Gothamist: Lindsayism to Photographers: F-U!

loca gonzalez

Thu, 25 May 2006 18:20:03 -0500

hey papi chulo my mark mi papi loco Ilove you.

wphei

Mon, 02 Jan 2006 08:40:12 -0500

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.

eliza

Sun, 20 Nov 2005 09:53:10 -0500

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?

FatLindsay

Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:31:55 -0500

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.

ed

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:15:16 -0500

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.

Mark Swiderski

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:54:01 -0500

Lindsayism takes pictures without permission: http://www.lindsayism.com/maxfish.htm

Bored Now

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:34:19 -0500

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?

die asshole

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:54:47 -0500

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

ahem...

Sat, 19 Nov 2005 03:26:28 -0500

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.

Mark Swiderski

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:16:18 -0500

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

yawn

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:52:13 -0500

Whiner

sac

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:29:16 -0500

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.

J

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:01:20 -0500

[edited for content, humor, and correct grammar]

emilyg

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:37:14 -0500

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).

gigi

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:43:34 -0500

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.....

derek rose

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:22:35 -0500

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.

jake

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:34:55 -0500

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.

Davey

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:20:11 -0500

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.)

UHhhh

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:39:06 -0500

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!!!"

dunk

Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:20 -0500

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.

Dashiell

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:15:23 -0500

"so you can disagree with someone's opinion, but you can't insult them, at least not on this site." Unless you're the moderator, right? There were more than a few jabs at lindsay in your comments.

malatron

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:11:49 -0500

ok, look, it's your site, and i'm not gonna argue with whatever honest reason you give, even if you said, "we just don't like you" but with that said, I am stil left a bit confused. Was it when I said, "you guys are crazy" or when I said "dorks"? cause i would've never considered that insulting, though i can see how you could put it in that category. but honestly, if you read the comments, they were humourous, and playful, Re: "I'll see you at recess" I was not attacking anybody personally, and this just reeks of some kinda creepy censorship. If that's what it is, it'd be much eaiser to swallow if whomever deleted my comments just said so, as opposed to stating a policy on offensiveness, that was obvioulsy applied arbitrarily and seemingly without warrant.

jake

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:47:07 -0500

gothamist comment policy is up at: www.gothamist.com/commentpolicy.php. there are a few dozen people with permissions to delete comments. a good rule of thumb is if a comment insults another person, it's going to be deleted. so you can disagree with someone's opinion, but you can't insult them, at least not on this site. if you're interested in attacking people personally, we recommend you start your own blog and do it there.

malatron

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:35:08 -0500

hmm...that's weird. A bunch of comments are missing, mine included. would anybody from Gothamist want to drop me a note and let me know why? did you find them offensive? or in some way inappropiate? not to toot my own horn, (toot-toot) but they made me chuckle. I though they were good comments. b+ stuff. I ask cause I love your site, and as such, would assume I might leave another comment in the future? I'd love to know what parameters there are here that I should be aware of.

Brightliner

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:30:53 -0500

As far as I understand it in the professional photography world, you don't need anyone's verbal or written permission unless the photograph is nude. I work with photojournalists and photo agencies and Jim Natchwey didn't ask permission of the people he photographs in Iraq, or cede to their requests not to be photographed - so why should Jake? Actually, the applicable criteria here are newsworthiness and/or public figures. If it's a news event, then journalists do have the right to take photographs. Likewise if it's a "public figure" as in a movie star. Quite a different story when it's simply personal candids of relative unknowns on the street or at a party. You can be sued for trying to profit from someone's image without permission and in fact, one such suit was discussed right here in Gothamist. By your reasoning, photographers wouldn't need model releases for any of the photos in magazine advertisements, but no professional photographer in his right mind would subscribe to this. Because sites like Gothamist are, in fact, commercial, for-profit ventures, they are subject to the restrictions listed here under commercial gain.

pugsley

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:15:33 -0500

I think the only reason Lindsay doesn't want to be photographed is that she is apparently dating Salmon Rushdie who appears in the background of this photo. He is still in hiding on the literary cocktail circuit.

