this threads pretty cool I guess

not JO worthy, but close

8/1/2008 4:23:32 PM

this thread is hilarious for a few reasons

twwers egg dnl on in his creepy endeavors

i bet in the next 10 days someone egging him on in this thread will bring it up and call him a fucking creep

dnl cant win

this shit is creep supreme btw

8/1/2008 5:08:57 PM

actually it would be creepy if he were still out there watching her instead of fucking around on the internet talking about it

8/1/2008 5:10:52 PM

wasn't he posting from his phone before?

he kept posting new pics

he probably stayed out there until she packed up shop

8/1/2008 5:12:03 PM

i dont know, thankfully my life is busy enough now that i don't have time to keep up with anyone else's

8/1/2008 5:13:16 PM

word

8/1/2008 5:13:32 PM

I think this thread represents a low-point in TWW history.

8/1/2008 5:13:41 PM

ok i admit, before now i had only read the first post and the last post (which was wolfys at the time)

i still havent read it all but i looked at dnls posts

thats kinda funny, and i guess maybe creepy

but what surprises me is that GOD is sitting there telling him how to be a fucking peeping tom, and no one seemed to call him out. that's whats REALLY creepy to me...

8/1/2008 5:17:03 PM

here's my theory: if a girl dresses slutty and draws attention to herself, then you have every right to gawk, take pictures, tell friends, etc., etc.

its like when a girl wears lowcut shirt and bitches that your looking at her tits. bitch plz.

8/1/2008 5:21:02 PM

This is by far the best DNL thread in a while.

8/1/2008 5:22:32 PM

Quote :

"its like when a girl wears lowcut shirt and bitches that your looking at her tits. bitch plz."

agree with that, it doesn't justify rape.. but it sure as hell justifies staring. they are askin for it!!1

8/1/2008 5:28:59 PM

oh no, certainly not rape. but if you've put the goods out on the skreet, i'll have a look.

8/1/2008 5:30:14 PM

this shit is hilarious.

^and yeah, if she's gonna put it out there, she's definitely expecting people to LOOK!

8/1/2008 5:43:47 PM

south africa has a lot of rapes

like 1000 a day i hear. its like the size of texas right

8/1/2008 6:38:28 PM

lets get some boobs in here

8/1/2008 6:39:44 PM

wolfy calling someone creepy...laff

8/1/2008 6:43:05 PM

ah ha I've never seen her before. I know about the hot dog stand in front of the courthouse, and the one by the bus station. I guess that's on the other side of the taller progress energy building from me - on fayetteville st?

8/1/2008 6:44:54 PM

yeah...its kinda in between the progress energy building and the boa building, but closer to the progress energy building, on fayetteville

8/1/2008 6:46:37 PM

some guys on my floor were talking about her the other day. she looked alright from a distance as I walked to the Chick-fil-la.

8/1/2008 6:49:58 PM

I'm pretty sure what you're doing is illegal.

8/1/2008 6:52:39 PM

taking pictures of someone in public?

8/1/2008 6:53:26 PM

Quote :

"but what surprises me is that GOD is sitting there telling him how to be a fucking peeping tom, and no one seemed to call him out. that's whats REALLY creepy to me..."

I did~

8/1/2008 7:08:15 PM

some of gods posts were ok...its just hard to take someone that graduated with like a 2.15gpa seriously...idk its just tww i guess so i shouldnt be so judgemental

8/1/2008 7:18:47 PM

p.s. ur pictures suck

next time grow some balls & take a close up! (either that-- or don't dedicate a whole thread to this chick's ass) /rant

8/1/2008 7:22:03 PM

lol next time i'm gonna use a real camera

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:23 PM. Reason : i honestly thought the thread would get 15 posts, maybe]

8/1/2008 7:23:24 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure what you're doing is illegal."

Taking pictures of people in public is not illegal.

Taking pictures of people in public, who have explicitly asked a photographer not to, is.

So he was okay right up until she said 'no, no pictures'.

8/1/2008 7:29:24 PM

so technically all the pics i took before she said no are ok? technically i mean...lol

8/1/2008 7:30:12 PM

Yup.

A concept called reasonable expectations of privacy: it is not reasonable to expect privacy in public areas.
Until you revoke your (implied, by virtue of being in public) consent, people are allowed to take pictures of you. And the pictures they take of you before you revoke consent can be published or distributed how the photographer likes (within the normal, legal uses of photographs), seeing as how they belong to him/her. So if you wanted to write an article for the technician about this hotdog vender, and use these pictures, you could. You would not need a release from her to do so. Just an example.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:33 PM. Reason : lkjf]

8/1/2008 7:32:50 PM

ok thanks...couple of hypotheticals...a) does she have to say no daily or is it forever after that? and b) what if i gave my camera to someone else that she had not said no to?

8/1/2008 7:34:46 PM

I'm not a lawyer

If the other person heard her tell you no, or knew, then my guess is that the law would consider her consent revoked from them, as well.

