Despite Hard Times, Stevenson Street Thrives

This video was taken near 6th and Stevenson yesterday. It's good to know that our contingent of SOMA nutter butters are still enjoying life to the fullest.

Email This Entry


Comments (30) [rss]

hard to tell but it might be the same person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU2WxTI-iIU

it's certainly the same place

Seeing this choreography makes me miss my old office at 16th & Capp.

12 Oz Prophets would not approve of recording these shenanigans.

Isn't this why everybody come to live or visit here? To see our little freak show?

Holy Crap that was so funny. Your crackheads are way better dancers than the ones who turn in their cans at the Upper Safeway recycling center.

sometimes...you just have to dance.

Making fun of homeless people, the chemically dependent or mentally imbalanced is such a freakin blast. It makes me feel so much better about myself.


</sarcasm>

kinda funny, kinda sad.

just like SF in general.

What is the legal distinction between the internet and television with regards to disseminating one's image without consent? From my years of watching COPS, I know that the TV crews either need to obtain release forms from their subjects or blur out their faces. No such practice seems to exist for subjects of internet video. Are we kind of in a grey "it's not illegal if no one complains" area?

@turlte, I think that if they're poor, or minorities there are no rules. If you set up a camera outside Balboa or the Matrix and broadcasted their acts of public drunkenness, etc... a far more litigious outcome could result.

Ha! ... .Chromeo has never sounded so good! I love my city! Get Ur Freak On.

There was a dancer lady in Berkeley this morning, too, but her's was more a square dance.

turtle:

I don't do that kind of law, but I think the distinction has something to do with its purpose. So if you're using the person's image for promotional purposes or a trade (generally commercial in nature) then you need their permission. Otherwise it's ok. I think

Although with regard to "Are we kind of in a grey "it's not illegal if no one complains" area?" I would say that that is generally the case with all kinds of law. As an adverserial system, we are definitely skewed in that direction.

turtle-
No. If someone is out performing in public, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Videotaping them (without audio) = not against the law. Putting that tape on the internet for noncommercial use, not an issue.

COPS may have gotten waivers not out of fear for suit for invasion of privacy or for defamation but for fear of liability based upon using folks' images without their consent for commercial purposes. Plus, I hesitate to say this because it's not cynical, but Fox likely realizes that not everyone who is arrested is convicted or even charged. Why ruin someone's life when it doesn't lend anything to the production?

She's got a nice body, and dances pretty well. What seems to be the problem?

Crack. Crack is the problem.

Crack is the problem?

Pooping in the alley is also a problem, but I didn't see that in the video either.

Now this I have no problem with. She's on a public street, being a dancing fool. Maybe she really is a crackhead. But maybe she's just having a good time.

In my opinion, this is different from photos of someone at a low point, sleeping on the street or digging in a dumpster for food.

Exactly. She's not harming anyone, causing a disturbance, vandalizing anything, harassing people, pissing/shitting, getting drunk, whatever.

I see no problem here.

Frankly, it looks like her day is going better than mine.

this reminds me of asian women doing tai chi at the bus stop. only more "cracky"

jimbo: christ, what happened to you in that picture!?!

@hollyMmm.
bike crash. wear your helmet. always.

Dance like no one is watching. Even if they are. In secret. With a video camera. And posts it online.

She learned everything she knows from Billy Squier.

if you leave your home, your expectation of privacy is gone. anyone can film or take photos of you. if the photos/film/whatever will be used to make money or something (like on COPS) you need to then advise/get waiver/etc.

youtube doesn't count. the filmer isn't making money.

internet law 101

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About SFist

SFist is a website about San Francisco.

Editor: Brock Keeling
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

Tilt photography of SF hills!
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from SFist.

All Our RSS