will do it and also publish it to digg, I just don’t agree. I could have been you or anyone else and you don’t know why he was yelling to the homeless man.
There is no rule of wrong and right but you have to respect his human right not to be exposed especialy by someone unknown who happenned to be around with a camera.
Thanks
May 9th, 2008 at 7:41 am
John:
You are missing the point. I didn’t say that he was wrong to yell at the homeless man. I didn’t see why he was upset, and so cannot say what that situation was. I said it was an interesting shot.
If you read the post, you will see that the only reason this story is here is because of the way he acted towards me. I was curious about why he was angry, but he didn’t ever give me a chance to find out what the story was. He immediately turned his anger at me and started threatening me. He pushed me. He grabbed my camera. That kind of behavior is what earned him the name “Mr. Angry Overreaction Man” in the post.
This post is not about if he was right or wrong to yell at some homeless guy. This post is about standing up for yourself and for your rights when threatened and bullied.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I “Dugg” it.
Jeremy, I’m proud of you for standing up for your (and our) rights as photographers.
It’s a bit ironic that this guy’s picture would not have ended up on the web if he hadn’t attacked the photographer. Jeremy wasn’t able to get an interesting shot until the assault began. If “Mr. Angry Overreaction Man” was only defending his daughter (as has been suggested by “John”) or if his actions toward the homeless man were actually reasonable, he could have explained this to Jeremy and the article might have cast him in a much more positive light.
Some might ask why he should have to explain himself to a stranger with a camera. He doesn’t. But he has no right to commit assault and battery on a photographer, either.
Jeremy was just trying to make an interesting photograph. I’m sure he would have been happy to print “Mr. Angry Overreaction Man”’s version of the story if he’d only been willing to share it.
Great shot, Jeremy. I hope your camera was not injured in the course of making it.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
[...] San Francisco yelling at a homeless man. Anger, conflict, drama — sounds like a great shot to me.read more | digg story You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave [...]
May 9th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I have been involved in three incidents in the past year, and in each of them eventually the police were involved.
In each of them - each of them - it involved someone who was a bystander or who was NOT a subject interfering with my photographing something that was around them and their taking offense at WHAT they perceived I was doing or misperceiving that I or their family members were a subject of my photography.
In one instance, in Paris, I took a photo of a mannequin head in a hairdresser’s shop and the black Africa proprietor thought I’d taken a photo of her ‘without her permission, Monsieur’ and there was 45 minutes of hubbub and les flics eventually were called in after much pulling and shoving. They set her straight.
In another, in Ukraine, a peasant seller near a train station saw me photographing near here, thought she was the subject and punched my lens (I beaned her over the head with a D2xs - police were called in and arrested her assaulting husband and I think beat him; he came out at the police station in English to apologize to me (in English which he obviously did not speak — I conduct myself appropriately on the street).
In another relatives though I was photographing their kids from half a block away, and as I drove away, tried to give chase, which ended with the LA cops with guns drawn stopping their car: ‘Outta that car!’ slow and easy, hands where we can see them.’
Those are the exceptions and in each incident (I photograph a lot all over the world and nearly all ’street’) my motives and even my subjects were confused an angry passersby were trying to be vigilantes, and mistaking their rights . . . as the police, les flics and the militia so informed them.
I’ve never been reprimanded by the police, only applauded and encouraged for my behavior, as I am a gentleman.
I get personal photos, and in this instance, I would have taken the little girl tugging at daddy, too, because it was ‘real’ and a truthful and more telling photo, not to punish her or embarrass her but just because it might have been a great photo, but I then would not have used it for revenge at all, and not called attention to it as a ‘way to get even’ and only used it for photographic merit of something that told a story of a child imploring an angry daddy and thus for its universality of daughter vs. father, or (as urged here) I would not have published it all in this context where one is ‘getting some sort of revenge.
I do applaud you, in the revenge category for not publishing her photo; it would have been ill-mannered and served no legitimate purpose in this context (in my context it would have).
And I applaud you for showing this guy’s photo; as his neighbor notes, his behavior seems to be rather well known.
That always seems to be the case; the photographer is often just the trigger for some else’s short or ill-tempered fuse.
Or someone’s insanity or lack of good judgment.
And, as I have long ago learned, it isn’t the one’s you’re photographing who are the danger, because you’re watching them closely, it’s the ones who you aren’t photographing who are watching you and taking some sort of offense (maybe thinking you’re paparazzo) who pose the greatest threat because their harm can be unseen and sudden, coming out of nowhere.
Thanks for this post.
John (Crosley)
May 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
[...] If You Put That Picture On The Internet I’ll Call My Lawyer Jeremy Brooks Jeremy Brooks runs into a crazy guy on the street and writes about his confrontation. Here’s a good example of when to stand up for your rights against people who think they can bully photographers. [...]
May 10th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
You know whats funny?
Look at his eyes alone - you’ll see fear in his eyes. All his anger is just fear lashing out.
May 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’m sorry to hear that anyone is subjected to abuse of any kind. And I’m glad that you weren’t hurt. I find that these types of incidents create a ripple affect. People tend to carry the insanity into the next situation and create more havoc. I’ve been subjected to these types of events and I didn’t like it. And also (when I have been in a very bad frame of mind) I am ashamed to admit that I was the cause of some of these events. I think it’s just human nature. The darker side of human nature. We all must work to control our darker nature. If not, people get hurt. The little girl in this episode probably suffers the most. The best we can do is send this child and her family our love. Thanks for posting this picture/ incident and compelling all of us to contemplate the ugly side of our human condition.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I just happened upon this post via Digg - and was wondering if someone could point me to an explanation of what a person’s rights are when it comes to being photographed. i.e., if I ever do NOT want to be photographed, when can I say that to a photographer and be justified in my request?
May 11th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I have posted on Hawk’s site, but he’s all up in the moderated way now; which means this one probably is as well.
Oh well.
