hey papi chulo my mark mi papi loco Ilove you.

Stop taking photography for granted. Seriously. THE BEST photos are taken without permission and in moments of disputable morality. It is simply astounding that people attack photographers at the same time they serve the world to your doorstep.

why are we even discussing the legality of any of this? OF COURSE it's legal, you morons. that's not the point. it is also legal to have loud, obnoxious cell phone conversations in quiet cafes, and to walk four-across on the sidewalk, and to not tip your bartender, and to wear ironic trucker caps. the point is that it's ANNOYING. that's why lindsay is proposing "etiquette" guidelines, not legal ones.

so, photographers: stop being douchebags. the end.

p.s. why would you even want photos of people you don't know? if you don't think your friends are interesting-looking enough, maybe it's time to make new friends?

Here's the truth yo... that is not a bad picture of this lindsay chick... that is a GOOD picture of her, because she is a real chubbo... big fat head. nasty lookin chick.

I got censored, and I wasn't even insulting anybody personally. All I said was that Gothamist should stick to writing about New York news and events, and leave out this kind of playground shoving. Apparently somebody was offended by that.

Lindsayism takes pictures without permission:

http://www.lindsayism.com/maxfish.htm

Would you all just get over it? Princess Diana is dead (for now). Lindsay doesn't like photos (sometimes). Jake Dobkin is, and always will be, a Dobkin and we are all just going to have to live with it. Now come on kids, can't we move on to the next topic? What's that I heard about a baby panda digging up the remains of Jerry Orbach and throwing them around the LES as part of some kind of street art ritual?

jake dobkin is the world's biggest asshole. he does nothing but spread hate and lies. someone should kill him.

Lindsay doesn't have comments, so I feel obliged to point out her slight hipocrisy here...

does anyone remember the incident when she drunkenly tried to take a woman's photo in a bar despite the woman's protests and Lindsay ended up getting her camera smacked out of her hands (and injuring her neck) by the bartender? remember her outrage? and her defensiveness at her right to take this woman's photo in a public place? anyone?

all I'm saying is it's never nice to be on the other side of stuff you've done before.

that said, Jake it's pretty mega-douche to post someone's photo in explicit juxtaposition with her rant about not wanting her photo taken. and your defense that a person should be mad at genetics? wow, new levels of pathetic. perhaps you should blame your parents for your trivial idiocy and personal inadequacies.

She looks like she's eating a shitload of Big League Chew in that picture.

Whiner

Dobkin's lens is bigger than mine. I've seen it in person. It's quite impressive. Intimidating, even. He wields it with confidence, whipping it out in public whenever he feels the need to relieve his artistic intent all over everyone within a 10 foot radius. I heard that's it's extendable as well, but I can't confirm that as he kept it at one length the night I met him. Of course, it is detachable, all the new, expensive ones are. Also, it's made in China. At one point during the evening, Dobkin's lens brushed up against my neck. It felt hard and cold. We then compared our lenses. As I mentioned, his won by a mile. Mine is but a humble point-and-shoot.

Anyway, I think he should stick to photographing benches.

[edited for content, humor, and correct grammar]

Wow, my comment about the lameness of Jake's famewhore/lindsay skating skill/tony hawk dis was deleted because I called him 'pathetically inarticulate.' He's allowed to call Lindsay a 'fame whore' and I'm not allowed to call him 'inarticulate'? The only real policy in effect here seems to be "I'm the boss and I make the rules," and that's not just pathetic. It's fascist.

(Please note: I'm criticizing Jake's interpretation of the policy now, not Jake personally. I'd hope that Gothamist will adhere to their declared policy and not delete this comment, but I won't get my hopes up).

Wow thats a really bad picture of her. Damn I understand why she doesnt want pics taken. Im sure she is very cute in person though as its just a bad pic. She totally has a point though its a little annoying to have pics snapped but if your in the media (even the blogosphere media) you are going to wind up getting your pic taken so there.....

I'm not a legal expert, but I have been to a couple of seminars and lectures on journalism and privacy law.

Joe, I think you're mistaken on the case law. One famous case is Daily Times Democrat v. Graham, 1964. A woman at a carnival "fun house" had her skirt lifted up by a gust of air, exposing her panties. A newspaper published her photo; she won the lawsuit.

Also (admittedly this was in Britain) but last year Naomi Campbell won a lawsuit against the Daily Mirror for taking her photo, on a public street, of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting.

Of course, these aren't really related to regular party photos. You can read a primer on privacy and photography here ... basically the relevant test is the photograph has to reveal facts that would "would be highly offensive to a reasonable person" and is of no legitimate public concern.

But Brightliner is I think mistaken, too. As a news site, Gothamist arguably falls under the media exemption to the "commercial gain" restrictions. (It's worth noting that news photographers for for-profit newspapers never use model release forms or ask permission, even when snapping "candids of relative unknowns on the street").

Lastly, it's worth noting that taking photos in public is almost always okay, absent some national security risk. It's the dissemination that can get you in trouble.

i don't think that counts as an insult-- but if there's a consensus that it does, i'll delete that comment too. on a thread like this, it can be difficult to separate disagreeing with someone's opinion from insulting the person themselves. i've deleted about a dozen comments-- about half were insulting lindsay or other commenters, and about half were insulting gothamist, me, or some combo. if you have questions about why a certain comment was deleted, you can always email me, jen, or tien.

Does this count as an insult:

bwa ha ha ha -- accused of being a fame-whore by lindsay? that's like being complimented on your skating skills by tony hawk.

Or are Gothamist staff allowed to not follow the comment policy (since this whole post started as a personal attack/insult, I guess so.)

Oh man, I think this whole ordeal reveals what NYC scenesters and bloggers are: those dorky kids who all sat together at lunch who always dreamed of being part of the "cool" "fashionable" crowd, and thus developed a huge insecurity chip on their shoulder when they were never allowed to be a part it.

This was later imported to Vassar, Columbia, etc., where the insecurity was funneled into obsessive efforts to finally be "cool" and "fashionable".

Finally graduating and reaching adulthood in New York City, all the former highschool geeks get together in their little groups again, with the same insecurities and drama, just blown up to ridiculously extreme levels.

The end result? Blogs, blog wars, parties full of dorks dressed up in their costumes posted on blogs. Kids who go to music shows just to show that "hey you highschool jerks! look how cool I am now!!!"

i've been reading this particular thread w/ some interest... this has all spiralled down to silliness due to ego... accept that the original posting was malicious, childish, and inhumane in nature... repeat, lather, say it out loud to yourself and accept it.. move on.