LarimdaME

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:38:55 -0500

... some of the meeker photobloggers might [play by Lindsay's rules]. And those are the photographers that end up forgotten. People (OK, maybe more the high-art world) seem to really connect to candids.

joe

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:36:22 -0500

can you two get a room somewhere else?

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:23:12 -0500

“neither witty or funny” No, I could tell. What’s “flickering?” How am I a total psycho for just posting comments (observations really), none of which personally bashed anyone’s character, about a manifesto that was made public, and therefore, within the realm of public discussion? Win? Ok. But there was no intention to win. That’s the whole point with this kind of manifesto; it’s an un-winnable proposition, put out there to start a public discussion (which is also un-winnable).

sp

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:13:53 -0500

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't yours essentially the attitude that got Princess Diana killed?" what got princess diana killed was her stupid drunk bodyguard/driver driving too fast and slamming into a concrete pillar. None of them were wearing seat belts. Supposedly they were concerned about being photographed by paparazzi, yet their windows were tinted fully black, nothing could be seen much less shot on film at night while in motion. What killed princess Di was idiocy, not paparazzi. As for people complaining about being taken in photos, boo fucking hoo. if youre over the age of 18, you're fair game. Fuck yourselves.

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:08:01 -0500

“do i have to hold your hand now to cross the street?” “how many times are you going to grace us with your ignorance?” “go celebrate your cock while sitting on the can” “are you that warped by blogs and reality tv that you can't determine who is a "celebrity" “badger, animal king of wit,” “you're going to have to pay extra for these remedial lessons.” (my personal favorite). “since you're a master of the obvious” (Unless this was supposed to not be facetious, in which case, OK.) As for: “but you weren't speaking for lindsay and you know for a fact she didn't object to the pictures?” I said (and you quoted): “I cannot think of any of the above mentioned pictures that I’ve seen on the internet where Lindsey was objecting ANY MORE THAN those bums were.” CAPS mine. I never said she was or was not objecting. I simply made a comparison between what appeared to be a state of having one’s photograph taken. Yeah, I used “bums.” Sorry. I am not as sensitive as you are to other human beings.

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:55:47 -0500

badger, animal king of wit, please point out where these attempts were since you're a master of the obvious and arbiter of intentions. back to the subject at hand and intentions, "As for objecting. I cannot think of any of the above mentioned pictures that I’ve seen on the internet where Lindsey was objecting any more than those bums were. Including the picture used in this piece." nice use of "bums" but you weren't speaking for lindsay and you know for a fact she didn't object to the pictures? ha, YOU are funny!

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:42:38 -0500

Well, if you weren;t trying to be funny then you were trying for witty insults (and failing, at the witty aprt anyway), which is kinda' even more sad. As for funny, Pugsley there is doing pretty good.

pugsley

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:32:30 -0500

Jake killed Princess Diana.

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:29:49 -0500

holy crap amigo, you still don't get it. i give up. you're a total moron. and who's trying to be funny? this is serious stuff. perhaps you can enlighten us in the ways of humor. you sound like a laugh riot.

RoyalWatcher

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:29:36 -0500

whoa, whoa, pause for a mome... Princess Diana is dead?

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:19:58 -0500

If you read my comments you'll see that I never spoke for Lindsay. I never even took a side. I simply stated the facts about pictures of people being online, the nature of celebrity, and how this isn't an issue exclusive to this particular case. I also tried to point out a few of the potentially ironic elements of her manifesto. Lastly, and in this case I AM going to speak for Lindsay: If you're going to continue to insult me, please try to be funnier.

