PDA

View Full Version : Do you recognize this writer? (Pic)



backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 06:16 AM
I feel like I should recognize him. He sits at the same table every day and writes. Do you know him? He could be an academic; I couldn't see what he was writing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2539/4048838028_104033b353_m.jpg

Judg
10-27-2009, 07:03 AM
Nope.

Matera the Mad
10-27-2009, 07:17 AM
Weird, he looks almost familiar, like I caught a glimpse of him on a website. I have this awrful membry for little things. BTW, you could possibly get in trouble for displaying photos of people without their permission, AFAIK.

colealpaugh
10-27-2009, 08:05 AM
BTW, you could possibly get in trouble for displaying photos of people without their permission, AFAIK.

Nah, public place and not posted for commercial profit...totally okay.

Wonder how far off Google is from face recognition searches...







With all due respect.

Gillhoughly
10-27-2009, 08:18 AM
He looks a bit like Chris Walken in one of the prophesy movies. His character was--um--different!

Am agreeing about posting a pic without the man's permission. Not good.

Just go up when he's clearly finished writing and ask what he's writing--in a nice way. You can say "You look so intense, so it must be interesting" or something like that.

Careful how to do this so it doesn't sound like a pick up line.

Tell him you're an aspiring writer and watch for that micro-expression of sheer panic when he thinks you're about to tell him all about YOUR book. :D

Which you will NOT. Even if he asks.

Ask if he has books in print, then split for a bookstore.

Then don't bother him again. You might scare him off from his favorite writing spot.

I've had to abandon some of my homes away from home because I got too chatty. The locals would want to talk and I'd want to work and they'd get huffy when I asked them to let me work, and then my concentration was blown, so I'd finish my cold coffee and leave for good.

ejaycee
10-27-2009, 09:26 AM
Um... He looks like one of my lil bro's chess coaches. :)

But, uh, somehow I don't think that helped. :)

Cassiopeia
10-27-2009, 09:39 AM
Because this shot focuses right on the person and is not a crowd shot, this is clearly in violation of their rights to privacy and you do need his permission to post it. I'd take it down ASAP.

Lucy
10-27-2009, 09:55 AM
There is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC.

MaryMumsy
10-27-2009, 10:05 AM
There is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC.

I don't know if the rules have changed or not. Ten years ago or more I read a book by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. The title was something about the right to privacy. One case cited involved a feature piece in, I think, the NYT. They used a photo of people crossing a street in NY, focused on a well dressed professional looking black man. He did not agree with the views/conclusions expressed in the piece and tried to sue for them using his photo in this fashion. Either it was thrown out or he lost. But the bottom line was that there is no 'right to privacy' when in public.

If any one really wants, I can dig through my books to try to find it and get the specifics.

MM

Cassiopeia
10-27-2009, 10:20 AM
Was he in the crowd? This man is not walking in a crowd. He's alone and the photo is clearly of him. This got hammered into me, in two of my classes in the last TWO years. You must have consent when the photo taken is clearly intended to focus on the individual only. Now, you probably can slide by because you aren't profiting from it but I'd be hesitant to shout out, that there's no right to privacy in public.

willietheshakes
10-27-2009, 10:43 AM
I'm wondering how I'd feel if I found out that, unbeknownst to me, a stranger had taken my picture, posted it on a website, and asked whether anybody knew who I was.

I'm just mildly ticked that it wasn't a photo of me...

Cassiopeia
10-27-2009, 11:08 AM
well, I have to admit to it now...I know who it is.

*sigh*

It's me. I've been pretending to be a woman all this time.

Cassiopeia
10-27-2009, 11:32 AM
This does pose the question, if we are just free to do whatever we want based on the legality of it. Is that our only motivation for honoring someone's privacy? That we might be sued for invading it? Polenth makes a very good point about someone's safety.

backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm so sorry, y'all! I should have explained that this is the very famous cafe, and it is very photographed. It is my own pic, and he knew I was taking pictures of him. He was a very nice man, but he was busy, so I didn't chat much with him.

I totally understand not wanting random pictures published of yourself and agree! But I thought this was ethically good to go.