John Croswly (or w/e):
You are not a gentleman. What you are, is incredibly lucky. Many places don’t have the same laws as us; better check the rules carefully, as this “I travel all over and take pics” bullshit doesn’t fly well in places. The Ukraine story is total shit; I assume you are counting on most people here having never been there. For the record, he’d be in a boatload of pain if he got on the wrong side of even a peasant seller; oh, and congrats on smacking some old lady with your camera, big man. Feel free to stop off in certain parts of Russia, and snap pics of kids. See what happens. And see if the “police” are on your side.
All of you goofballs applauding Jermey: Asshats; all of you. Running around with your cameras and your brains half cocked; thinking your rights supercede anyone else’s. Yes, yes, we all know the law; the public determined, non ahistorical law. Stop hiding behind it; put yourself in the other person’s shoes for once.
And, recognize that this is the internet; yes, Jermey might be telling the truth. But, he might not be. For all we fucking know Jeremey just robbed that guy, and this is the story he concocted. Way to heap praise on one tool, and spread shit on another, without honestly knowing what’s going on.
I know my point will be lost here; it was well lost in the assclown paradise that is Hawk’s comment section. The only thing I can think to say, as someone who has snapped for years, is that your attitude and code of conduct makes it more difficult for all of us; grow up, stop acting like a judge/jury/assfuck, carry yourself with honor, and maybe, just maybe, people will stop being upset about their photos being taken.
Until then, best of fucking luck, and don’t end up like my good friend carlos, arrested for taking a picture.
Joe
May 11th, 2008 at 2:53 am
If you release that pic under a CC license, you could well start a new meme with Mr. Angry Overreaction Man (Will shout at bums for $5)
And of course, you will prompt flames from other overreaction men, like Joe (comment #50), which is always fun.
Incidentally, Joe, in most cities, states and countries, it is perfectly legal and legitimate to take photographs of citizens in public places and publish them anywhere. If it wasn’t, then we would find that Google Street view would never have gotten off the ground, and our newspapers and the internet would be somewhat devoid of the imagery that makes us laugh so much.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:04 am
Well said, Joe (comment #50). If someone doesn’t want you to publish his picture, surely it’s only common courtesy to respect that?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:23 am
There are folks who have watched too many episodes of the Sapranos. Sad
May 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Well done on all counts and by the way, you are obviously ten feet tall but how wide are you?
May 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
The photographer had every right to take a picture in a public place in the US. If I were to have encountered someone abusing a homeless person, for whatever reason, I would have photographed the situation as well. The reason that the man was angry is that he’d been caught behaving in a manor which he knew was unacceptable. The best way to keep photographers from photographing you doing unacceptable things is not to do them.
Jared:
Here is a little brochure explaining the rights of a photographer:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
May 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am
You have Balls my friend.
But you are very correct. That guy was a really dick. I hope he sees it, I would recommend you print the positing and put it on some sign posts, see what happens.
Or call the local media, they love this kind of thing!
May 11th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Oh man, I work as a tech support agent and talk to people like this every day. I always thank the mac goods I don’t have to look at them, because I’d snap. One look at this guy, especially with the pointer right in your face and his pinky sticking out all threatening like, and I would have not have had the patience you did.
I love people like you, who don’t let mindless assholes like this guy ruin your day. Good for you!
May 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I haven’t read all comments, so maybe my question was already answered:
Why is it in your country allowed to just take a picture of a stranger and publish it without his consent?
I’d be very pissed if someone would do that to me.
Where I live, a photographer would have to ask every person on a picture if he is okay with it (that rule is cancelled if it’s a (group) photo of 5 or more people).
May 11th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Figures, he’s got a bluetooth in.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Great shot! The finger, the attitude, the bluetooth. Make it into a move and De Niro is the role. On the legal side, there is no expectation of privacy on a public street or sidewalk. There are more photos of him on every security camera, ATM machine, phone camera, web cam, etc. Is he going to sue all of those people? Especially when they have every right to take his picture…
May 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
First, great shot.
Second, I thought that was Robert De Niro for a second.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Wow! Good for you!
May 11th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
It actually is illegal for you to publish his photo without his consent. You can take the photo but you can’t post it somewhere like the internet without permission. You need to understand all of the law, not just parts of it.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I can’t be bothered to read all the drivel on this page, but what strikes me forcefully is the fear in this guy’s eyes. He is suffering; he has to be, in order to behave like that in public and with his child.
Is there compassion somewhere under the pompous photographic self-righteousness?
May 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Anyone who wears a Bluetooth in public is automatically an asshole!
May 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Incidentally, Joe, in most cities, states and countries, it is perfectly legal and legitimate to take photographs of citizens in public places and publish them anywhere. If it wasn’t, then we would find that Google Street view would never have gotten off the ground, and our newspapers and the internet would be somewhat devoid of the imagery that makes us laugh so much.
First there are at least two countries I know off the top of my head (Canada and France) right now that have rather strict privacy rights and I doubt they are the only ones. Had this happened in Vancouver or Paris the guy could sue you for damages.
Funny you mention Google streets because it’s recently been in the news because the privacy laws in the country are causing problems mapping the city.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Correction:
Funny you mention Google streets because it’s recently been in the news that in France because the privacy laws in the country are causing potential problems mapping the city.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Of course, we only have YOUR side of the story, don’t we????
May 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Great post. This blog post has been featured on the blog at http://www.photographyisntacrime.com/ with a link back here of course.
Good job.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Most these comments seem to be from complete cunts with no idea what actually happened. If I was walking down the street & having words with some homeless guy because he said something unfair or derogatory as comment 39 says then I would give him a piece of my mind.
But all you fucking idiots who think it’s right to photograph someone who you deem to be out of line & publish it online deserve to be bludgeoned with the wet ends of your severed arms.
You’re idiots & pricks & will get what you deserve. You are the type of cunt that can’t stand up for your favourite colour. You were bullied in school & feel it’s your right to invade & throw a spanner in the works of any person who you feel doesn’t act within your so called perfect way of life.
You are a cunt & I hope he gets you & shows you what a wanker you really are. I for one would have ripped that camera out of you hand & pile-drived you into the pavement before you could even say “Wait, I have a right to photograph you in public & post it on the web”
You CUNT! I hope to see your picture on-line soon with slash hook wounds & bullet holes. Cunt!
