Columns Dec 2, 2010 at 4:00 am

Drive-by Douchebaggery

Steven Weissman


Put your fucking phone in your pocket and go someplace private to weep and wail.
Your consent is not needed, legally or morally. Lame I ANON....
It's worse than you think, I Anon. That passerby may have stolen your soul with his diabolical photographimical contraption.
public place? no expectation of, or right to privacy
was there nothing more compelling in the last week, than this whiner who thinks that we have any kind of right to privacy in public places?
Strange. So anybody in the US can take anybody into picture and use it whatever way (s)he wants??

Just so you know, in Europe it's the opposite. You HAVE TO ask for permission if you want to use it in a commercial/public way (exhibition, press, selling). Actually, even if you take a picture of a huge group of persons, as long as you're gonna use it for a commercial/public goal you have to ask every single person on that picture for permission.

I think I prefer the European way. I was always thinking it was maybe slightly over the top, but I guess I prefer that than being told that I need to restrain myself from acting humanly on streets, because you know, others could see then that you have feelings and can get scared, or even worse, can take you into picture just like animals in a zoo.
Okay - granted, I Anon couldn't reasonably expect privacy while parked on the street. Taking a picture of someone while they're crying is still kind of a dick thing to do.
@9 FTW.
People are assholes.
Hahaha taking pictures of people being idiots in their cars is awesome. Criers and eaters are my favorites.
Why SHOULDN'T Anon have the right to privacy(she was in her car, for God's sake, not standing in the middle of the street)or at least have the right to expect NOT to have her personal grief stolen for someone else's use like that?

Would any of YOU feel you had the right to snap a quick shot of a complete stranger in a moment of grief or despair?

What the hell is wrong with you people?
Sorry. Brave New World, and all that. My gym wants my fingerprint for 'convenience.' My gov't wants to touch my junk. I don't like it anymore than you do, but privacy is a remnant of an unwired world. Privacy is dead. Long live Privacy.
You're right -- you cannot expect privacy.

Apparently you also cannot hope for decency.
Or the hope of a good IA story.
this was just pathetic. Anon, you are pathetic. who the fuck are you that you think this guy is gonna use a pic of you sobbing in some sort of commercial way??? he's gonna make money off this huh? ...and everyone's gonna find out that you were crying one day, and they'll all point and laugh, and this guy will be a millionaire and you'll still be crying...oohhhhhh whooooaaaaaa is you.

the cool part is you really are hung up on this enough to write an ANON about it. you prob think about him everyday and night and make yourself and those around you miserable......

because someguy took a picture. move on.
IA Haters! Sound Off Now....

too late
Hu, #17, I was just saying how it theoretically works in Europe. Chill.

I guess #9 is much more clearer than me on this particular case.
Seriously, the lamest IA ever.
Maybe you were illegally parked or doing something equally obnoxious in your self-involved cell phone pity party. So the guy took a picture to show the world what an ass you are.
Maybe the person on the other end was getting sick of listening to your problems and sent that guy to fuck with your head.
Do you really think he saw you crying before he pulled over to take his pic? Something else brought him over, and you were too wrapped up in yourself to figure out what it was.
guys, she's not saying she expected privacy legally and will take him down with a lawsuit, she's saying "that was a shitty thing you did and I may someday try to get revenge"