He acted like I should know who he was... I'm thinking not the chess coach ;)

JamieFord
10-27-2009, 05:40 PM
It looks like Will Ferrell as Neil Diamond...

backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 05:49 PM
^^^ :D :D


Here's me that day, to be fair:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4050065050_e78bdecfdb_m.jpg

Who's this writer? She shouldn't smoke, and I'm sure she's not famous ;)

Phaeal
10-27-2009, 06:45 PM
I wouldn't post the picture unless I had specific permission to do so. But, in this case, it would have been easier to ask his name than to go into a spiel about posting a picture on AW.

Not a legal consideration on my part, but a "Do unto others" consideration. I'd make a crummy papparazza.

;)

backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 06:53 PM
It would have been easier, but I didn't :) I've gotten more curious since the trip. And since then, I hung out with a bestseller who gets recognized frequently. I was surprised! I didn't know people recognized authors.

It is an interesting discussion, actually (imho). Please y'all feel free to discuss the 'public pic' thing. Hopefully tons of us will have our books get well-known enough that we really will be the ones people are snapping public pics of!

ETA: Maybe I should explain that I got pics taken of me, directly, left and right in Ireland for my red hair, apparently. Meh :) If I'm in a very public area, I know that's cool. And this dude was proud to sit right by the sign and write, imho... ifyaknowwhatImean. I don't think he's shy ;)

swvaughn
10-27-2009, 07:13 PM
He looks a bit like Chris Walken in one of the prophesy movies. His character was--um--different!

Different, eh? Not the word I'd use to describe. Walken's Gabriel was totally awesome, imho. :D

Also awesome was Tilda Swinton's Gabriel in Constantine. Now that performance was ... different. Awesomely different.

Oh, and the OP - no idea, never seen the guy before. But he looks like someone I'd totally strike up a conversation with. If I could do it without interrupting his writing. :D

mscelina
10-27-2009, 07:21 PM
Oh I know who this guy is. He's a used car dealer in Meaux. He just does that so people will think he's a big important writer and ask their friend about him. His name is Jean-Jacques.

*grin*

Okay, so--no I don't. He looks like he's trying out for a Bach re-enactor though. Maybe he's writing music.

:D

Jamesaritchie
10-27-2009, 07:29 PM
There is no right to privacy IN PUBLIC.

Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 07:33 PM
Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

Really? Is it because of commercial use? I've been filmed by the news many times for school or just in public, and they didn't say boo. My friend and I had to try to hide once because we were skipping class at that very moment!

eta: Oh and :D :D :D at the fun posts, too, y'all.

ejwriter
10-27-2009, 07:39 PM
Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

just jumping in here - as a current journalist, i have to say this is not accurate.
we tape people on the street all the time (and in stores and in restaurants and on public transit and even on private property, if we can see it from the very public sidewalk!). they do not sign waivers. we don't even have waivers.

i know some reality/entertainment programs require permission (my friend just met a group of real world kids and was filmed, so had to sign a waiver). but in NEWS/JOURNALISM - no.
(one exception - we get verbal parental permission to show children's faces out of courtesy. and often, we make a respectful decision not to show faces of crime victims, witnesses, etc...)

just for the record.



backslashbaby - still no word on who he might be? i'm so curious!! actually, the whole little mysterious sounds like a fun start to a story. :D

backslashbaby
10-27-2009, 07:45 PM
He'd make a great character! I saw him every day for 3 days straight, smoking his pipe and writing and thinking a lot. We only talked about pipes because I was also with a pipe smoker :)

I do wish I'd asked him more about himself.

Siddow
10-27-2009, 07:55 PM
At first, I thought it was Burt Reynolds, minus the toup.

Then I thought it was my old teacher, Professor McWannabe, but the tweed was missing.

THEN I realized, it's Christoper Lloyd.

Summonere
10-27-2009, 08:37 PM
Was he in the crowd? This man is not walking in a crowd. He's alone and the photo is clearly of him. This got hammered into me, in two of my classes in the last TWO years. You must have consent when the photo taken is clearly intended to focus on the individual only. Now, you probably can slide by because you aren't profiting from it but I'd be hesitant to shout out, that there's no right to privacy in public.

What class? What law? I studied matters of law pertaining to such things moons ago and, those moons ago, such things were legal. Had I my texts handy, I could cite case law (U.S. case law, that is, which seems out of bounds, here). Happy to be edified and modernized.