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:57:58 -0500

whats your problem: What's your problem? You said: "those photos are right in the people's faces. it looks obvious they knew their picture was being taken and they didn't object. they had an opportunity right then and there." Then you said: "just because someone smiles when a camera is shoved in their face doesn't mean they didn't object to it right afterwards. or are you using those superhuman mind-reading powers again..." If I did have mind reading powers I'd use them to figure out what you mean here.

src

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:57:20 -0500

The internet has bred thousands of would-be photographers who believe that publishing their photos on a website makes them a professional. It does not. Shoving a camera in someone's face or snapping away at a rock show or (barf) blogging event just makes you a dickhead with a camera. I think the issue here is really understanding the difference between being a photographer and being a paparazzo. In fact, there are no legal rights that protect individuals from having their pictures taken in a public space (that'd put Us magazine right out of business) but by disregarding the privacy of those you are photographing you are basically announcing to the world that you couldn't cut it as a real photographer. And when you're a paparazzo it's all about the commerce, baby - you ain't never gonna be an artist.

Krissa

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:47:34 -0500

As far as I understand it in the professional photography world, you don't need anyone's verbal or written permission unless the photograph is nude. I work with photojournalists and photo agencies and Jim Natchwey didn't ask permission of the people he photographs in Iraq, or cede to their requests not to be photographed - so why should Jake? If you disagree with that, morally, that's one thing. But the same rules should apply to both. Whether you like it or not, I don't think you can really uphold an expectation of privacy when you're in public. Unless you've got six big bouncers. Then, you know, fist v. law applies! And I agree with Jake - posed portraits are never as interesting, why should he seek them out? That said, if after shooting once, someone were to say, "please don't take pictures of me", I'd politely ignore them with the lens. That's probably just common courtesy, though, and doesn't really fall under privacy. However, I think you're all being really mean to each other. It makes it hard to side with anyone when people are throwing out ad hominem attacks.

the obvious

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:45:55 -0500

This is too funny to me.. Bloggers complaining about Bloggers.. You are all the same, expressing yourself on the internet, expressing certain topics, and expressing interests! The only difference is that you use different forms of meduim for your hobby. But you are all the SAME!

Cobra Wedgie

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:38:36 -0500

Hi, I've become very sick of The Cobra Snake and some others like him. Stay tuned for the launch of www.thecobrawedgie.com it's time to fight back. If you're interested in what exactly www.thecobrawedgie.com is, and will become, feel free to email me at: skymcdougal AT hotmail DOT com best, Sky and the team at The Cobra Wedgie

Joe

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:38:24 -0500

I'm not sure where "legal expert" got their legel expertise but the case law is clear cut that people in public spaces have no expectation of privacy. A photographer never has to ask permission to take a picture in public. As a courtesy they might want to, but they don't have to. If someone in public space objects to their photo being taken, it is up to them to raise that objection but they need to know that the final decision is up to the photographer. If you're in a private space and the photographer is in a public space you have no expectation of privacy unless it can be shown that your privacy outweighs the "public good" of the photography. If you're in a private space into which the public is invited, such as a store or restaurant, the owner of the private space sets the rules on privacy (if the owner of the space objects to photography the photographer must stop or risk arrest for trespassing). If you are a "public person" your privacy expectations are reduced in proportion to your fame.

C

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:34:49 -0500

Um posting Lindsay's photograph along with your post makes you look like nothing more than the bully at school who can't resist throwing in one more jab at his/her target. (Because you knew she would object to it being posted on a high-traffic site, not that it's a bad photo). Whether you like it or not, the legal framework of this country was built on the concept of privacy and the right to be left alone, even when one left one's house. But more importantly, keeping photos up that are embarassing or upsetting to the person in the image just for the sake of your "art" or your profit or for your own personal fun shows a lack of respect for your subjects. Photography is not a passive art. It's about the interaction of the person behind the lens with the persons in front of it. You are not shooting the world as it is but are putting your own biases and perspective on film. There's no such thing as objectivity in art. Taking a "don't shoot the messenger" stance to justify your work is weak. If you're going to be an asshole, at least own up to it.