personally I can get behind that sentiment
I see douchebaggery is really rampant, here, too.
How the hell does this get to a discussion of the legal parameters of privacy? I guess ANON kind of got into it wtih the 'consent' bit, but the point to me was the way people feel like a camera in their hand gives them the right to be inconsiderate assholes. Assuming anon is not a celeb who signed up for this, why can't we have some sense of courtesy and consideration for others when they are distraught?
Please, someone, grab me a box of Kleenex, so I can dab the corner of my eye.
Agree with 9, 22, 23, 24. Just because you are within the law doesn't mean you aren't also being an asshole.
dear writer, FUCK YOU. talk about the douche calling the douche bag.
@8- I think you have a misunderstanding of 'Commercial Use'. That standard only applies if you are using the image to sell a good or service. Art, documentary, newspaper, etc all fall under the heading -worldwide- of 'Editorial Use'. Editorial use is pretty broad, and includes exhibitions, even of work for sale, and includes use of images in monographs- or books of photography intended for sale, even on the cover of said book. What would not be covered would be selling the image to an advertiser who would the use it to generate attention for a product or service. These standards are international, vary only slightly by county, and originated in Europe.
IA is just a baby. What was IA crying about in the car? IA was probably crying about someone else taking a picture of her a few days beforehand, then ironically someone else snapped a picture of her crying about the first picture. And now IA is crying about that. If it's used for an art project the project is probably titled "Perpetually crying about getting photographed while you're crying about being photographed while you were crying". And now IA is crying publicly again. Love the irony.
Maybe she had just gotten a phone call that both of her parents died in a car wreck.
"Maybe she had just gotten a phone call that both of her parents died in a car wreck."

No, because her parents are already dead, they died a long time ago, when someone took a picture of them when they were crying and they both exploded!

Oh, now I am making the connection! A man taking a picture of her parents while they were crying KILLED HER PARENTS!

If she is reading these comments, my condolences. but if her parents did really just die in a car wreck, she needs to see a grief counselor, not take out her emotions on small insignificant events. Example? Of course!:

"My parents just died in a car wreck and I was crying on the phone and then a bee stung me! I swear to all that is holy that if I ever see that bee again I'm gonna pull out its eyes and stick 'em down its pants, so the bee can watch me kick the crap outta it, okay? Then I'm gonna use its tongue to paint my boat!" - last part courtesy of Moe Sizzlack

Also, I'm not sure the gender is identified in the piece, so excuse me for assuming it is a woman, but it is easier than writing the awkward "IA" over and over.
Maybe she was being dumped via phone and the dumper wanted the picture for his private collection. I can see this becoming a trend.
The only part of this story that angers me is the digital camera. Digi-cams are lame as fuck. Other than that... photography... ever head of it? People who are into it have to take pictures of people whether the people want it or not. Of course this guy could be a creep or a prick or a creepy prick, but ya... also, fuck cell phones. If you don't want people invading your privacy don't try to be private in public.
Mostly, stop being naked in your car.
Anon is crying because her art exhibit of photos of smiling children was canceled because it was too trite. They told her to tie a string to a toy, give it the toy to a child and then pull the string and take a picture. repeat.
I saw a woman picking her nose in her car yesterday. I only WISH I'd had a camera then.
I wonder if it is the same jerk that snapped a pic of me crying and masterbating in my parked car?
I think I misspelled mastebating
damn did it again
Wow, this thread says so much more about the commenters than I.A.

Does it take a week for this much bile to build up or are you guys just overflowing with it all the time?
Do you all seriously think there's no understandable and legitimate reason one might be crying in their car?

I found myself in that situation when I was out running errands and got a call about an unexpected family death. I rushed out of the store so I could listen and talk about what happened as privately as possible-- in my car. And I was crying. You all would have too in this situation and it would have disturbed you to get your picture taken.
Someone snapped a picture of me in my car once, except I wasn't crying or eating or anything. I was simply driving at 70 or so on the interstate just like everyone else. Nothing spectacular about my car, my outfit, or anything.

I'm not pissed about it, but I'm a bit mystified, especially since he seemed to be struggling to control his car and snap a picture of me at the same time before he sped off. Bizarre.
Ugh! Grow up!
Actually, IA understated the photo since it was a video, which is attached in this link…
@42, That happened to me too. Then the asshole photographer sent me a bill for taking the photo. Apparently the speed limit was 60.
@28--it's actually even a bit more complicated than that. That is, your breakdown of the law is accurate as I understand it, but my experience is that given the current legal climate in the U.S., editorial use generally needs to be rights cleared, if not to satisfy the letter of the law, then to make lawyers and publishers sleep better at night.