Cassiopeia
10-27-2009, 08:51 PM
Really? Is it because of commercial use? I've been filmed by the news many times for school or just in public, and they didn't say boo. My friend and I had to try to hide once because we were skipping class at that very moment!

eta: Oh and :D :D :D at the fun posts, too, y'all.Again, another in the crowd shot.


What class? What law? I studied matters of law pertaining to such things moons ago and, those moons ago, such things were legal. Had I my texts handy, I could cite case law (U.S. case law, that is, which seems out of bounds, here). Happy to be edified and modernized.Digital Media and Film Production.

I think the pertinent facts here is that if it is an individual and you are ONLY focusing on them, not in a crowd but alone and if it is for commercial use.

My professors were explicit in making sure we understood the distinction for public domain in this regards. They hammered us time and time again. We also covered copyright and the internet and what you can "borrow" and who can and what not. Laws change every day. Every day.

BenPanced
10-27-2009, 09:24 PM
Interesting discussion. I remember having one in another forum because somebody said they had the "right" to see pictures people were surrpetitiously taking of others on their camera phones. My response was the person(s) being photographed had a right to privacy which trumped everything. IANAL, LS/MFT, etc.

Lucy
10-27-2009, 09:46 PM
There is a difference between using a journalistic photo for profit in a publication. There is no right to privacy in public. Every place you go these days is under photo surveillance. If Starbucks can film you taking your picture, an individual taking a single shot certainly is constrained only by his own conscience.

There is no right to privacy in public. You can be filmed and photographed at will - and often are.

BenPanced
10-27-2009, 09:57 PM
There's a difference between Starbucks taking my picture for security purposes and me taking a picture of somebody in Starbucks to post on a website because I thought he was sexy.

CaroGirl
10-27-2009, 10:00 PM
Have you seen the new Google Earth street view feature? You can go and look at pictures of your actual street, including pedestrians. On my street, I can see, clear as a bell, my neighbour walking her kid to school. They blur faces and license plate numbers as a matter of course, but when you're out in public, you're out in public. If they aren't taking pictures through the windows of your home, I believe it's fair game.

Lucy
10-28-2009, 12:12 AM
BenPanced, no there is no legal difference at all. None. It is the same exact thing.

PeterL
10-28-2009, 12:20 AM
There is privacy in public. If someone posted a photo of me on a public board. It might take a few years for me to win, but I would, and it would cost someone a lot.

Wayne K
10-28-2009, 12:37 AM
Don't you have to use the person's image to make money to sue?

Or at least prove damages of some kind?

Patrick L
10-28-2009, 12:38 AM
Maybe he's been showing up there for years, still trying to craft the perfect query?

BenPanced
10-28-2009, 01:16 AM
BenPanced, no there is no legal difference at all. None. It is the same exact thing.
One is for security purposes and possible proof during a robbery investigation. Another is because I like a guy's ass and I want to show the world. Nope, don't see no difference.

The Lonely One
10-28-2009, 01:27 AM
Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

As a former journalist myself, I have to say we've taken plenty of pictures of people without permission.

NO ONE wants their picture taken when they just got in an accident or their family member was murdered or they COMMITTED a murder. But if they are in public, we took pictures left and right. And published them. And published plenty of mugshots, too.

I've never once asked someone to sign a waiver as a journalist. not once. I've asked for names, but never permission. It isn't their permission to give.

I could be wrong, but that's the way I've seen other photo/video journalists operate.

And the subjects aren't always in crowds.

ETA: the ethics of journalism is a huge reason of why I left the job, but photojournalists can and do get away with it without legal recourse.

K. Andrew Smith
10-28-2009, 01:32 AM
I did research about this awhile ago for a plot idea I had. If you do a Google search for candid photos, you'll find plenty of pay-websites as well as free boards for people to post pictures of other people - usually very attractive women.

From what I can tell and the stories I've heard, this is completely legal, as long as the people are in public.

The Lonely One
10-28-2009, 01:42 AM
I remember there was a debate between a photojournalist and a PR person for a hospital--it was a competing paper so I'm glad he got hammered, but, I think he was right:

They had a press area set up across the street while kids were hazmatted (at the local hospital) for a chemical gas of some sort that had leaked through the vents at their school.

