Muni Hot or Not of the Now Discovered By NBC 11

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.

Slander slander salamander!

In addition to James's (correct) assertion that slander or libel (which are generally combined these days as "defamation") requires a showing of actual damages, it also requires that it consist of:

• statements (photos are not statements; the comments are, but most are not by James)
• of fact (i.e. can be proven or disproven--"he molests kids" is a statement of fact; "he looks like he molests kids" is a statement of opinion)
• which are identifiable as referring to the subject (these are anonymous)
• and which cause calculable (dollar amount) harm to the subject's reputation.

Jameth,

I will never scratch, drool or grab myself in public ever again fearing the roving lens.

Thanks for all the research you did

Great pro and con discussion on this site. I am on the side of CON because I think it's morally reprehensible. That being said, I am fighting the urge to go to that web site right now. I am suspended between knowing what's right and having the urge to do wrong, as most people are -- and you know what side they usually fall on, because human beings are weak, and this site, along with tabloid j journalism, prey on this weakness.

But someone brought it all up a notch when they said, "This is why I stay off of public transportation." Will all of you public transportation advocates and/or anti-car lunatics weigh on on whether this hurts your cause?

I have been an avid Jameth reader since 2006, or something. And he posts so many random pics in one day that some boring dude on Muni isn't going to make a dent in my memory. They all kind of look the same after a while -- just like the real life Muni experience.

And how many people are really going to search through his vast LJ/Flickr archives anyway? Hate a picture? Just wait a day, and it will be buried.

I prefer Walker Evan's NYC subway portraits from 1938-42.

http://tinyurl.com/2pfnca

Poor Angry Young Man. This isn't amateur hour, please stop trying to throw around Journalism 101 terminology as though you know what it means.

+1 to Leanne. Come on People, stop taking public transportation because one day you just might cross paths with James, and he just might take your picture? Even if he did get over yourself!

Angry Young Man: Your opinion has been received here at Lulz News Network headquarters. We value all commentary and suggestions. It will be taken into consideration during future productions and will be sent in a memo to all LNN field correspondents.

haha @ "slander"

LOVE LIVE JAMETH.

Jameth;

Please feel free to continue with your morally reprehensible activities. Clearly the unwashed masses think that you cruelly mocking the unsuspecting and unattractive denizens of this city is like rilly NEAT and since we like live in a democracy and everything it must then be like totally A-OK. Just be sure not to cry like a wuss or say things like "I'm an Amurrican citizen and I demand my rights" after your face is beaten into a far out new shape by the tard who'll inevitably catch you snapping their photo and act out in annoyance as a result.

XOXO,

The Angry Young Man

Angry Young Man:

We should set up a time/place for a Muni hot-or-not photo of you. Serious!

I will even ask for your permission beforehand.

And so begins the decline of our civilization -- willingly, it seems. Hmm.

Okay, in order to not be a Total Big Meanie, I wanted to answer something you asked in your previous comment:

But someone brought it all up a notch when they said, "This is why I stay off of public transportation." Will all of you public transportation advocates and/or anti-car lunatics weigh on on whether this hurts your cause?

It doesn't because it's an excuse looking for an issue.

If that's truly something that keeps someone off public transit, then I sincerely hope they're staying away from public sidewalks, cafes, restaurants, clubs or any other space where they will be surrounded by people they don't know.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

Now, a question for you, rroseselavy: As you've no doubt reviewed jameth's site by now, what is it exactly he's doing that's "morally reprehensible" or contributing to "the decline of civilization"?

This James person is clearly a sociopath. What kind of person in his right mind goes out taking intentionally bad photos of innocent, unsuspecting people, posts it on the internet for all to see and then invites vitriolic criticism? A SOCIOPATH, THAT'S WHO!

James, your really sick. You know that, right? Oh wait, sociopaths don't know right from wrong and they don't care. That about somes you up, doesn't it?

I forsee a very large criminal lawsuit in your future. You're violating Muni regulations by photographing sensitive government property. THAT IS AN ACT OF TERRORISM! Good luck with those feds, pal.

How would you feel if someone you didn't know put your photo up on their disgusting blog? You didn't ask for your face to be associated with that trash, but when others see it what will they think? You are materially destroying people's lives and reputations with your little prank.

You make me sick.

Actually, I am so thoroughly disgusted by those rising to jameth's defense, I have lost interest in going to his web site.

Melodramatic? Maybe. I just think this chipping away at civility is taking a toll on our society. No, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in public -- and frankly, I'm glad the law has its limits -- but just because something is legal doesn't make it a good, right, or decent thing to do.