Technically, an incidental shot of a person who is not identifiable is okay to publish, but most publishers I have worked with will insist on model releases for anyone in a shot who is identifiable. Basically, because this is America and anyone can sue for anything, and even if it's not winnable, defending a lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming. So, if I take a picture of a street scene to illustrate my book on, I dunno, the manzanita trees of Northern California, and you happen to be in the shot and clearly identifiable as yourself, you can always claim later than my book on trees would never have been such a giant success without your image, and I owe you bigtime. In other words, editorial use can be recast as commercial after the fact.

There are lots of common-law exceptions, such as a crowd scene outdoors, but in general, despite the fact that you have no legal expectation of privacy in public, and that it does not break any laws to include an image of you in a non-defamatory way in an editorial work, many publishers seem to be quite gun-shy to do so. (Oh yeah, the defamatory bit is fun too. What if you were a member of the anti-tree action league,and being pictured in a book about trees struck you and your high-priced lawyer as potentially damaging to your public reputation?).

My take on this is as an image-rights editor and photo researcher--I have been in lengthy debates about whether a lovely shot of some rice paddies at dawn, being used to illustrate a cookbook, are okay to use because those two peasants in the distance might be identifiable, and it's not model-released. Silly? Maybe. But seems to be the tenor of the times.
Waaaa. Cry baby. I'm sure the guy who took the pic is shakin' in his boots... or comfort sandals or whatever. Maybe it's like when you are crying too hard when you are a little kid, and your crazy uncle is like, "Hey, Ya want me to bite 'cha? You'll forget all about the other pain while you're thinkin' of the bite pain." Even though you are thinking, " What the Hell? Why would I want your scary ass to bite me?" He was really just trying to distract you and has no regard for your actual feelings. Is that so bad? I don't care about your feelings, either. Are you going to come to my house and carry out your evil revenge plot? Chill out. If this is the worst thing you have to worry about, I'd say you are doing all right, but that you seem kind of lame.
@8 "Just so you know, in Europe it's the opposite. You HAVE TO ask for permission if you want to use it in a commercial/public way (exhibition, press, selling). Actually, even if you take a picture of a huge group of persons, as long as you're gonna use it for a commercial/public goal you have to ask every single person on that picture for permission."

It's the same way here, duder. The person doesn't generally need such permissions to upload it to his blog or laugh about it in the privacy of his home.
Ugh! Grow the fuck up...
^^^ That's the farthest apart double-post I've seen
good god people are mean when they have a sense of anonymity.
Sometimes, I'm ashamed to be related to the rest of humanity.
Reading the heartlessness of you slavering, vulture-excrement-toothed jackals qualifies this moment as one of those times.

Heaven forfend, anyone show any vulnerability, weakness, or pain.
Of course, she deserves to have her flesh stripped off by you for it, right?

Is that better now? Less vulnerable yourself, are you?
Yeah, @9: legal, but a dick move.
OMG, what's with all the Boo-Hooers on IA? It's fucking're supposed to write some kind of douchebag comment that is seriously fucked up. Get with the program people!
Hey LA,
stay there, it suits you perfectly.
LA runs on preconceived notions about everyone and everything.
That you're "supposed to" engage in douchebaggery just because this is IA, by definition, is a preconceived notion. I like challenging preconceived notions.
You, however, definitely should stay in LA. And away from my rain and trees.
Why do you have an expectation of privacy in a public place?
Boo hoo lady. Stop living in your car.
Lugh's comment is SO GOOD!
Also, why does everyone assume that just because we're talking about someone crying that the i, anon author is female?

Just wondering...
I think commenters treat these "I, Anonymous" postings as an excuse to be as toxic and mean-spirited as possible.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.