The photojournalist went onto the opposite sidewalk, closer to the hospital, to get closer shots. The PR person said he wasn't allowed. She was worried about getting faces in the pictures, but I don't think she had a leg to stand on, really. It's unethical, one could certainly argue.

But the journalist's argument was: it's a sidewalk. That's not the hospital's property, it's the city's property. It's a public place. Anyone could walk down that sidewalk and not get stopped--so what right did anyone have to keep him across the street?

I sided with the photojournalist on general principle, but disagreed ethically. Sometimes it's a split on which you think is more important--rights or ethics?

The Lonely One
10-28-2009, 01:49 AM
And then there's this (which makes me wonder--why the debate?)


It is my own pic, and he knew I was taking pictures of him.

DWSTXS
10-28-2009, 02:01 AM
He looks like a down-and-out Neil Diamond.

Funny though, because I write in the same coffee shop, here in Dallas, every day (in fact, I'm here now), and there have been several times in the past 3 years that someone has come over and talked to me. . .asked what I'm writing, etc etc. and it doesn't bother me at all.

Summonere
10-28-2009, 03:23 AM
Digital Media and Film Production.

I think the pertinent facts here is that if it is an individual and you are ONLY focusing on them, not in a crowd but alone and if it is for commercial use.

My professors were explicit in making sure we understood the distinction for public domain in this regards. They hammered us time and time again. We also covered copyright and the internet and what you can "borrow" and who can and what not. Laws change every day. Every day.

Thanks for the response. You seem to be spot-on with the commercial use part.

I studied press law in the late eighties, and my recollection is that everything that happens in public is fair game for photography or video unless specifically prohibited by law (by law, that is, not by private druthers). In other words, you can legally photograph anything that is visible to the general public whether it, or you, are on public or private property.

Exceptions can occur if a photograph of someone in public is used to present them in a false or otherwise damaging light. This exception does not mean the photograph itself is illegal, nor the right to publish it, but rather the damaging use to which it's put.

Another exception can occur if the photograph is used for commercial* purposes when what makes it commercial is who the person is.

Another exception can occur if you need special equipment to take the photograph. For instance, two people having sex on a desk in front of a window on the ground floor of an office building are fair game for photography, but move them up to the fifth floor where you need a telephoto lens to get a picture, not legal. Interestingly enough, though, the telephoto is legal if you're on that fifth floor and the couple are, say, in plain view in a park.

Taking pictures of a guy sitting in a cafe doesn't meet the criteria for illegal photography.

* There's a bit more to the commercial-use angle than stated above, and it goes something like this: say the guy in your picture isn't anyone famous, just a private citizen sitting in a cafe. Though it's perfectly legal to photograph him and perfectly legal to publish those photos (as long as they are not in any way damaging), once you decide you want to sell a picture in which he is the subject, you need his permission. If the subject of the photograph is a celebrity, though, I've completely forgotten whatever it was I once-upon-a-time learned (except that they have greater control over the use of their likeness than the rest of us)...

Of course I'm not a lawyer, so this may all be wrong in all kinds of ways. (Eighty-seven really was moons ago.)

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 03:47 AM
*shrug* Meh. I'm merely passing along what my professors almost jumped up and down about.

They were most passionate about the need to get written permission. Does that mean people don't take photos of people all the time and use them, even for financial gain? Of course people do it. But we were instructed to be extremely careful.

If it was a crowd shot, for instance, and let's say you saw Robert Redford down the street walking in a crowd and he ended up in the photo, one could claim he just "happened" to be in your photograph. And certainly people take photos of celebs all the time without permission. Is it legal? Heh. Depends on if you go on to make money off that shot or if they feel you were invading their privacy. Could they or should they make money from your use of their photo?

People tend to confuse the local, state and federal governments domain over public places, with private citizen's right to infringe on others lives.

Sure go ahead, take those photos but be ready for a law suit if that person vehemently doesn't want you to have it or publish it.

Lucy
10-28-2009, 04:20 AM
BenPanced,

It's not what difference YOU see, it is what the law acknowledges. The law does not see any difference between a journalist taking a photo on the street, and then posting it on television, and you snapping a picture of a hot girl and posting it on the net.

There simply is no expectation of privacy in public. As someone in law enforcement, I'm familiar with the law in this regard.