May 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Barry Murphy is going to die of an aneurysm. Most likely, he will be wearing a bluetooth ear piece at the time. ^_^
May 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Glen Osborne had a cock in his mouth @ 4:20pm.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
The comment above is what i love about the internet. i mean, how the hell could stumbling be entertaining if it was the polite drivel that makes up real life? The guy above me, #70, is an ass hole. in fact, many of these people who post are ass holes. Now, i am fine telling this to their face, but its much more entertaining to do it on the net. frankly, feel free to take a picture of whatever you want. now, i do believe that harassing someone with a camera in their personal space is annoying, and frankly, if i had a dozen people snapping cameras a foot from my face i would be pissed too. but you were a good 5 feet at least, and overall, this guy in the photo is extremely funny. kudos to the photographer. Now, being a college student, i would have done something funny when i saw the camera, just for the kicks and giggles. i mean, really. people need to calm the fuck down. everyone who rushes around, acting like the kingfuck of the town, needs to remove the stick from your ass. really. because only about 1 in several thousand like the guy above is really that important. frankly, dude, stop placing yourself on a fucking pedestal. if you want to not have your picture taken, be respectful. geez….i thought that respect is something that people cared about. This photographer seems like a nice guy considering, and ten to one if you had asked him nicely, he would have been happy to not post it. but because you had to act like a kingfucker, of course he is going to. i would have too. because someone needs to shoot a fucking missle into him to deflate his ego.
peace out for once. your not very important. none of us really are. respect is really all we have to give each other. if you want to vent, feel free to do it….on the net. that is kinda what it is there for. lol
May 11th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
glen may very well have had a cock in his mouth, but we all know that your the one who would have liked to have put it there, dont worry. now, when you get done analing your mom, how about you stop insulting people and tell us why? why do you think we should all die, from what you said? because we believe in freedom of expression?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Too bad you didn’t have a card to give him so he’d know.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
The photographer in question should have minded his own damn business. Just because it is is legal to do something doesn’t make it right. The angry man made it clear he did not want his picture taken and his wishes should have been respected. Photographer, you are insensitive, pompous, arrogant, and selfish.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Anger Management……..www.georgedunhill.com
May 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
rofl to the post above. anger management is so fun. and calming too! lol
May 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Couldn’t agree more with the pdshadow comment about the web being fun. If only we could meet in person I would most definitely show you exactly what a king fucker is. You’re just another asshole who believes in so called freedom to do what ever the fuck I want as long as it doesn’t annoy me. I’d so love to see your pic on the web with your face buried into your mothers cheese filled taco. You’re just a cunt & I’m sitting here with 5 mates pissing our pants at how fuckin retarded you are for posting as it pretty much proves that you are in fact “An Asshole” as quoted by yourself “The guy above me, #70, is an ass hole. in fact, many of these people who post are ass holes” Thats you fucker…… an asshole, now get your dirty fat head out of your mothers fajita & do something constructive, like having a wank or reading a book about assholes, or vent yourself because to be fair no one really cares about you, because your not very important. Here’s my respect back to you since it’s all we have to give to each other……. you are without doubt one of the best assholes I’ve ever had the pleasure of abusing on the web. Peace out. PRICK!
May 11th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I’m sorry Barry. You are probably going through some tough times in your life right now.
Barry, we are here for you.
I mean that Barry.
Come on, give us a little smile.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
” If only we could meet in person I would most definitely show you exactly what a king fucker is.”
so you like to fuck guys? alright, dude, im fine with that, but be careful, aids kills…lol
May 11th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
May 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
pdshadow you mention kingfucker in your little rant. Wake the fuck up. Of course you’re fine with fucking guys sure your Mom used to be one. LOL
May 11th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
oh so you fucked her too? wow! are you sure you dont have aids?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
i have to get some food….but like i said. the internet is free. i will side with anonymous on this one. this is the place to insult everyone and anyone. if real life, respect people. i mean, really, is that so hard to just be calm and think about what you are doing? thats all the world asks of you. politeness is not hard to come by. on the internet, if you want polite, go to a professional site, in which everyone has to go through a member form. as for the rest of us, let out your anger! seriously, i have nothing against barry murphy. he sounds like a guy who loves to vent anger. thats fine. but in public, respect will get you much farther than hate. on the internet, say whatever the fuck you want! that is what is great about the internet. so, have fun, piss off, depending on who you are. calm down, enjoy life. if you need to just piss someone off, go on the internet. if you want to become something other than a construction worker, like mr murphy, pounding nails, (and coworkers), pay some respect in real life. peace out.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Yeah I’m pretty sure I don’t. Got tested. Standard procedure after leaving your house. Wore two rubbers anyway especially for the anal session. Half your block was in the same room as me waiting on the results. Not all of them were so lucky though. Was sure you were the 1st one crying after getting a HIV Positive result. No harm mate. Great drugs available now to prolong the agony
May 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
By the way, It’s funny that you slag off Construction Workers. Pretty sure it’s your favorite costume when heading out with your mates to perform Y.M.C.A. Think before you speak….. oh I’m so angry right now, which form will I go too now so I can vent my anger……
May 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
the guy even looks like an arrogant douchebag. hes wearing a pleather jacket, white tee shirt and has a bluetooth headset stuck in his slickback hair doo…
May 11th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Nice photo
A douchebag in his natural habitat
May 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
This is why I moderate my comments. Instead of discussing the issues which brought everyone here, i.e., is it right to take someone’s photo on the street if they are being a jerk. No the comments have turned into Barry and shadow’s forum for one upping each other. As for the issue of photographing people on the street, what if they weren’t being a jerk but doing something interesting? Would you have still posted the image? Some of those leaving comments are saying that he deserves it because he was being a jerk but what if he was kissing his girlfriend and you thought it was a “great” photo. See, he didn’t get his picture put online because he was a jerk, he got it put on line because Jeremy thought it made good copy for his blog. I know he probably didn’t cross any legal lines but should people have to become shut-ins to keep themselves safe from ending up on a blog? I have been photographing people for years and the one thing I always do is ask permission before I take the photo. I’m sure if Jeremy had done that the answer would, of course, have been a resounding no. But since Jeremy doesn’t work for the New York Times, is it really his duty to call this guy out? Sometimes people get caught being human, I just hope for jeremy that when his moment comes, he won’t have someone there with a camera in his grill.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
[...] this post, and the photo on Flickr, has certainly received much more attention that I expected. The comments [...]