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:33:30 -0500

badger, how many times are you going to grace us with your ignorance? your "celebrity" point is stupid but whatever, go celebrate your cock while sitting on the can. please send us all a picture. but just because someone smiles when a camera is shoved in their face doesn't mean they didn't object to it right afterwards. or are you using those superhuman mind-reading powers again to know what lindsay does on vacations and when her picture is taken?

FedUp

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:33:09 -0500

Young attractive white New Yorkers arguing over face time on blogs? I'm shocked...shocked!.

josefina

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:25:13 -0500

who the hell is this Lindsay girl? whatever...put my pic up...I need a man;)

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:23:52 -0500

Celebrity is defined literally as somebody who is celebrated. Lindsey is certainly celebrated. Especially within the New York blogger world. I have seen pictures of Lindsey all over the NY blogs for quite a while now. So much so that I could actually name her on sight without having actually ever met her face to face. That is celebrity. Especially when something like this happens: lindsayism.com/2005_10_01_archive.php#112956940321250363 Australian or not… You are no longer blogging just for “close friends.” Look, it all does have to do with the tiny amount of celebrity Lindsey has attained (immensely more after this whole incident) even if it is within limited circles. She has used pictures of “real” celebrities on her blog, mockingly no less – photos that I am sure those celebrities aren’t exactly happy with. I also know she’s been a contributor to TOTC-now-Gawker Blue States Lose wherein she’s mocked people who…had their pictures taken out and about. And she has reaped the benefits of this fame. I don’t get invited to a lot of the events that I am sure she does (events where there is going to be cameras – big surprise). As for objecting. I cannot think of any of the above mentioned pictures that I’ve seen on the internet where Lindsey was objecting any more than those bums were. Including the picture used in this piece. Here’s my own personal opinion about Lindsey’s position: You’re a very funny person. But if you really want a big future in comedy you’re going to have to A) just learn to deal with it.. or B) put a little laughter with the medicine. Nothing’s worse than a person who does good funny on other people going all sincerely righteous.

Brightliner

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:21:58 -0500

Jake, Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't yours essentially the attitude that got Princess Diana killed?

jake

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:13:31 -0500

no, i understand that some people will disagree with me here. my opinions on this issue are particularly pro-photographer. i just believe that the world is better off with lots of photographers and the occasional annoyed subject, than with no photographers and lindsay's expansive privacy intact. i for one am going to continue shooting without asking for permission first, and without asking for permission to post images on bluejake. as always, i'll respect people's requests to take down their pictures-- and not to photograph them at all if they prefer it that way. although not being able to photograph lindsay ever again-- that's going to hurt.

Rina

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:58:25 -0500

Its not about what's legally permitted; its about being a moral, normal person. If I step outside my apt, I should 'expect' that all my actions and words can be recorded and that if I object, Im being "sensitive?!" I believe that when one snaps another's photo (w/o permission), its just good manners to notify them before airing it over the internet (I 100% agreed with the manifesto). I think everyone can agree theres a difference between the old 'take a photo for your album' era and the new "show it to your 1,000 blog/Flickr visitors because you're attention-starved" era we're in now. And I think giving arguments about the "definition and art" of photography only provides some weak excuse to offend and invade others' privacy for one's own ego. I guess this is why the paparazzi exist. A camera and "photography" gives you the right to do anything, right?

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:46:14 -0500

badger, what is so obvious? are you that warped by blogs and reality tv that you can't determine who is a "celebrity" and who isn't? that's sad. it seems you have a reading comprehension problem too. i said these photographers probably ask for permission or the subjects don't wildly object. those photos are right in the people's faces. it looks obvious they knew their picture was being taken and they didn't object. they had an opportunity right then and there. so again, what's your fucking point? please, let's try to tackle one problem at a time. lumping this tiny issue into all the other annoying behaviors of the world and trying to give a one size fits all explanation is far-fetched.

