SFist: Despite Hard Times, Stevenson Street Thrives

feliceinsf

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:45:30 -0800

Maybe she had seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMD4p2HfEo

jameth

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:39:08 -0800

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

theo

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:01:06 -0800

She learned everything she knows from Billy Squier.

A_Native_Son

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:05:26 -0800

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

jimbobklyn

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:37:38 -0800

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

hollyMmm

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:39:31 -0800

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

jimbobklyn

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:28:31 -0800

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

jacksevanroo

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:19:48 -0800

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

marta hatchet

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:10:17 -0800

Exactly. She's not harming anyone, causing a disturbance, vandalizing anything, harassing people, pissing/shitting, getting drunk, whatever. I see no problem here.

bluecanary

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:41:12 -0800

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.

doublegin

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:24:36 -0800

She makes her own fun.

hillarys_quivering_lip

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:59:46 -0800

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

DC1974

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:50:17 -0800

Crack. Crack is the problem.

marta hatchet

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:20:22 -0800

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

jcsnotes

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:14:09 -0800

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?

the default attorney

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:12:04 -0800

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.

brittney

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:49:40 -0800

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

FNREEDIE

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:48:53 -0800

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

hillarys_quivering_lip

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:39 -0800

She can dance!

periqueblend

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:36:13 -0800

@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.

turtle_276

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:33:46 -0800

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?

zinzin

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:23:27 -0800

kinda funny, kinda sad. just like SF in general.

travin

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:06:05 -0800

]]>

hollyMmm

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:58:25 -0800

sometimes...you just have to dance.

sweet_charles

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:54:27 -0800

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.

GlenParker

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:51:00 -0800

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

MalcoveMagnesia

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:44:01 -0800

12 Oz Prophets would not approve of recording these shenanigans.

icbalaam

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:12:11 -0800

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

auweia1

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:08:43 -0800

hard to tell but it might be the same person http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU2WxTI-iIU it's certainly the same place

KeithFuckinMoon

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:05:11 -0800

Human debris.