And daily...yes, she would have to say so. It's not reasonable to expect otherwise. Now, socially, the understanding would be that since she doesn't like you taking her picture, that you would stop, but you dnl, so it's not like that's something that matters to you


Not like any of this matters here

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM. Reason : ldkj]

8/1/2008 7:36:22 PM

gotcha...honestly i'm gonna probably give it a while...definitely dont want to go next week just cause of the few times i went out today...i think she'd know something is up...all the guys stare at her and snicker...she must just not care

8/1/2008 7:40:29 PM

so how does the papratzi still get to take pictures of celebs when they obviously don't want them to?

8/1/2008 7:40:38 PM

maybe you have to be licensed

8/1/2008 7:42:17 PM

I would imagine in most cases, because a celeb actually hasn't told the photog to stop taking pictures
Or it may be that will all the money at stake for those kinds of pictures, the paparazzi will take it to court, in the 'she never served me with papers telling me she was revoking her consent' sense.

I don't know if verbal exchanges would hold up when a papparazzo is wanting to publish something.

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:44 PM. Reason : lkjfd]

8/1/2008 7:42:49 PM

because they're out in public and they don't have the "right" to not be photographed out in public

8/1/2008 7:42:50 PM

this law can't be right. by that logic the entire poparazi industry would fizzle if stars just said don't take pictures of me.

8/1/2008 7:44:34 PM

Quote :

"because they're out in public and they don't have the "right" to not be photographed out in public"

That's something of a matter of debate.

For everyday people, yes, they do.

But when you're famous, you're considered a person of public interest, and you do lose that right. Another way they get to take those pictures.

Quote :

"this law can't be right. by that logic the entire poparazi industry would fizzle if stars just said don't take pictures of me."

I know.
I addressed that here
I forgot it in my first post.

And no, it wouldn't fizzle. In order for someone to verbally revoke consent, they have to be close enough to you to talk to you. You ever see some of the zoom lenses those guys are using?

[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:46 PM. Reason : lfgkj]

8/1/2008 7:45:08 PM

what if the person is in their home, say, changing clothes? and they leave their window open so the public could see, but they are in their private residence?

8/1/2008 7:46:54 PM

The rule of thumb is that if it can be seen from public property (e.g., the street) with the naked eye, it's fair game

8/1/2008 7:47:33 PM

I'm pretty sure that in one's home, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be photographed, even if it was easy.

8/1/2008 7:49:10 PM

Here are a couple links
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html
http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure that in one's home, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be photographed, even if it was easy."

You have 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and then you have 'expectation to not be photographed' in your statement.

If something in your home is visible to the naked eye of someone who is on/at/in a public area...it's not private. Kind of like how your car is private property, but that doesn't mean you always have an expectation of privacy while in it.

The expectation to not be photographed in your own home? Pretty solid. If you shut your curtains. You have no way to know what someone standing on public property could be doing, or watching.

I want to make something clear: I'm not advocating for voyeurism or making people uncomfortable here. My goal here is to help dispel this crazy notion that just because person A doesn't want something, person B has to give up their rights to accomodate person B, when both are right, and protected. As someone into photography, it does bug me that people think it's 'illegal' for someone to take a picture of someone else, especially in public. They never can give a reason other than 'because maybe they don't want their picture taken?' Guess what...these same people probably end up on surveillance tapes, because they go to stores, gas stations, or banks.

There are some very compelling reasons to be polite, and let someone know you're either taking, or have taken their picture, and this is where etiquette comes into play. But etiquette != the law.

It's something that's usually governed well by common sense and courtesy, but then you have the paparazzi and people like dnl.


[Edited on August 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM. Reason : lfkjfs more!]

8/1/2008 7:55:52 PM

Quote :

"If something in your home is visible to the naked eye of someone who is on/at/in a public area...it's not private."

99% of it. Cases have also been won if extraordinary means were used to obtain the frames - I think it's like anything over 100mm equivalents (including crop factor) are no longer 'ordinary.' Also think of things like up-skirts or under tables.

But yea, if you can see it in a public setting you can shoot it and be 100% in the clear as long are you're not doing something stupid.

8/1/2008 9:46:06 PM

Quote :

"It's something that's usually governed well by common sense and courtesy, but then you have the paparazzi and people like dnl."

i got to this part and bust out laughing.

8/1/2008 10:08:08 PM

and?

8/1/2008 10:09:31 PM

dude call me next time, I would have brought a nice SLR camera and gotten those pictures so close TWW would be scratching the monnitors for the scratch and sniff option!

8/1/2008 10:28:58 PM

ok

8/1/2008 10:29:24 PM

What a skanky ho.

8/1/2008 10:32:16 PM

another one that brings the lolz with a side of creepy. but still lol..

9/2/2008 2:44:55 AM

nice butt and legs so far

9/2/2008 2:49:51 AM

set em up

9/2/2008 3:36:40 AM