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.
I’m surprised that so many people have such strong opinions to the point that you must point fingers and call names. Most of these comments are out of control and completely ridiculous and the poster obviously did not take time to critically analyze the situation based on the evidence presented. A guy was trying to take a picture that he could legally take and some guy tried to stop him in a very overly aggressive manner. Because he could have handled it differently and not hassled the homeless guy to begin with, then he is an asshole. The aggressive man should have handled himself differently and the photographer should have consented to his wish or explained who he was and what he was trying to do. However, now that you have posted his photo on a site that he may not want to be affiliated with this could get you into legal trouble. The photographer must also realize that by doing this he has to realize what he is fighting for and is it necessary….
anybody want a peanut?
Legal everywhere but Quebec.
I do NOT care- and good for you, Mr. Smarmy One-Upped An Asshole Man.
You are a dick. That is all.
Wow, so many trolls trying to rile people up by siding with slickedbackhairbro. Get off of your computers for fuck’s sake.
“You’re a wimp, dude. “I’m going to call the police if you hit me”, really? Come on…”
The guy threatened to sue if he posted a picture of him on the Internet. Calling the cops is for pussies, but hiding behind lawyers is baller, miriteugaiz.
Troll, go back to gaia.
> don’t you have something better to do with your time camera guy?
You’re on the internet. That ship sailed long ago.
I dont know what these other people are talking about. I would’ve done the same thing.
Jerks are jerks.
YA HIPSTER CUNT
Anyone who would take an un-permissioned, unrequested photo of someone else on the street deserves to get their camera shoved so far up their ass, the rechargeable batteries fall out their nose.
fuckin hipsters…ur lucky it wasnt me, i woulda put that camera right down your throat
Hahaha, look at his uber-cool blootooth ear-piece!
It’s called anonymity. Celebrities don’t have it, that’s why we’re able to take pictures of them without them making a legal case out of it… The only reason you can get away with this is because he’ll never find it.
I fully support you posting this shot, litigous (and ill informed) people trying to make demands under threat of legal action really annoy me.
That being said, I’d edit down some of your explanation if I were you. There’s nothing illegal about posting the photo, but some of the text could qualify as libel. You imply that he’s an idiot, and identify him as Mr. Angy Overreaction Guy. I’m not saying that he’d win a libel suit necessarily, but there’s more than enough grounds to drag you through the legal system if he’s feeling vindictive and *ahem* angry.
Well done J Brooks. Hey Trolls, you wouldn’t have shoved shit up my ass if it was me. You would have walked away with your tail between your legs just like any other bitch pedestrian too afraid of real confrontation. If you had confronted, still, nothing more than you getting frustrated and me clubbing you with my cast iron homemade steadicam. Next time, enjoy the attention.
It is not against to law to take a picture in a public place. It is only illegal to profit from it.
Photog guy, you sound like about 1% less of an insufferable cunt than the guy you were taking a picture of. Its too bad he didnt smash your camera on the ground and take the film.
Camera Guy,
Please consider the golden rule and doing to others as you would have them do to you. You invaded this person’s world with your camera and while it’s your legal right I don’t think it was the right thing to do.
You know what the issues is here. Take a second and think about it. You can do better.
Take care and keep thinking,
Someone Else in San Francisco
Wow cool story bro. Instead of you acting like a decent person and deleting the picture you took of someone who didn’t want their photo taken, you escalated the confrontation. Why the need for attention.
TL;DR You’re a fucking huge faggot.
Actually I doubt the photographer would have any legal issues here. I’m a lawyer BTW.
There are some issues (causes of action) I can think of off the top of my head (without digging too deep) that the guy in the pic could raise:
(1) Right of Publicity: depending on the state this is called different things, but it amounts to the right to exploit your own self-image.
(2) Defamation: This is more about the text/story that accompanies the pic than the pic itself.
(3) Right of Privacy: he’s in a public place, no issue really.
As for issue (1), I don’t see any money being made here…, and as for issue (2), the guy would have to establish a few facts like: the things said about him were false, and he suffered some kind of economic loss as a result. Don’t see any problems here…
Unlike a lot of corwards who have posted on your site in the last 24 hours, I think you were completely right in taking and posting that photo, it was a great shot.
