A Hard Case to Prove

His lawyer better not let him take the stand or it's case over.

What a douchebag.

I suspect by "the prosecution" you mean "the plaintiff". Actually, after looking at the picture, I think you really meant to write "the Guido".

I'm assuming the picture here isn't of Michael Minelli considering there's no "popped collar" going on there, but douchebag or not, is it actually legal to photograph strangers without their permission for the express purpose of publicly ridiculing them for profit? Right or wrong, that is still somewhat surprising to me ...

No, Stacyj, it's not legal. Which is exactly why the douchebag will win this case.

I can't say I blame him for being upset. His photo was taken and used for profit without his consent. And to top it all off, it's being used to humiliate him. So, why people (looking at comments from other blogs) are declaring that his suit proves he's a douche is beyond me. You'd be angry too if you were in his position.

is demetri in the book too??
demetri

Doesn't the author of the book require all the "model's" consent?

Please oh please, can't we retire this word?

I don't see how Minelli could win a libel case here, first off "douchebag" is just a vulgar insult, not an accusation. For Minelli to win a libel case, he has to prove he is not a douchebag, and that the author knowingly falsified the accusation.
He has no case, he spikes his hair up, and pops his collar, so by many definitions, he is a douchebag. Also, you can't prove you are or are not a douchebag. This is why it's legal to call someone a mother-f'er or an assh-le, but not legal to call someone a rapist or a murderer (if you know it not to be true).

Actually Johnny Cat, it is perfectly legal to photograph someone in public and use that image for commercial purposes (although there are some caveats). Remember, journalists and the mainstream media do this every single day.

Consent is not required if the subject is photographed in a setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Publishing the photo, and then adding a disparaging narrative about the subject of the photo doesn't make it any less legal, provided the narrative doesn't constitute libel or defamation of character. This particular book would clearly be defined as humor or satire, and that is protected free speech.

For a long list of examples of random people being publicly ridiculed, see Vice magazine (often NSFW).
http://www.viceland.com/int/dos.php

For reference, Bert Krages is an attorney, writer, and photographer who authored a comprehensive list of photographer's rights dealing with this and related issues.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

The next time, you see a published photograph of a suspected criminal being hauled into court, or a nightlife magazine with a snapshot of somebody doing something embarrassing at a club, rest assured he or she didn't sign a consent form. And it is very much legal.

One of my customer is a real douchebag, a sleazy, detailed-clothed, hyped-up late-30ish guy, suspected to dealing drugs in our community and... always with a new REALLY hot chick on his arm.

I'll never understand how the hot chick magnet works ;)

I think douchebag should just get over it because now he is showing what a bad sport and douchebag he truly is. He's just crying so that someone will pay attention. Wah, wah. darelparker pretty much summed it up because the guy doesn't even have a case.

I would contend that the fact that he is suing about being a Douchebag proves that he is one.

Who is he?

The lawyer in the defense will have to define d-bag and prove that the plantif is in fact one. Since there are direct connotations and implications of this particular word, not to mention the rest of what he accused the alleged d-bag of being, the defendant has defamed his character by definition. Unless of course, the accusations are true.

As for the picture, he had the right to take it and publish it. The exception to this exemption is pictures of children (I believe) and certainly when a person has clear reason to assume he is in private. A casino is NOT such a "private place." He'll win the case, especially if he can produce evidence that it has directly damaged his professional life in some way, which it seems he can.

The fantastic thing about suits like this is that the DB in question has zero chance of winning, and at the same time he is both drawing tons of attention to his douchbaggery, and helping promote the book, making his enemy tons more money.

So not only is he a DB, but he's a fool to boot.

Who would actually buy this book??? Yep, we know who...

ok.

Here is the page in question:
http://pocketlama.net/journalpictures/1118082douche1a.jpg

But what if he's in cahoots with the book people? His lawyer cousin phones it in for $500 and loses the trial; they get the free publicity for "the book they tried to ban", and it turns out his uncle is the publisher or something. Still douchebaggery, maybe just a different kind of douchebaggery.

"The fantastic thing about suits like this is that the DB in question has zero chance of winning, and at the same time he is both drawing tons of attention to his douchbaggery, and helping promote the book, making his enemy tons more money.

So not only is he a DB, but he’s a fool to boot."