May 11th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
[...] If you would like to see the story and all the comments that stirred this diatribe from me, click here. [...]
May 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for all the comments. My hope was that the story would make people think about what they would do in a similar situation.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and how you personally handle a situation may be different than how I handle it. I try to always defuse situations. I don’t enjoy conflict. It is quite rare for a situation to escalate to the point of somebody being physical violent with me.
It’s always interesting to see the opinions of others, and has given me some food for thought. I still personally feel that this person overreacted to the situation, but of course I was there and involved. It is much easier for people that are not being pushed and threatened to say what they would or would not have done.
And come on people, try to keep the comments clean. There are ways to express yourself creatively and colorfully without resorting to profanity.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I’m not clear about what the law is, but surely you can’t just photograph anyone on the street and start blogging about them without their permissions?
Even if it is okay, surely you can’t just put up a one sided story with the photo?
Putting people’s photos against their will is bad enough, but adding own stories is worse IMHO.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I am pretty sure I found who it is. http://www.stephenking.ru/movies/images/thumbnails/langoliers/CraigToomy.jpg
Bronson Pinchot…. yeah…
Congrats on this fantastic shot, I believe in the freedom to take these pictures, but if he asked nice, I would have stopped, which I am sure you would have done. He is a great dramatic subject.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I would also like to state to those of you who are commenting; notice the ones who go on swearing rants, calling people ‘fuckers’ or other derogatory terms, are the ones who are siding with the man, who obviously has some anger management problems.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
heyy man nice story. bad photo. a dude pointing, wow. maybe you should be a writer.
May 11th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
[...] I’ll Call My Lawyer, originally uploaded by Jeremy Brooks. very interesting article: from Jeremy Brooks’ blog, linky here “This guy was on the corner of Stockton and Columbus in San Francisco yelling at a homeless [...]
May 11th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Off the original line of thought of most comments here, I just wanted to say that’s a great shot. Excellent focus and great lighting. I really like it.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:11 am
hahahaha
nice
May 12th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Well, I don’t really follow the train of thought that the hostile man had the right to do what he did because we didn’t know the circumstances that caused his anger. The homeless man could have killed his mother for all we know, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for him to make someone else miserable by redirecting his rage. I’m sure if he was polite about it, things would have went over better. I mean, who isn’t more inclined to comply when you request rather than demand? He merely got what he was indirectly asking for.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Love people who think they are better than everyone, and the hands free isn’t making the whole thing look more f**ked up.
Thoughtful of you to not post the daughter.
Keep on rocking!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Just because it is legal doesn’t mean what you have done is nice. You and your subject deserve each other. I bet you wear a bluetooth also.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:59 am
your a fuckin pussy you should have just kicked his ass
May 12th, 2008 at 5:14 am
“Legal” and “Right” are not the same. Many times “Legal” is “Wrong” and “Right” is Illegal.
The guy had no right getting in your face, true. And perhaps the law sides with you on this.
However, posting his image (and it is a very good pic, nicely done) and exposing him to ridicule on a global scale is nothing more than a “get back at ‘im” move and rather childish. I can understand the temptation…but it’s still childish.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:15 am
So … did you receive any call from his lawyer yet
?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Go figure he’s got his bluetooth earpiece on. So typical of a “bluetoother” honestly are you even sure he was yelling at you and not the person on the other end of that phone call?
May 12th, 2008 at 6:01 am
[...] [...]
May 12th, 2008 at 6:21 am
It is so strange what people think they can get away with - I was filming the horse drawn carriages in Central Park when one of the drivers came up and tried to take the video camera out of my hands and then hit my friend in the head. I have the video on my site ( http://www.zombie-popcorn.com )
May 12th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Wow, such hostility inspired by a seemingly innocuous post.
This is a fabulous shot of this guy. While I generally follow the “if someone doesn’t want their picture shown, don’t show it” rule, I understand posting it.
I’m actually slightly curious as to why he was yelling at the homeless man in the first place.
Like John said earlier, he could have said something to the daughter….
…but judging by the daughter’s reaction (according to the article, at any rate), I doubt it. Just saying.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
What’s up with all this bluetooth bashing? Come to chicago and get caught driving without a hands free device…..385.00 dollar ticket from the police.
Come to chicago and take someone’s picture that doesn’t want their picture taken and you won’t be blogging anything. You’ll be calling your insurance company claiming your camera stolen while sitting in the ER waiting for the doctor to stitch up your face and trying to straighten your nose.
If you think the law will protect you, you’re living in a fantasy world.
Respect is the name of the game. Sure you can take my picture but I’ll own that camera and leave you a little something to picture in your mind every morning when you brush your teeth.
Have a good day
May 12th, 2008 at 9:29 am
If you but this comment on the internet I’ll call my lawyer. >:(
May 12th, 2008 at 9:35 am
He kinda looks like Robert DeNiro!
May 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
What strikes me is that yeah, this is a cool shot, but he apparently succeeded in intimidating you enough not to publish a shot with a clear view of his face? Do you have photos of, you know, -any- of the other parts of this story? I don’t know what social rebellion you are so proud of, the guy isn’t even identifiable in the shot and you have no shots of him doing the thing that you said made him an interesting subject. He stole your whole shoot and all you got was the finger? I’m sorry, but this doesn’t strike me as terribly brave.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I do not believe you are forced by the law to delete an image you have taken of someone unwilling but photographers should do this anyway if the subject feels uncomfortable with the shot. It’s just manners, even if the said person is a jerk.