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 04:23 AM
BenPanced,

It's not what difference YOU see, it is what the law acknowledges. The law does not see any difference between a journalist taking a photo on the street, and then posting it on television, and you snapping a picture of a hot girl and posting it on the net.

There simply is no expectation of privacy in public. As someone in law enforcement, I'm familiar with the law in this regard.
Really? Can you show me where this is the law? I'd like to see the link.

archerjoe
10-28-2009, 04:48 AM
I followed a link I found on Wikipedia to this attorney's opinion. (http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf) (PDF)

I'll paraphrase: "When in public, any person may photograph anything and anyone with very few exceptions."

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 05:09 AM
I'd like to see the actual statute. Attorney's opinions are like bumholes, everyone's got one.

MarkEsq
10-28-2009, 05:13 AM
There simply is no expectation of privacy in public. As someone in law enforcement, I'm familiar with the law in this regard.

That's correct.

As for a specific statute, there isn't one. Statutes and other laws generally don't create freedoms, they restrict them. In other words, if one was not allowed to photograph people in public there'd be a statute (or more likely case law) saying so. Because no such restriction exists, one may do it.*

(That said, I bet someone with the time and energy could find language in a case saying it's okay. I'm not that person, not tonight anyway.:))

*Here someone will mention the Constitution allowing one to carry guns or speak freely. However, the difference is that the C/tion doesn't grant one an allowance to do these things, it guarantees an assumed existing right to do them. Big diff.

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 05:18 AM
That's correct.

As for a specific statute, there isn't one. Statutes and other laws generally don't create freedoms, they restrict them. In other words, if one was not allowed to photograph people in public there'd be a statute (or more likely case law) saying so. Because no such restriction exists, one may do it.*

(That said, I bet someone with the time and energy could find language in a case saying it's okay. I'm not that person, not tonight anyway.:))

*Here someone will mention the Constitution allowing one to carry guns or speak freely. However, the difference is that the C/tion doesn't grant one an allowance to do these things, it guarantees an assumed existing right to do them. Big diff.thanks Marc :) so then I wonder why my professors were so adamant that we get permission from the individual?

BigWords
10-28-2009, 05:23 AM
This thread is getting seriously derailed. I don't give a damn about the law. I want to know who the guy in the pic is...

The Lonely One
10-28-2009, 05:27 AM
.

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 05:46 AM
*proposes new AW law requiring benign threadstalkers to wear a special tiara*oooo *squeee* the stalker becomes the stalkee*

I like this game. ;)

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 05:47 AM
This thread is getting seriously derailed. I don't give a damn about the law. I want to know who the guy in the pic is...I told you. I already fessed up. It's me. My true me. :D

Wayne K
10-28-2009, 05:52 AM
It looks like the bastard chlld of these two.

http://www.mohistory.org/files/images/dierdorf,%20dan%20edit.JPG



http://www.ideachampions.com/weblogs/ad081167b0887560be0fb9a75101af2c.jpg

Lucy
10-28-2009, 07:47 AM
Cassopeia, so elegant.

Google is your friend. If you want to be educated about it, Google it. Fact is, privacy is established when you attempt to protect something (i.e., a lock on a diary, a closed bathroom door, a lock on a door in a public changing room - which by the way, are usually video taped anyway.) Sitting in a cafe having coffee does not entitle you to any privacy whatsoever. Your movements are videotaped. Cameras are ubiquitous. It's a risk you take when you step into public.

Cassiopeia
10-28-2009, 08:00 AM
Cassopeia, so elegant.

Google is your friend. If you want to be educated about it, Google it. Fact is, privacy is established when you attempt to protect something (i.e., a lock on a diary, a closed bathroom door, a lock on a door in a public changing room - which by the way, are usually video taped anyway.) Sitting in a cafe having coffee does not entitle you to any privacy whatsoever. Your movements are videotaped. Cameras are ubiquitous. It's a risk you take when you step into public.I'm glad you appreciated my comment. :) Google is not my friend. There is more disinformation than viable information.

MarcEsq, has already answered my question and he's an attorney.

I will be emailing my Digital Media professor as I'm still in association with her and ask her why she was so adamant that we get permission. I'm certain she wouldn't have done so without good reason.

AdamH
10-28-2009, 08:10 AM
It's Doc Brown from Back to the Future!