Brian Van

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:37:02 -0500

I have to partially concur with Jake on this. Legally, the general public should have no expectation of absolute privacy in public spaces. Photographers have legal rights to take photos and use them for journalistic purposes without explicit permission, and in spite of objections. Which is not to say that people shouldn't expect courtesy. If someone does not want their picture taken or used, it's simple and polite to decline picture requests or ask for a photographer not to take shots. I always respect such requests, regardless of the reasons behind them. Sometimes I take candid shots without asking, but I won't proceed if there are objections because I don't want to have a shitty reputation. There are some photographers out on the scene - one in particular works for a major website we all know, and it's NOT Gothamist - who have a crap reputation because they constantly shove their lenses in peoples' faces in rude ways. They probably get great shots. And people hate them anyway. Really, is that good business? Can you get a good shot from a slightly wider angle without disturbing your audience and ruining your name? Then please do so. Don't get me started on wedding photographers...

jake

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:30:33 -0500

bwa ha ha ha-- accused of being a fame-whore by lindsay? that's like being complimented on your skating skills by tony hawk. but she is right about the rest of it-- when i have a camera, i'm not looking for conversation-- i'm looking for pictures that are good enough to put up online. that's true for most photographers-- trying to mix socializing and snapping pictures is a bad idea. when i want to socialize, i leave the camera at home.

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:27:31 -0500

Not enamored, just stating the obvious. I’ll bet any money that more people know who Lindsey is that know who I simply on sight. Partly that’s because she runs a very funny and moderately successful blog. One that has featured her picture, if I remember right. Naturally, people out taking pictures are going to take her photo more often than mine. It’s the price of being known. Um, I highly doubt Rion asked all of those people’s permission. Or all of these:rion.nu/v5/archive/000623.php#000623 But maybe so. Rion reads Gothamist. Rion? Or how about this poor bastard: www.slower.net/entries/001031.php or this one: www.bluejake.com/archives/2005/10/19/movie_extra_or_les_resident.php Art right? So it’s ok. As for vacations, I never said I knew where she went (I gave very random examples) or how she acted, only that whatever she did could be perceived as disruptive by others with different takes on a pure experience. My personal pure experience is sitting on the crapper, and when people come in and start holding a conversation it ruins the whole thing for me. But what am I gonna’ do? I also understand your opinions pertaining to concerts (or any event one pays to get into). But in a world where everyone is different and sets their personal standards at different levels, there really isn’t much to do. I don’t like it when I get stuck next to the people smoking weed at concerts. Or the ones who feel the need to dance and slam into me. But what am I going to do (besides not go to concerts)? What’s imbalanced is that you seem to be upset about one segment of behavior at these shows. What about everyone else’s problems (that you, and I, and just about everyone who attends) contributes to?

Chris

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:23:24 -0500

It's pretty obnoxious to say it's "ridiculous to ask photographers to take down pix after they've been put up" and then in the same breath go on about how you refuse to ask someone's permission before taking a picture and posting it online. if you don't like how you look in pictures, 9 times out of 10, you should be blaming your parents, or god (because they made your face what it is)-- not the person who snapped the frame. Some people simply aren't photogenic. I think my looks aren't terrible (not great either, but okay), but a lot of photos of me end up being really bad. And I'm pretty insecure about it, frankly. So I guess by Jake's logic I should just never leave my apartment?

lindsay robertson

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:18:35 -0500

"my feeling is that if someone is out in a public space, they have no expectation of privacy" Who could possibly agree with this? Jake, your head is so far up your own ass that you have no concept of other people except as fodder for your "art" and more hits for your "website". You USE people. We all know you want to be famous so bad you can taste it, but not everyone else does. Why can't you get that through your head?