People might be under witness protection or hidden adress thus they would prefer not to be on the internet, even if this wasn’t the case.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Dear all the ‘I would have torn that camera from your hands and attacked you’ folks,
I follow this simple checklist (and I’m not the only one):
* Camera & Memory Card
* Lens
* Concealed Carry Permit
* .45 Auto
Now then…go ahead, try to grab my camera and assault me; I will solve all your photography problems for you at once. No problem.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Excellent photo :). I really enjoyed this little story
May 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
hey jeremy you sound like typical faggot with a camera that has a chip on his shoulder and would rather be the smart ass procted by the law like a bitch! then the guy with more smarts then to futher engrage the already irritated man. i bet your a skinny little mother fucker too that would bitch to mommy when somone hit you too hard with the ball in the play ground you little bitch! im a little guy too but i dont hide behind the cops when i piss somone off….. take a picture of something artistic something beautiful capture a moment, what good was it to me to see this jerk off mad? NONE its not even a good shot! seriously…… you suck!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
and just because you have a concealed permit and a gun does not mean that how you handle everything either, jesus you fuckin people!
why do you think people hate the paparrazzi (however the fuck you spell it) and look im not backing up the angry piece of shit with a blue toothe in his ear… what im saying is… i bet one day youre goign to be in a range of emotion and anger like when your wife leaves you for somone with a bigger dick or your child dies of cancer…. and that moment i hope some dick face comes up to you with a camera to get the shot!
May 12th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
LOL that is an incredible photo.. let alone the story itself… i love the power of the internet!
May 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
And this is why I hate bloggers. So you made some guy angry and took his picture. Then you averted the danger by standing up to him in the manliest way possible: Trying to call the police.
You did not handle the situation well, you are a prick and in my country that guy could very well sue you - as you have no right violating one’s privacy, even if this happens in a public place.
I hope your country has the same rules as mine and that you will have to pay him.
At least the photo is great, even if it was taken by a total douche.
- Thomas
May 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
TranceMist Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
He looks like a guido.
You’re quite the racist pig, n’est-ce pas?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
thomas Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
…You did not handle the situation well, you are a prick and in my country that guy could very well sue you - as you have no right violating one’s privacy, even if this happens in a public place.
In your country you probably don’t have fair laws. It is quite legal to photograph someone in a public venue here in America. The subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy on a street corner. As long as Jeremy doesn’t use the photo for commercial purposes he’s well within the law here.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
thomas Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
…You did not handle the situation well, you are a prick and in my country that guy could very well sue you - as you have no right violating one’s privacy, even if this happens in a public place.
Actually you are 110% incorrect here. You can review the legal rights a photographer has in the USA at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.
<>
The right to take photographs in the United States is being challenged more than ever. People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples have included photographing industrial plants, bridges, buildings, trains, and bus stations. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.
Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well-being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has an established history of contributing to improvements in civil rights, curbing abusive child labor practices, and providing important information to crime investigators. Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. Furthermore, the increase in people carrying small digital and cell phone cameras has resulted in the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of criminals.
As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The homophobic comments of some posters here are way out of line. You should be ashamed of yourselves for expressing your selves with less maturity than some 12 year old boys. And yes, I do happen to be gay, and there is nothing wrong with that.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Some people who have posted here simply do not understand the law when it comes to photographing people in public, at least in the U.S. Not only is it perfectly legal to photograph anything you can see from a public sidewalk, you also don’t need anyone’s permission to post the photo on the Internet. You would need a signed model release if you were using the photo for commercial purposes, like if the company who makes the bluetooth headset happened to want to use it in an ad, or if you wanted to sell it as stock.
Some people have argued that even though it’s not illegal to take the photo, the photographer should still have gotten the subject’s permission. I think there is something to that argument in some cases, although I’m not completely convinced. Public is public.
But in this case, where there is some sort of altercation/dispute going on, getting permission would seem to be a lot to ask. You’d interrupt the flow of the event. If you saw a police officer beating someone, would you ask their permission before photographing or videotaping it?
The answer for someone who is concerned that their behavior might make them look like an asshat when they are photographed, is: Don’t behave like an asshat in public. One scenario some people have mentioned is that the homeless person may have made some sort of rude comment to the man’s daughter. There’s of course nothing to indicate that actually happened, but even if it did, don’t you think he’d set a better example for his daughter by not responding in kind? How about taking the high road when dealing with a homeless person?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing. I’m glad there are those who are utilizing that right. But, because this website is run by a private citizen, he is allowed to regulate the comments on here. From what I can tell, he has not. Bravo to you Jeremy!
But, to those who are arguing about who is homosexual or who is better, you don’t sound intelligent. You might be, but arguing in that manner could indicate otherwise.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I like how you captured his facial expression.
He looks like a scared boy.
Maybe he’s afraid the internet will steal his soul?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Great photo, and even better story. Completely agree about not posting the daughters picture but this guy definitely needs to learn his lesson
May 13th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Even if law allows you to publish someone’s picture against their will you still suck. And since you try to appear cool by deciding not to show the innocent daughter picture, you suck even more.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am
God, what a prick. You had every right to take a picture, it’s a public space.
I would have handled the same way, although a kick in the nads would probably go far in this case
May 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ben (#127): I have chosen to not moderate. I hate censorship, and believe that people have the right to speak their mind freely, even if it is offensive. It is too bad that some people cannot express themselves without hate and profanity though, because it detracts from the issue.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Shandooga say post pikture of gurl; but hyd face with fotoshop. It make angree man luk more angry. Shandooga also say get zoom lenz.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Typical alphamale bullshit, look at his fancy blootoof earpiece. Well handled, couldn’t have done it better myself. Linked you in muh blog!
May 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
[...] Jeremy Brooks has a great writeup entitled “If You Put That Picture On The Internet I’ll Call My Lawyer.” I can only hope to handle a similar situation in the same way. Although, there are parts of the city I want to photograph but will not venture there until I have my Ohio concealed firearm carry permit. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Posted in LOL, Photography | [...]
May 13th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Great Shot! Looks good for an advertisement. “Are you looking at me? You must me looking at me?”
What camera are you using?
May 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yannis (#136): This was shot with a Canon XTi and the 50mm f/1.4 lens. You can click the photo to go to the flickr page, where you can see all the technical information (scroll down a bit and look for the “More information” link on the right hand side of the page).
May 14th, 2008 at 1:32 am
i don’t know the law and don’t pretend to, only that i do live in the US and once, after a photographer took a picture of me doing next to nothing, found myself the subject of some kind of search as he hunted me down for my written permission to publish it in another city’s newspaper.