Are you actually asking me why it's mean and distasteful? Because I think it speaks for itself.

I have to agree that taken out from the wider context of his blog, it would seem really tacky and vapid. In fact the Hot or Not aspect of the blog represents a really "MTV/Myspace/Tabloid" mentality, which is about the lowest form of entertainment/discourse in existence.

But, I also agree with the poster who mentioned that he takes pictures of a wide array of things, not just people. Put into THAT context, his blog represents his experiences as a San Franciscan. Aren't the people we encounter, both actively and passively, part of our daily lives? Don't we internally think about the attractiveness of those we encounter? I think so.

Ultimately, "art" or not, I don't see a huge problem with it moralistically, but if someone made a honest request to have their picture removed, complying would be the courteous human thing. Being nice is underrated, no?

You didn't suggest it, but a literary bonfire would seem to be the most likely place to find someone willing to proclaim something as "morally reprehensible" and contributing to the decline of the western world without actually reading or viewing something. That is your crowd, isn't it?

Also: Nice fail at attempting to turn around questions asked of you, that you still haven't answered.

Wow.

Really? I seem to have expressed plenty of opinion here, to a point that's unusually harsh for me.

I wonder how James would feel if someone posted his online "bear" profiles on YouTube ... considering he hid his face on the news, but pimped out his BF, I don't think he would like it ... oh and hiding your face on the news while exposing other people to ridcule on the web is the definition of hypocrisy.

Thanks for the flickr link Dan!

Now SFist readers can decide wether James is "hot or not"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jameth/sets/72157602114704424/

Also, I hope he uses that picture for his SFist staff bio. Congrats to James on being their new photo editor!

I would have to give Mr James a 9.3 for style, cleanliness, photographic prowess and his ability to capture the world. Hot.

Leanne- I agree. "And the black screen in the news report made the segment go from a 5 to a 10."

badlydrawnbear: My "bear" profiles? On YouTube? First of all, I'd have to have a bear profile, which I don't. I was rejected from Bear411.com a year ago when I tried to make a profile on there! Ha! I think there is something on BearCiti.com about me, but again, I'm not a bear, so I don't have any bear profiles. Second, what is someone going to do if they found an online profile of me? Hold up their web cam or whatever to their computer screen and video screen shots as they peruse some online profile of me? Sounds great. Five stars on that video!

Of course I hid my face on the news. They said that's how they were going to do it and I agreed. NBC11 had me on three times as a teaser: once during the lead-in to the 6PM newscast, then two other times before commercials. It keeps people watching the other stuff, commercials, etc. until 40-some minutes into the newscast and then they show the actual OMG POSSIBLE SCANDAL 2-minute story. Media love the drama and so do the public (obviously, based on the reaction), and the shadowy "anonymous" figure added an additional level to it.

As for hiding my face on the news while exposing other people to "ridicule" on the web (please note that not all of the comments/ratings on these people are mockery) being the definition of hypocrisy, I beg to differ. If I hid my face on the Internet, it would be hypocrisy. I have a billion photos of myself floating around online in various places and they're not very hard to find.

Thanks for playing! Please try again.

I'm not a stubborn gal, (well, not always), and I'm moderating my comments after briefly visiting the site. It's not what the news story made it out to be. I won't elaborate too much, as I have already said too much already, but the context brings a different tone. On its own, the "Hot or Not..." would have the capacity to be cruel and childish; in context, it has more of a participatory-documentary flavor. I still think if people want their photo taken down -- or if the commentary devolves to mockery (or the electronic stockade) -- it's the civil thing to do.

SFist: Hot or Not

Please rate: 0-10

Well, awesome! I'm going to stop riding public transportation and belch more pollution in the air to keep from being publicly objectified.

Good job, Jameth.

Jeez, even that [a href="http://www.02138mag.com/magazine/article/1724-2.html"]asshole Zuckerberg knew this was dick thing[/url] to do and it's not exactly original.

Posting public photos of a private individual could fall under the state harassment laws. It would be up to a judge to determine, but judges tend to cide with the complainant in most instances (not hard to show psych trauma nowadays) and then you have a restraining order against you which can follow you around for years. Apply for a job with a background check and that will show up. I'd say if someone complains about their photo, it might be a good idea to simply take it down.

I really wouldn't want to go in front of a judge asking for a restraining order because someone I randomly crossed paths with took my picture on public transit. The bar for a restraining order is low, but it's not that low, and judges can be very cranky when their time is wasted.

Oh lord.