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:17:33 -0500

Not enamored, just stating the obvious. I’ll bet any money that more people know who Lindsey is that know who I simply on sight. Partly that’s because she runs a very funny and moderately successful blog. One that has featured her picture, if I remember right. Naturally, people out taking pictures are going to take her photo more often than mine. It’s the price of being known. Um, I highly doubt Rion asked all of those people’s permission. Or all of these: http://rion.nu/v5/archive/000623.php#000623 But maybe so. Rion reads Gothamist. Rion? Or how about this poor bastard: http://www.slower.net/entries/001031.php or this one: http://www.bluejake.com/archives/2005/10/19/movie_extra_or_les_resident.php Art right? So it’s ok. As for vacations, I never said I knew where she went (I gave very random examples) or how she acted, only that whatever she did could be perceived as disruptive by others with different takes on a pure experience. My personal pure experience is sitting on the crapper, and when people come in and start holding a conversation it ruins the whole thing for me. But what am I gonna’ do? I also understand your opinions pertaining to concerts (or any event one pays to get into). But in a world where everyone is different and sets their personal standards at different levels, there really isn’t much to do. I don’t like it when I get stuck next to the people smoking weed at concerts. Or the ones who feel the need to dance and slam into me. But what am I going to do (besides not go to concerts)? What’s imbalanced is that you seem to be upset about one segment of behavior at these shows. What about everyone else’s problems (that you, and I, and just about everyone who attends) contributes to?

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:17:31 -0500

"my feeling is that if someone is out in a public space, they have no expectation of privacy" someone get this kid a lawyer, he's talking out of his ass

jake

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:07:50 -0500

for the record, i never ask for permission-- all you get then is posed portraits, which generally are worthless from a photography point of view. my feeling is that if someone is out in a public space, they have no expectation of privacy, and they can always object after i shoot, or after i post the picture on the site. in the five years i've been doing bluejake, that's only happened twice-- and both times the person asking for the takedown was, you guessed it-- lindsayism. my feeling is that people are much too concerned about how they look in photos-- if you check out the dobkin tag on flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/tags/dobkin/) you'll see that i often get photographed looking weird, ugly, or idiotic. as long as it's taken in a public space, however, i don't object, and i think its ridiculous to ask photographers to take down pix after they've been put up. photography captures the world in a generally raw and honest way-- if you don't like how you look in pictures, 9 times out of 10, you should be blaming your parents, or god (because they made your face what it is)-- not the person who snapped the frame. of course, i understand some people are more sensitive than me. but i think most people don't mind being photographed, and i'm not going to support a blanket restriction on all photogs just for the sake of the few who do.

whats your problem

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:55:16 -0500

"celebrity"? are you that enamormed by these people to call no name bloggers "celebrities"? that's ridiculous. one would assume rion asked for permission with those pohots or the people didn't wildly object while they were being taken. the pictures don't look like they were taken in super secret spy cam mode. as for the concerts and vacations: who the fuck are you to guess what lindsay does when she's on vacation? how would you know if she gets in the way of other people's "experience"? that's an idiotic statement to make. but if i pay money to go to a concert, i don't appreciate a million fucking cameras going off the whole time. by all means, you have the right and feel free to snap away but i am sure as hell going to call you out for being an asshole.

badger

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:42:11 -0500

This seems like a highly selective gripe from people who have achieved some degree of, dare I say it, celebrity. I don’t see anyone protesting the photobloggers who do stuff like this: http://rion.nu/v5/archive/001017.php Why? Is that somehow less private? More artistic? As for the concerts: Not everyone thinks about rock music as a holy thing (Gasp! Yes, it’s true). They think about going to a concert like a tourist thing. I bet when Lindsey goes on a vacation she has no problem standing in the middle of a landmark (like Tiananmen Square, Grand Canyon, or wherever) and snapping away, even though others might say that such actions ruin the purity of the “experience.” I think the truth is that it is vanity induced. A few pictures show up on websites that one considers not his or her best moments. If you tend to be at events with “artists” or aspiring artists, this is going to happen. I go out all the time. And my picture has only once ever turned up on a website and it was because it was a blogger event.

S.D.