He's been sent to the past to create a debate about the lawfulness of taking pictures of people in public without anyone's knowledge to protect something we can't possibly understand in the future. As time passes, you'll find that his picture will fade and he will cease to exist leaving a snapshot of an empty table because the future has changed!

Karen Junker
10-28-2009, 08:47 AM
To get back to the original question: it might be possible to do a search on the internet to figure out who the guy is. What's the name of the cafe? The city? I'd just google: writer, cafe, *name of city*, *name of cafe*...and then see if anyone has talked about him online. Or, you could, for example, email the historian mentioned in this article http://www.buzzle.com/articles/170148.html and send him the pic, ask him if he knows the guy.

ChristineR
10-29-2009, 05:12 AM
It's Cafe Les Deux Magots in Paris. There are hundreds of pictures of it online, some with famous people, many with tourists.

benbradley
10-29-2009, 05:49 AM
I don't suppose anyone would know the name if he saw it, but these give lots of hits:
http://www.google.com/search?q="Cafe+Les+Deux+Magots"+author
http://www.google.com/search?q="Cafe+Les+Deux+Magots"+writer

I imagine a local Paris discussion board would be a good place to ask. It might help to be able to write and read French or get help from someone who can translate (otherwise it would be tempting to use Babelfish (http://babelfish.yahoo.com/)).

Judg
10-29-2009, 05:57 AM
Don't use Babelfish. Or any other translation program. *shudders* Really. Don't. Babelfish is hilarious for entertainment, and for demonstrating very convincingly how bad translation programs are.

Although nowadays, they occasionally produce intelligible results. But not too often. We are going to need a quantum leap in artificial intelligence before a program will be able to handle the almost infinite variants and subtleties of translation.

KTC
10-29-2009, 06:15 AM
Whether there are legal rights breached here, I don't know. But I'm wondering how I'd feel if I found out that, unbeknownst to me, a stranger had taken my picture, posted it on a website, and asked whether anybody knew who I was. Especially if the photo shows me in a favorite haunt that was easily identifiable (this is the famous cafe in the St Germain district, isn't it? Or is it a named-after cafe somewhere else?).

It's fucking creepy. Poor bastard has no idea, either. People creeping around taking pictures of him is bad enough. Posting them on the internet? Stalker.

KTC
10-29-2009, 06:16 AM
^^^ :D :D


Here's me that day, to be fair:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4050065050_e78bdecfdb_m.jpg

Who's this writer? She shouldn't smoke, and I'm sure she's not famous ;)

Um. Did the man in the first picture take this? If so...I think you have a stalker.

benbradley
10-29-2009, 06:24 AM
Um. Did the man in the first picture take this? If so...I think you have a stalker.
In that case you can solicit the help of the police in finding out who he is.

KTC
10-29-2009, 06:26 AM
In that case you can solicit the help of the police in finding out who he is.

I do believe he is the infamous mystery novelist, Robert J. Fuckedhair. I could be wrong, though.

kaitie
10-29-2009, 08:05 AM
I agree that at the very least it's disrespectful and as such shouldn't be done, legal or not. I would hate to think that people were posting pictures of me without my permission online.

Forgive me if someone else has suggested this and I missed it, but have you thought to just go up and ask? If you see him every day, why not just go up and say, "Hey, I see that you're a writer. What are you working on?"

Chumplet
10-29-2009, 09:01 AM
I think she said it was during a trip, so she started wondering after the fact.

BTW, The Toronto Star, The Globe & Mail, The Toronto Sun and the National Post didn't ask my permission when they took my picture at Brandon's funeral.

Also, many years ago, there was a special book put out to celebrate Toronto's birthday. The public were invited to submit their own candid photos and I don't think the winning photographers ever asked permission. There was nothing in the acknowlegments, either.

If this was in France and the guy doesn't go near computers, and can't track down the photographer, is it all really worth the fuss? Plus, if safety was a concern, what's he doing out in public.

He kinda looks like Kurt Vonnegut to me, but I know he's no longer with us.

archerjoe
10-29-2009, 04:01 PM
Sam Kinison faked his death?

MarkEsq
10-29-2009, 05:02 PM
May I make a suggestion? It does seem like a lot of people want to know who he is. And I believe curiosity to be a good thing.