Why did he go to all that trouble if it didn’t matter?
In that case, i didn’t mind, but was happy to be given a choice and assumed i had one.
Whether i do or i don’t, i guess all here believe that this guy doesn’t. i don’t agree with what he was doing, but i have to wonder if people don’t have some rights to their own image. Celebrities certainly do, and whether or not there are legal rights, i think there may be ethical ones.
Him being a prick does not give you the right to show him doing it… at least not to me. It’s almost as if you are 3 and he dared you and so you just HAD to do it.
i’m a thinking, educated person and i have a feeling that there is more to this, that you can’t just go all over the world, smack old women with camera accessories and all is cool. i suspect that there very well may be some places on this ball where your behavior is not at all OK. Being a photographer does not give you any special rights just because a person is in public.
Sorry. i just can’t go along with all of the good ole boy, smack on the back, happy horseshit going on here.
(almost) gentle thoughts…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:45 am
In short - you handled this perfectly. Despite what’s been said by ill-informed people responding to your post, you do absolutely have the right in the USA to take and publish that photo. And people in public do not have ANY right to privacy. If you go outside your home onto a public street you’re fair game - acting like a prick or not. As for the non-USA posters here, who don’t understand our laws, their opinions are invalid, since they have no basis from which to make a sound judgment. To the US citizens posting here who don’t know our laws, you folks should get educated about this subject before spouting off. Jeremy was in the right. And the subject of the photo is indeed lucky he didn’t get arrested. In my opinion, he should have been. Jeremy, have you considered suing in civil court? My guess is this guy wouldn’t be hard to find.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:28 am
[...] More Credit Author: PopularInBookmarks You may also find these interesting…..Why Americans Should [...]
May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 am
I wish you would post the photo of the man with his daughter looking up at him. It’s a news photo, and there’s no reason to worry about that little girl being embarrassed, since she will change over time, and not be recognizable anyway. I would like to see the expression on her face. That’s what good news photos are all about, and being “afraid” to embarrass people is not what journalism is all about. Many of the great photos would never have been published if that’s the way people thought about it. I mean, isn’t it embarrassing to be starving? I guess we shouldn’t publish any photos of people starving, because they might be embarrassed, huh? How about poor people? Should we be “afraid” to embarrass people who look obviously poor in photos, because they might be embarrassed about how poor they are?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:19 am
If I could access my memories, and post videos of them, do I have the right to? I mean, they ARE MY memories, aren’t they? Don’t I have the right to do what I want with MY memories? Don’t I have the right to display them, sell them, even destroy them, if I like? What’s the difference between that and my photographs? I don’t believe that ANY photograph should be limited, whether someone “purchased” or “contracted” for the rights to shoot the image or not. I believe that if a celebrity is out in public, then any photos of them that anyone is able to get should be usable in ANY way they see fit, without consequence and without cost.
It is the acting of an actor or model that makes their photos special. Our rights as image makers (first painters, and then photographers) have been taken away, and taken away more and more and more over the centuries. What makes an image so sacred that it is make illegal to publish it? I certainly have the right to shoot it, if I am shooting from my property, public property, or property which I have been given permission to shoot from. I don’t believe that I should not have the right to sell that same photo, no matter what the photo will be used for. It is a view, and we can remember it, so why can’t we profit from it?
Privacy? In public. No, I don’t think you have privacy in PUBLIC!!! Morons!
Close the curtains in your home, and kiss her there. Otherwise, don’t get your panties in a bunch, just because you took the risk of being discovered smooching (or streaking) in a public place - that includes Denali National park, Central Park in NY, and the local public basketball court. This RIGHT TO PRIVACY crap is all a bunch of BS. NOBODY has the right to privacy anywhere that isn’t PRIVATE. That’s what PRIVATE property is all about. That’s what “no tresspassing” signs (and laws) are all about. PUBLIC is PUBLIC - hello!!!?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Good for you. Idiots like that need to be shown for what they are.
Stumbled to increase awareness.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:20 am
This was me….I’ll get you for this you cunt
May 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
the shot is good, but the story makes it GREAT
May 14th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
What if this entire story is contrived, and this is just some random guy who happened to point at the camera?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Respect is a two-way street, and a lot of people seem to be forgetting that. The situation described in the blog post is one example. If the angry man had been respectful of the photographer, then it is entirely likely the photographer would not have published a picture of him.
In the comments thread of this post, I’ve seen a lot of people demand respect for themselves and their viewpoints without respecting people who disagree with them.
If you’re going to throw respect out the window, it’s going to come down to who’s bigger (in the short term) or who has the law on their side (in the long term). In this case, the photographer was legally in the right.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
he’s got a blue tooth. we know he’s a dick now.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
this just sucks. per your own admission, you have no idea the context of the situation you stumbled in on, and even though you claim “…don’t like conflict and always try to diffuse the situation”, you deliberately stuck your camera into a tense situation. now you are jumping to conclusions, making all sorts of assumptions, characterizing this person as an asshole and mocking him for all the world to see.
for all you know, this man charged forth to defend his daughter.
you are the big prick here. the actual douchebag. and you are smug about it! it’s disgusting.
If that bum was harassing and intimidating my daughter, i’d not hesitate to tell the bum off. if some smart ass preppy cunt photogeek started snapping my picture while i was at it, i’d probably shove the flashy asshole gear past right past his ironic smirk and straight down his stupid fucking throat.
the rest of you are just as pathetic for jumping to conclusions and flinging shit at someone you know nothing about. disgusting.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
First, the photo is an excellent dramatic shot. Second, you have the right to take the shot and you may have the right to publish the shot. But having the right to do something doesn’t make it right to do it. Personally I only publish shots which I have permission from the subject to do so.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Kind’a looks like my uncle Jimmy. lol
May 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
While this guy is an a-hole, I think your douchebaggery far outweighs this guy. You see an unnecessary altercation, do nothing to break it up, take pictures of the guy, which only further enrages him, and then post the pics on your blog like some kind of “victory”. You shoulda clocked the guy when you had the chance. That’s a moral obligation. To post his pic and threaten to call the cops when he touched you is nerd rage, and you are the epitome of it.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
cops or not, i would have smashed your camera on the road right then.