Someone who picks fights with a homeless man and anyone else who shows interest, clearly deserves all the public ridicule they get. This guy is just a bully – he evidently picks on random homeless guys for the kicks and would have picked on you, too, had you not stood up for yourself and pointed out he was about to render himself open to charges of criminal damage and assault. There is no expectation of privacy for those who throw their weight around in public.
People who call their lawyer deserve double all the ridicule the internet can heap on them, the ones who scuttle away like cowards when they’ve lost and still shout “I’m calling my lawyer” deserve double the abuse.
Im not sure why you did this or posted it. I feel sadder for you than the guy you took the photo of. I think you both have some curious issues.
^^^ fuckin exactly.
godammit not him…. mike k, perfect point.
I posted this on Google Buzz
http://www.google.com/buzz/celticagent/X25AJU8eDQF/Mr-Angry-Overreaction-Man-your-photo-is-now-on-the
If some asshole took a picture of me randomly on the street w/out my permission I’d kick the everliving shit out of that person.
Good work. Very few people freak out because a camera happens to be pointed in their vicinity. If you are in public these days you are being taped and your photo is being taken by someone – even if it is just surveillance. Deal with it. I find it funny that some of the posts here take a threatening tone against someone who might take their photo. It’s all posture. If you don’t want your photo taken in public stay at home.
You must not be familiar with the law. If he’s in a public place, yes, but he must not be obviously singled out unless he gives permission. He obviously didn’t, and though he’s a twat, I hope he finds out and teaches you a lesson.
Personally i agree with this statement, i mean i would have cracked out my asp wand and beat the shit out of him after he touched the lens called the cops then then sued his ass for assault seeing as in this country in public areas there isn’t much you cant do with a camera. Being a photographer who takes photos in the public light i constantly get shit for it. The truth of a matter is it is illegal and unwise to not get a release for any thing of any monetary value that does in fact show face or what ever when you have no intent to sell it then there is no legal president for you to retaliate. i always make it a point to try to get photos of those who harass the homeless the vagrants the people who the police tend to ignore, and i’ve often gotten in scrapes with people who dont like being known for the terrible shit they do police and john q dick hole. as a photographer the law is often not on our side but these days every one on earth seems to have a cell phone with a camera or a simple point and click it seems when a cop is photographed its a heroic act but when some jack ass is harassing someone down on his luck its an invasion of the assailant’s privacy i call shenanigans on this one. If you where to ban photography out doors you have no people taking photos of monuments nor of bbqs of any thing personal private or public fuck your bullshit privacy rules i’ve never taken a single photo that i could not stand by that i could get in any trouble for in any court and some of mine have been used in evidence for break ins assaults vehicle thefts and other things. to me that says enough just remember there is two sides and i’m simply on this one.
Only in the United States would people have such strong opinions about laws they know so little about.
It was as much the photographers right to take the photograph as it was for the angry fellow to yell at the man on the street. All of those who cited Jeremy as being in the wrong should read the Constitution of the United States. Specifically the first, fourth and fifth Amendments.
remember…Simple minds talk about people. Average minds talk about events. Great minds talk about ideas.
Sad. Way to come off like a jerk trying to get a “shot”.
I don’t care what the law says about this, it’s not right to take and publish a personal photo of someone (even a celeb) without their permission, and especially not if they specifically tell you not to. I would have taken or broken your camera if you’d done that to me. Publishing a photo is different from just looking at someone. People can rightly get upset if you stare at them, too.
Rabble rabble rabble rabble!
Damnit.. Why did he have to be wearing a bluetooth headset.. I hate that.. We’re not ALL douchebags.
“I assured him that his photo would be on the internet.”
f*cking awesome
Your focus is very good.
http://www.noshiz.com/index.php?philo_ID=285
dude, you’re the man. Dude was being an asshole to a homeless man. thats what you get for being a dick
@random pedestrian:
seriously? film? have you heard of digital photography? its all the rage
It’s an amusing and interesting statement on what we’ve come to be in a public situation. It never ceases to amaze me as a serious, and active photographer in public how many people think that they can tell me what I can or cannot photograph. That someone would come up to you on a public street and demand that you give them your personal property is so far off the charts it’s unbelievable. That they would shove you and grab your camera is assault, pure and simple. These people with their replies like “I’d shove that camera up your nose.” are sooner or later going to find themselves in jail, or destitute, when they get dragged through civil and criminal courts for acting out their unchecked urges if and when they do so. You do have to pick your battles, though, and there are all too many crazies out there, so be careful…….legally right isn’t worth getting hurt or killed over. Good luck!
