well traci likes the bloggers...and I mean that in a good way.

traci = hot.

plug1 = jealous that jameth got front and center. i need to step my game up and get a better pic phone.

Each Muni/BART vehicle has a warning sign stating that your picture or voice may be recorded on the vehicle. Despite that, when you leave your home, you have no expectation of privacy in public places aside from a few exceptions (gym locker rooms, dressing rooms, restrooms, and so forth).

If they want the photos taken down, they do not have that right. The photos do not belong to them.

Hey Jameth, let me introduce you to the wonderful world of slander. See, that's the first thing I'd sue your ass for were I to discover my photograph posted on your site with accompanying ratings issued by the hipper than thou losers who undoubtedly lurked there until that news story sucked all the cool out of it. Picking out unsuspecting bystanders for derision and mockery and then trying to pass it off as "art" isn't terrifically original or interesting. Come off it. This isn't art, it's a cruel joke. Fine. The world is full of assholes. Whatever. I think you make a brilliant statement on how shallow, yet vapid people in San Francisco really are. In short, the joke is on you.

Your attempt to compare your actions by analogy to Muni/BART surveillance is deeply flawed. There are a number of key differences between a public agency monitoring its customers for purposes of safety and some washed up urban hipster snapping clandestine photos of people to be posted online for people to make fun of. I think that's pretty obvious. I think the fact that neither Muni or BART post the photos they take on line and then invite members of the public to rate them is prolly the biggest difference, beyond the fact, that they have a legal right to maintain public safety, etc.

Dude, if you want to make art, why don't you go do something clever and thought provoking like Marco Evaristi. You know, put goldfish into a blender and then invite your fellow Academy of Art College/University Whoever students to turn them on? Get your fat ass liposuctioned and then feed your boyfriend Brock meatballs made with the left over fat while being filmed for the TV news. THAT's art. This? This is uninspired teenage antics.

Dearest Angry,

If what you are saying is true about image ownership, wouldn't all the tabloids be out of biz?

Wouldn't the guy be classified as a junior paparazzo?

BTW I think that Brock has given up meatballs and is only eating sausage now.

Lisa Kim is milfalicious

"If what you are saying is true about image ownership, wouldn't all the tabloids be out of biz?"

First of all, public figures bring lawsuits against tabloids all the time. However, public figures must also prove that statements were made in malice. Reason being that disallowing criticism of public figures is chilling to free speech and interferes with the fair exchange of ideas. The fat lady on the bus who Jameth thinks is stupid enough to warrant being mocked by the entire world is not a public figure, therefore, she warrants a higher standard of protection than, say, Gavin Newsom.

OK, let's see if I can quickly cover all of the nonsense in this thread.

Civil Code section 3344: this appears to apply only if someone is using the photos for commercial/business purposes. I am not. The photos are not being sold and are not on a site that provides me with a paycheck. I only skimmed it so I could be wrong. Any eLawyers here want to google this and provide a firm answer?

Slander/libel: I am not the one making the comments; others are. You would need to seek out and sue them, or sue the site where the comments are hosted. Good luck with that! Besides, I believe you would need to prove monetary/actual damages. Not sure if CA is a punitive damages state; if it is, I suppose there could be punitive damages awarded, but I doubt you'd find a lawyer to take your case. Be realistic. Are you going to lose your job/lose a potential job because a random photo of you appeared on the Internet? Doubt it, since your name is not associated with the photo. Even if you did, how could you prove that a photo of yourself on the Internet was the culprit? Furthermore, if someone calls you ugly, and you truly are ugly, or if you have bad shoes and someone points that out, or if you have a knock-off Coach bag and you get laughed at because of it, it's not slander/libel. It is fact. You can't sue someone for stating the truth.

Boost in hits to my site: I don't care because I don't make money off of it. I would care a bit more if I had cost-per-impression ads or something. Alas, I don't, nor do I plan on implementing anything of that sort (see first paragraph re: CC section 3344).

Asking to take down the photo(s): If you see a photo of yourself online and you don't want it online, I would suggest filing a DMCA complaint with the site hosting the photo. See if you succeed. It is doubtful that you will get anywhere since the photo is not yours. You need to be the owner of the photo in order for your DMCA complaint valid. If someone posted a horrid photo of me on the Internet, I wouldn't care. It's like saying that I have green hair. "Yeah. What's your point?"

Point of "hiding in the shadows" for the interview: If the general public (not the Internet; there are already a bazillion photos of me online) knew what I looked like, they would know that I could be taking their photo and they might try to make themselves look pretty. I prefer candid photos.

When you leave your home, your expectation and right to privacy stay in your home, with few exceptions. Riding public transport is not one of those exceptions and no laws have been broken here.