So, I propose that you all put some money together and I, the hero and martyr that I am, will fly over and spend two weeks staking out Deux Magots on your behalf. Now, it will be an arduous job so I'll need to stay somewhere like, oh, maybe the Crillon (http://www.crillon.com/crillon.html).

And coffee there is expensive, so I'll need some front money. Hookers, too, are super expensive in Paris if you get the good ones, and I'm no sleaze bag - only the best for me. But I'll cut back, it's only fair I should sacrifice too. So only one a night.

I'll need a computer, I guess, so I can pretend to be a writer (as usual) and blend in. I won't insist on anything fancy, you can choose.

I speak French, so you don't have to pay for lessons or anything. And I won't need a car.

But I'll need a ride to the airport. And probably an airport hooker if the flight is delayed.

Willowmound
10-29-2009, 06:12 PM
^^^ :D :D


Here's me that day, to be fair:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4050065050_e78bdecfdb_m.jpg

Who's this writer? She shouldn't smoke, and I'm sure she's not famous ;)


Oh, hello. Do you date?

willietheshakes
10-29-2009, 06:16 PM
I do believe he is the infamous mystery novelist, Robert J. Fuckedhair. I could be wrong, though.

No, I already said it wasn't me...

BenPanced
10-29-2009, 06:31 PM
Wait. Was it Robert J. or Robert K.? I always get the two confused. One letter off.

Amarie
10-29-2009, 06:37 PM
Is it an unkempt looking Alain Delon?

look at the 1st and 6th picture on this link (http://www.alaindelon.com/e/gallery.asp#)

Judg
10-29-2009, 08:47 PM
Don't think so. The hair is wrong. Delon's hair is finer and less straight.

Bartholomew
10-29-2009, 08:56 PM
I feel like I should recognize him. He sits at the same table every day and writes. Do you know him? He could be an academic; I couldn't see what he was writing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2539/4048838028_104033b353_m.jpg

I hope he doesn't resent you posting his photo in a public place.

Anyway, I think that's Alain Delon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Delon). Can't be sure, though. The hair doesn't seem quite right - but then, when mine is never quite right either when I get my photo taken.

Edit:

Just now saw the posts above mine. Heh. So it isn't? :(

Gillhoughly
10-29-2009, 09:11 PM
F'cryin' out loud, backslashbaby--get over there the next time you see him and ASK.

I'm going nuts here!

I wish there were interesting artistic types at my local coffee mill. Instead, it's all high school kids ducking class.

At this point *I* am the only interesting artistic type there, and they avoid me because it's clear that I can read, and they can't.

When I have been in places flooded with interesting artistic types they don't talk to me then, either, because I don't look artsy-fartsy enough.

Even when I bought a leather coat and wore lots of black they didn't chat.

I suppose if I got an all-over henna tat for my face that might change things.

The Bohemian Look is really hard to nail down in Texas. Mostly we're too slow for New York and too ugly for L.A.

Judg
10-29-2009, 09:22 PM
Gil, post a picture and we'll suggest makeovers... ROFL!

What, you mean the avatar is actually you? Oh. Well. In that case, no suggestions.

DWSTXS
10-29-2009, 09:23 PM
The bohemian look is hard to nail down in Texas?

I don't know about that. I'm in Dallas, and I think I got it nailed down pretty good in this coffee shop.

Oh, wait. maybe it's not the bohemian look, but the homeless look that I'm throwing down. No wonder no one talks to me. . .(as he sniffs his armpit to check)

maestrowork
10-29-2009, 10:09 PM
I admit, that was me. I was dictating my novel using a PC mouse.

DWSTXS
10-29-2009, 10:17 PM
I just started a new thread, somewhat along the same lines as this thread, and I'd like you guys to tell me what you think of the experiment I'm proposing.

The Awesome power of the internet -maybe

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160429

backslashbaby
10-30-2009, 02:20 AM
He looks more Einstein-y than Alain Denon in real life. You know, I'm thinkng he may be the historian Karen linked to. There actually aren't very many people who brave the cold to smoke pipes, even in Paris (well there are heaters, to be fair) :) The historian has books out. And he brought up the subject of smoking, and he was quoted all over the place about the newish smoking law. Hmmmm... I need to find a pic of him.