I lived in San Francisco for three years, and in that time not once was I ever aggressively confronted by a homeless person. Most of them are cheerful or stoned and will leave you be. If the allegations of the man in the photograph verbally assaulting a homeless man are true, then it truly speaks to the character of that person. I believe the photographer has provided a public service here; watch out for the the douchebag in this picture, as he is clearly ill-tempered. I have been photographed several times while out in public that I am aware of. If you talk to the photographer, most of them will give you a business card and in some cases even send you a copy of the shot(s). The photographers are in it for the art, not to be disrespectful. Images are a reflection of self – so if one acts accordingly in public, you have nothing to fear. Well done Mr. Brooks, I think you handled that situation quite well.
It’s funny how everyone seems to forget the fact that he was verbally abusing a homeless person before this picture was taken. Seems to me that they just saw this, read a little about what you posted and sided with Mr. Over reaction man. I completely support with the actions Mr. Camera man took.
The guy was an ass. If you think he had the right to verbally abuse and get aggressive, but not to have his picture taken then you are an ass, too. If you think you can “kick my butt”, bring it on, bitch.
Kudos to the photographer.
“I don’t care what the law says about this, it’s not right to take and publish a personal photo of someone (even a celeb) without their permission, and especially not if they specifically tell you not to. I would have taken or broken your camera if you’d done that to me. Publishing a photo is different from just looking at someone. People can rightly get upset if you stare at them, too.”
I got to love how this person tries to say stuff about the law and talks about breaking laws in the next sentence.. I will break it down for the idiots out there that said about the same thing.
“I would have taken or broken your camera”
Physically taking ones property is theft. Depending on how expensive the camera was and state laws it can be grand theft. Damaging ones property is vandalism. Also, depending if there was a struggle to get the camera from the person, it can be considered assault..
Also, you should do yourself a favor and look up the laws before quoting what you think the law is.
Example: If you wife had the blinds opened and undressed in front of a window that is visible from a public location, ie; sidewalk, I could take a picture of her and there would be nothing you can do, since her right for privacy was forfeited by leaving the blinds opened.
Don’t believe me? look up the laws yourself.
Does anyone in this forum have large bay windows in their bedroom with no blinds?
…if so, could you post your home address and let me know when your wife showers?
thank you.
Taking a photo on a public sidewalk of someone else on a public sidewalk is not illegal because they are in public. Doing so without permission would normally be a dick move, but considering this asshole was going off on a homeless man, he deserves it. Hopefully he learned his lesson, but I doubt it, as people like this rarely do.
On the other hand, putting his likeness on this website is also not a crime as he was on a public sidewalk when it was taken he has very few reasonable means of privacy. If you were using the picture to advertise for the website it would be a different story, but as that is not the case ROCK ON!
This made me smile I’m glad Mr. Camera guy got a picture of Mr. Angry Overreaction Man and posted his story. =]
Lets paint a picture of events. Angry man likely has a history of anger and violent behavior. The homeless man probably asked him for change, like they always do, and some people including myself find this to be irritating. However in this instance Angry man chose to disregard all protocols, or even that his daughter was present, and yell at the homeless man. Something along the lines of how he doesn’t owe him anything and how dare he try to swindle his hard earned money. dirty parasite. You know. Now the photographer comes in. I have to say not a bright move, but it doesn’t make you a jerk to try to photograph the argument. It’d happen exactly the same if you walked up and told him to stop yelling at the homeless man. The man shouts at people in a public street and expected no one to notice? Clearly an asshole. People like him need to be rehabilitated, before they are allowed to walk freely. This includes all the angry commenters here as well.
I think it’s funny that someone dammit why did he have to be wearing a bluetooth headset. That’s the first thing I noticed. Why are so many people who wear bluetooth headsets assholes?
People that think they have a right to not have their picture taken if they don’t want it to be taken, are absolute power hungry idiots. If you are in a public place or in reasonable view from a public place I can take whatever picture I want of you and not ask for your picture in the slightest. What an absolute caveman simpleton would think they have control over someone else’s camera like this. If you want to do something and not be seen then do it in the privacy of your own home, otherwise you are SOL if someone wants to take you picture.