That he was yelling at a homeless man, does not give you the bloody right to shoot him and use his photo without permission.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Good one i must say..:)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
So, whatever happened with Mr. Bluetooth Guido Toughguy? Have you been served with papers from this fucking tool?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
lol. nice! cloud9ine - you would have been arrested and charged. and raped. and charged again for the camera. LOL. this is a block from my grandpa’s house!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Hmmmm… I’ve been thrown into moving traffic by a bouncer for taking a photo of him roughing up a friend of mine.
Went to the police and they basically told me that they wouldn’t follow up anything because they understood what it felt like to be photographed while “working”
May 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Your a waster. Get a life and stick your camera up your hole. You should mind your own business nosey prick
May 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The guy’s wearing a bluetooth headset, of COURSE he’s a douche.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I think he’s a bit of an idiot. I would have just smashed you in the face you arrogant little prick.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Anyone who thinks they have the moral right to take photos of other people, for their own gain, are parasitic little shitheads. Its fuckers like you who drove kurt cobain to shoot himself. eat my cunt fuck….
May 15th, 2008 at 1:55 am
it’s nice to have 161 comments before mine one. i love stupid people.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:13 am
THAT’S ME!! You dirty shitbag fuck! I told you not to put it on the Internet. Right after I left you I put my boot so far up that homeless fuck’s ass that some Olde English Malt Liquor came squirting out his nose. If I ever see you again, I am going to take that faggot camera of yours and ram it up YOUR ass!
May 15th, 2008 at 4:45 am
I’m pointing my finger!
May 15th, 2008 at 5:13 am
You’re an idiot. It is illegal to publish this photo online without his consent, which he obviously explicitly did not give.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:50 am
As Andrew (#165) allready said you just commited a crime! Putting up photos of people without their consent is and attack on their privacy (even if taken in public space!)
May 15th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Wow the ass-holes come out don’t they.
http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/photo-law-your-right-to-take-pictures-in-public/
May 15th, 2008 at 6:00 am
If I was him, I’d have done my best to wreck your camera. Taking recognisable photos of people without their consent is NOT okay. Not in a civilised country anyway. Oh of course, this happened in the USA - silly me.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Standing up the the paparazzi’s rights I see?
May 15th, 2008 at 7:50 am
No words for your stupidity. Talking about a Mr. Angry Overreacting Man, while you’re the one overreacting by posting this on your website…
May 15th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I’m glad you took this clown’s picture. He is one of the many faces of Bush’s America. Angry, aggressive, ignorant and full of hot air. A symbol.
He is also a sad reminder how much San Francisco has changed.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I think its a effing great you did this.. what an ass this guy is!
“I’d have done my best to wreck your camera. Taking recognisable photos of people without their consent is NOT okay”
You f**king looser, I bet you dont stand for you rights when the the government CCTV your ass (or face) but when its an opposing view on some random comments section to someones blog you voice your pathetic whimper then eh!.. people like you make me sick!
I say Fuck that Angry guy, Fuck the law in its selective application and Fuck all you piss wet comment know it alls “ewww that was illegal blar blar blar” grow some balls and get on the fuckin street n tell CCTV opperators that before all your rights are taken from under your fat noses!!!!!!
May 15th, 2008 at 8:54 am
This has very little to do with right but manners and common courtesy, or lack of them.
Clearly the subject of your photograph is sadly bereft but you clearly are as. Taking photographs of people in the street when they don’t want to be photographed is just plain rude.
But, of course, you must be SO proud for sticking up for your “rights”. Wow, I am so glad that the US has people like who are quick to claim what is obviously so inherently theirs.
As I say: discourteous, talk about stooping.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Looks like you’re getting to the point where people have actually stopped reading the page and are just posting their ill-informed, over zealous reactions and making themselves look like idiots. Well done JAB_au for posting that link to sort them out!
It’s amazing how little the people who are objecting to this seem to have actually read. Most of them seem to be under the impression your intention was to get a photo to post on here before he threatened you. Read the story people!
As for that little tiff in the middle, that was hillarious.
I say well done for going along with it. People who go around physically threatening people at the drop of a hat need learn to cool it if they want their way. Hopefully he will think twice before just lashing out at the next person he sees with a camera now.
I do think you should post the original picture though, not the one of the girl but the one of him & the tramp that you crossed to get.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am
you know you really aren’t allowed to post his photo if he explicitly objects to it. You are however allowed to take it, but posting it against his will is a potential problem… and it’s not that good a shot, with his finger in his face.
And after all, there should be a limit to privacy intrusion. I mean first talk to him, don’t just snap away, get his story, etc.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
The guy looks like he’s connected…If you suddenly stop updating your blog we will know what happened..
May 15th, 2008 at 9:40 am
xanz doe–
The reason the photographer hunted you down for permission was very likely related to the newspaper’s particular policy. Some of them like to go above and beyond to remove any chance of litigation at all.
If you are in a public place with “no reasonable expectation of privacy,” then any photo of you can be published anywhere. Now, if a story was written to go with that photo, and the story was libelous (and there are several criteria that have to be proven for a libel charge), then there would be a legal case. But the photo would still not be considered illegal.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Yeah way to instigate and make the guy’s life even worse.
Just because someone is having a bad day doesn’t give you the right to try and make it worse. Ever hear of minding your own business?
You people go around thinking purposeful instigation is lawful, in this you are dead wrong. He is allowed to have a bad day, and you made the decision to joyfully try to make it worse. I spit on you, and anyone else who live to make things worse for other people and then try to hide behind a thin veil of contempt.
Piss on you, mind your own fucking business.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“The guy looks like he’s connected…If you suddenly stop updating your blog we will know what happened..”
Fear nothing but fear itself and grow some balls, your fore farthers had some what the hell has happened to this generations! mutated by all the macdonnalds and taco bell no doupt!
@Ignatius
Oh I’m terribly sorry for offending you my good man/woman, I love how when commenters have nothing much to really say they’ll take the high ground of decency and decorum and take offence at a few “naughty” words! FUCK YOU PUSSY!