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:13:42 -0500

Lindsay, IMO, that really is a Nice photo of you showing a great smile. As for the topic, I suppose it all comes down to moderation. I've been at parties that the host or Bar owner asked me to get pictures of pretty much everyone. If someone doesn't want their picture taken, I don't take the photo.

Dave H.

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:11:41 -0500

I'll cop to taking pictures at events--even some Gothamist-sponsored ones. My base rule, however, is to ask someone's permission first. In the case of a candid (which I don't take unless I know the person), digitals are helpful in that I can show it to the person immediately and if they don't like it I'll erase it on the spot. Hired photogs, on the other hand, can be a pain in the ass. I've been to blogging parties where a multi-site proprietor hired some guy to take pics of his site-authors and guests. Courtesy was no longer an issue; he was on the clock, getting paid, and basically very intrusive.

Chris

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:42:38 -0500

Oh stop, Lindsay-- tis a wonderful photo of a beautiful gal!

dana

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:40:06 -0500

Jake, seriously: What the hell were you trying to accomplish by posting that photo? Was there some recent Gothamist staff meeting where the talking points were 1) GLIB 2) MEANSPIRITED 3) ???? 4) PROFIT!!!

lindsay robertson

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:37:54 -0500

Brian's correct - I've never met him and have no idea what his policy is. I'm sure he's a nice guy and asks before taking photos. Like a normal person.

lindsay robertson

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:32:00 -0500

Haha, I predicted this. I am totally willing to be the sacrificial lamb/martyr for this worthy cause! Everyone, stare at the terrible picture of me! Make it your desktop wallpaper to remind you of what can happen when innocent people fall victim to the likes of Jake Dobkin and other photo-leeches! I will be the martyr. I will take the fall. It's that important. Join me in this fight.

BrianVan

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:31:16 -0500

For anyone who is terribly misinformed, Lindsay is referring to people who attend entertainment events - such as parties, concerts, etc. - and bring their own camera to get candid shots of performers and crowd without permission. For a large portion of the events I attend with the camera, either the organizer requested that I arrive to take pictures for promotional use, or I'm there with friends and pictures are taken amongst ourselves. Most of my shots are not candids of strangers. I also haven't photographed a band performing in over 2 months - and the last times I did, it was with their explicit permission to do so. I read Lindsay's post yesterday and I had 100% confidence that she wasn't referring to me. Also, I've NEVER taken Lindsay's picture, and the one on this post isn't mine. I admit, though, I'm still a dickhead for other reasons.

Matt Cassity

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:08:03 -0500

For me, a major deterrent of live shows are the digital camera freaks. Why do you want to watch an entire concert through a 2 inch lcd screen? I was at a great show this summer that was practically ruined by some dude in front of me holding up his giant digital SLR and snapping photos the entire show. Leave it to the professionals people. My solution is for bands to hire professional photographers and post pictures from every show on the web. You camera people could leave your expensive cameras at home, and just download better shots after the show. As for parties, I see these people who take endless pictures and look at them as soon as they are shot. "Oh my god! Look what we were doing 2 minutes ago. Wait don't stop wrestling! I must document this moment!" -- ugh. Get over it, live your life. If your afraid you are going to forget that time your friend was high and wore the lampshade on your head, it probably isn't worth remembering.

R

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:04:48 -0500

I agree 100% with Lindsay -- people Flickr the crap out of everything these days. Well I just hope you followed the etiquette handbook and contacted her before posting her photo on Gothamist!

BrianVan

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:54:49 -0500

DAAAYUM. I just got called out! FYI - I was at Will Leitch's Growth Spurt Reading Series at the beginning of the month, with the camera, taking pictures, with the blessing and thanks of Will himself... anyway, Lindsay was there, and I did NOT take her picture! I'm not saying she accused me or anything, I'm just saying that I understand her concerns and I'm considerate more than some others. Hey, Jake, don't you bring a camera to parties too? ;-)