If you put my picture in the internet, I'll cal my lawyer!

[draggar]

Not mine, and shamelessly stolen.

How much you want to bet we have a few stories here about this guy?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremybrooks/2473047860/

http://www.whirljack.net/jeremybrook...all-my-lawyer/

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.

[ShadedWings]

I'm torn between wondering if that's covered in some sort of law that prevents people from publishing someone's likeness without consent (the same one that makes news stations blur out faces if they don't sign a paper or some such) or if the photo-taker has free right to publish what that want under the first amendment. Still funny either way thinking about a guy getting pissed off that he got caught yelling at a homeless man. I'd be pissed off too if I got caught doing something I'd be embarrassed about later.

[lordlundar]

I'm torn between wondering if that's covered in some sort of law that prevents people from publishing someone's likeness without consent (the same one that makes news stations blur out faces if they don't sign a paper or some such) or if the photo-taker has free right to publish what that want under the first amendment.

The photo was in a public place with an amateur photographer. There is no expectation of privacy there, so he's free to do with the photos whatever he wants, provided he doesn't cross into the slander/libel territory.

[Plaidman]

I wanna see the kid looked at daddy when he takes his happy pills.

That,and someones gotta do a photoshop of that pic with OBJECTION!!!

[Emrld]

I agree the man over reacted.

Here is my issue. Unless I give permission or post it myself I don't want my picture on the internet/ published in anyway shape or form.
I can't full fill my monetary earning obligations without being on public sidewalk, public street, etc.
True I do everything in my power to avoid being somewhere that would attract the attention of photographers.
I have a right to protect my image and keeping it from being miss-used, used in a fashion to imply and un-truth.

I have an even bigger issue at fair season. It is true that I lace up in a bodice and do have the parts to attract oggling when laced up. That does not mean that I am giving someone the right to use my image without my permission. (Sorry no pictures)
Several females have had to do battle with photographers at fair taking photos that may or may not include faces but give an eyefull either way and put them on sites geared toward "adult entertainment"

[Hyndis]

If you're in a public place you have no expectation of privacy. Being on a public street means anyone can look at you, or even take a picture of you if they want to. At least, if its a casual photograph. If the photographer starts focusing on you exclusively in a harassing manner, then thats another thing. But notice all of the bystanders caught on film on all sorts of wide angle outdoor shots. Getting permission from every single person would be nigh impossible.

[One-Fang]

As I understood it, here in NZ at least, crowd scenes are fine, but a photo of an individual is not yours to do with as you please. You must have their permission to reproduce.

I could be wrong.

[crazylegs]

I know in the UK there is no legal reason to prevent me from getting my camera and taking a picture of someone right in front of them, there may be a self preservation issue but no legal one.

(Anyhow it's easier with a long lens, my 170-500mm lens is a doozy)

[the_std]

170-500mm lens

... Hi! There's someone here who wants to be your friend... If you'll share that Adonis of a lens.

[crazylegs]

... Hi! There's someone here who wants to be your friend... If you'll share that Adonis of a lens.

Only if you have a Nikon mount

[the_std]

That I do! Although, I'm the mount master.

[Hon'ya-chan]

It is true that I lace up in a bodice and do have the parts to attract oggling when laced up.

I'm invoking the Rules of the Internet. Thread is worthless without pics clause.

[lordlundar]

(Sorry no pictures)

Awww.

Seriously though, you are simply trying to avoid misrepresentation, which is perfectly acceptable. As well, you at current do not have a choice in avoiding the public lens, and are well within your rights through your employer to prevent publication, as that could affect the company profits and your paycheck/employment.

In this case though, there was no civil request, no expectation of privacy,and open threats. There was no misrepresentation which can lead to slander or libel charges. As well, his job does not depend on being exposed to the public eye apart from travel, so his choice to rant was his alone and his employer does not have to defend him.

The setting may be similar, but the situations are pretty far apart.

[crazylegs]

That I do! Although, I'm the mount master.

Not a problem at all (ask me real nice and I'll let you play with my 200mm Macro lens! )

[Misty]

I love it! The bluetooth really sells it for me: "Muppie jerk gets his comeuppance." (Muppie stands for middle-aged urban professional). The whole "I'll call my lawyer" bit is such an empty threat it only makes him look even more ridiculous (I'll bet he says that a lot and it was pure reflex). The best part is, if the guy hadn't screamed at the cameraman not to put his picture on the internet then his picture wouldn't have wound up on the internet.

Even though the guy was being a total douche, I do understand people's desire for privacy and briefly wondered how the cameraman would feel if the tables were turned, but his decision not to post the snapshots of the daughter won me over. He sounds like a classy guy.

The whole taking pictures of people in public is a big gray area at best, so my rule of thumb is if you're in a public place, don't do anything you wouldn't want the public to see.