Bohemian in Texas?! I'd love it! You can do it; you know you can! Sure, it might just seem odd but that's half the fun :D

colealpaugh
11-04-2009, 09:31 AM
Trust me, as a former journalist, you're wrong about this. There most certainly is a right to this kind of privacy in public. If there weren't, I wouldn't have had to get so many people to sign waivers that allowed me to use their photos.

James, I don't want want to beat a dead horse, but there really should be some clarity here. I'm just thinking there's some confusion regarding wording.

No journalist in America has EVER needed a waiver (aka model release) of any sort to use a pic of a person in a public place OR during a newsworthy event. During a newsworthy event, you are legally able to jump a private fence onto someone's private property to shoot pic of their house burning down. A journalist faces NO civil liability, and can only face criminal charges if a cop orders him/her to move for safety reasons and he/she refuses. I know first hand, since I've been thrown in the back of patrol cars by rookie cops a few times. Journalists need to maintain relationships with cops, and yellow police tape issues need to be resolved prior to emergencies...and they usually are.

Imagine covering a contentious town hall meeting and shooting angry protesters and having them be able to say, "You can't use my photo because I'm not signing a waiver!"? They may be able to make it difficult to ID them, but "refused to be identified", makes a news statement in itself.

Another example: say you take a photo of your hated neighbor tripping over a crack in the sidewalk. He has a stupid look on his face and his big belly is showing, and it's probably the most embarrassing photo ever. If you sell the photo to a newspaper as a feature or news picture, you are 100% safe from any legal action. Sell the same photo to be used in an ad for concrete repairs and you and the business are liable for a law suit. News vs. commercial use. You don't even have to be a photojournalist to fall under the same protections as a photojournalist.

Photojournalists get names, ages (for kids), and home towns solely for the purpose of good captioning. Period. Editors hate photos which aren't ID'd. It's a sign of lazy work.

Again, photojournalists NEVER need waivers for covering news stories, and especially not for taking photos in public places. Journalists with pen or camera are protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which addresses freedom of the press very specifically.

If the OP posted the photo on a commercial website with the clear intention of having the image result in a profit, then the subject would have civil recourse. It would be limited, however, to the range of financial benefit. If she made $20 of ad revenue, then she could be liable for $20, or perhaps three times that amount in some states. I'm not a lawyer, and only know the general principles. Further, if the photo was used in that same forum in a derogatory manner, then a punitive award could be made. AW, btw, has an enormous level of protection because of the presentation of its informational value, even when it comes to lighter subjects, in the same vein of college newspapers.

Courtesy, politeness, and accurate captioning are a different beast.





ETA: and this is all speaking ONLY to US laws...

JimmyB27
11-04-2009, 04:42 PM
Was he in the crowd? This man is not walking in a crowd. He's alone and the photo is clearly of him. This got hammered into me, in two of my classes in the last TWO years. You must have consent when the photo taken is clearly intended to focus on the individual only. Now, you probably can slide by because you aren't profiting from it but I'd be hesitant to shout out, that there's no right to privacy in public.
Don't forget, you're talking legal definitions here. IANAL, but I reckon it would be nigh on impossible to get agreement about exactly what counts as a crowd. Two people, three? If there's one person in the foreground, and many in the background, is that a crowd? How far does the one person have to be before they are seperate from the crowd?
You'd pretty much need to make it entirely illegal to take pictures that had a person in them anywhere, unless you had permission. Which would make sports photography, for example, really difficult.


Whether it's illegal or not, you're risking his personal safety by posting the picture. There may be reasons why he wouldn't want his picture in public.
Um...how on earth does it risk his safety? Unless someone used voodoo magic on the image. Seriously, I'm completely at a loss here.


ETA: I can't even see the picture at work. :( Flickr maybe? That's blocked here.

backslashbaby
11-05-2009, 01:59 AM
It is Flickr. Sorry! He's a very distinguished, lovely man (emphasizing that I think it's a awesome pic he'd be proud to see ;) :) ).

stormie
11-05-2009, 03:49 AM
I agree with whoever said he looks like Neil Diamond, but with hair.

DWSTXS
11-05-2009, 03:59 AM
I agree with whoever said he looks like Neil Diamond, but with hair.


He's just waiting for Cracklin Rosie to join him for a drink. . .

stormie
11-05-2009, 04:21 AM
Or Sweet Caroline.