This whole thing IS about rights, people arguing whether its legal or illegal without really thinking about the situation, in this situation this guy need taking down a peg or two! If we dont self regulate as people you’ll end up with people like this running your country.. Oh! Wait!……..
Laws are to be broken, fixed, protested against and made! but never, never accepted at face value! if you do that you’ll find yourself controlled by a set of laws that do not work for the people but against them.. Oh! Wait.. you have that too!
May 15th, 2008 at 10:21 am
People like you really piss me off.
If you can, doesn’t mean that you have to do it at any cost.
Why harassing people? You like to be punched in the fockin face?
Hope you find someone who kick your face so hard!
May 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Thank you so much for doing this!
Last year I was taking shots of moving cars for a photography class, and some guy across the street threatened me if I took his picture. I was so surprised by this I couldn’t think of my smart ass comeback until it was too late. I was just shocked. It really bothered me for a couple days since I was really out there minding my own business and this guy took offense to me without any grounds what so ever.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
That was a good decision the dude deserved to be humiliated. I would of done the same thing!
May 15th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Did you find out why Mr Angry was shouting at the homeless guy? You seem to have gone over hoping to get a shot of a physical assault. Would you have helped out or just gone home with happy snap full of “anger, conflict and drama”?
Just because you’re behind a lens you are not just a voyeur on life. You don’t just have rights you also have responsibilities.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:23 am
haha love the shitty bluetooth headset. what a fucking loser
May 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
You’re in public. You don’t get a right to privacy for journalistic/non-commercial use in this and many other countries. Welcome to a world where CCTV cameras are aimed at your face and pictures/videos of you going about your daily business are likely to be archived without you even knowing it.
As for politeness, there’s a balance between the artistic value of taking photographs of people in candid real situations in life, and being polite and not wanting to cause anyone distress. If the guy had said “please don’t post my picture, I value my privacy” and then Jeremy had posted it, then it’d be awfully rude and douchebagish to post a story like this.
However, the guy attacked him. In that case I kind of feel like a mutual escalation of the situation isn’t so awful. I.e. some guy calls you an asshole, you call him an asshole back. Maybe not the best choice, but certainly not entirely unreasonable.
As to people who claim they would have destroyed his camera or that him calling the cops was wussy, I have to call you guys worthless idiots. We live in a country of laws, the alternative is pretty awful if you look elsewhere in today’s world. Clearly destroying someone’s camera is an unreasonable escalation of having a photo taken, and some wild west aficionado whining that someone is calling legal enforcement to avoid a fistfight just shows you never got over your worthless high school ‘don’t snitch to the teacher’ mentality.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am
You’re a turd for posting this. Why would you antagonize a person like that? Too bad he didn’t destroy your camera.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
What a funny thing it is to see how many people say they would actually physically injure someone and likely go to jail for it over a stupid picture. Its these “Ill kick your ass!” types that make a small issue into some world changing event. Lets get real here, you kick someones ass for doing something thats not even close to being against the law or remotely offensive to the average “sane” person. You go to jail or prison depending on how bad you beat your victim. There you meet lots of other “ill kick your ass for nothing” types, many of whom may be bigger and meaner than you. Then as you get your ass kicked for mouthing off to the wrong person, the guards are placing bets on how long you will be in the medical ward.
How stupid must one be to think that kicking someones ass will solve anything?!
Im sure some “ill kick your ass” type will flame this flame and call me a fag, but i really dont care. I could be a “ill kick your ass type” if i wanted to, im not a wimp and i do know how to defend myself if attacked. I choose not to because i know that fear, hate and sadness are a direct result of the “ill kick your ass” types being allowed to breed.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Maybe he was talking on the phone
May 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
dude your should be locked up in prison and sodomized for infringing on that man rights. <-PERIOD
May 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Meme:”@Ignatius
Oh I’m terribly sorry for offending you my good man/woman, I love how when commenters have nothing much to really say they’ll take the high ground of decency and decorum and take offence at a few “naughty” words! FUCK YOU PUSSY!
This whole thing IS about rights, people arguing whether its legal or illegal without really thinking about the situation, in this situation this guy need taking down a peg or two! If we dont self regulate as people you’ll end up with people like this running your country.. Oh! Wait!……..
Laws are to be broken, fixed, protested against and made! but never, never accepted at face value! if you do that you’ll find yourself controlled by a set of laws that do not work for the people but against them.. Oh! Wait.. you have that too!”
Gracious me what an erudite rant from Meme, who seems to have gone from 0 to 60 as soon as someone mentioned rights. It is precisely this kind paranoid “I know my rights” attitude that gets conspiracy theorists a bad name. An altercation about somebody taking a couple of snaps of an angry man with their camera really doesn’t add anything to a discussion of rights. It is entirely trivial.
I cannot help but be amused by the fact that in paragraph 1 meme accuses me of taking the high ground on “decency” and then turns around in paragraph 2 and gives a misplaced description of civic duty.
Paragraph 3 appears to be entirely irrelevant. I, for one, am pleased to say that I do NOT live somewhere where “you’ll find yourself controlled by a set of laws that do not work for the people but against them”. To dress this photography session up as a demonstration about the rights of the people against the rights of the law is laughable: an angry man makes a good photograph - end of. To wrap it up in the giftpaper of rights protection is obviously philosophical sophistry.
Get a grip. And learn some manners…
May 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
what kind of a fag goes and makes a page about taking a guys picture?
Of course he’d get mad,
who would WANT to be the next laughing stock of the internet?
May 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
oh yeh… my bad.. sorry
May 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Not sure if the guy in the photo was a jerk or not–all we have is your story and photo to go on. For all we know, you might be as big a prick as he is. In fact, did you stop and think for even a second before you acted, or did some “blind rage” kick in? Who knows, maybe you’re the one who’s into trying to intimidate people. You’re just a huge pussy about it. Rather than threatning to kick someone’s ass, your big threat is, “I’ll take your picture and tell on you…” Are you kidding me? You’re lucky you didn’t get the ever-living shit beat out of you. I’m sure that time will come though.
I’d strongly recommend that you go join Code Pink out in Berkley, so when CA slides into the ocean we can cleanse the world of as many of you jackweeds as possible.
May 15th,