Michael Minelli is suing Simon & Schuster because he does not think his photograph belongs in the book
Hot Chicks with Douchebags.
In the book, Louis noted that Minelli's "popped-collar, spikey-haired presence was so far beyond regular douche, so far beyond uberdouche, he could spontaneously create a new element on the periodic tables--Douche Nine." At the time he was photographed by Louis, Minelli was working the door at the popular "Rehab" party at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. As first reported by Courthouse News Service, Minelli's Clark County District Court lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages and legal fees. Last month, three New Jersey women sued Louis and his publisher over their appearance in "Hot Chicks with Douchebags," which they claimed was "vulgar" and presented them as "females who date dubious men."
Alleged "Douchebag" sues author
the latest
latest episodes
Oh my god, where do we begin! Let me just say this... he sure looks like douchebag. I'd say that was Lord and lady Douchebag on the cover.
I wonder if he realizes that if he just laughed when people joked about the book he'd prove that he's a pretty good guy, whereas by making a big fuss about this he's making people think he has no sense of humor and deserves it. I suppose maybe he does realize that and just thinks he can get some easy money. What a douchebag.
Cut him some slack. The popped collar is restricting blood flow to his brain.
Oh God, that misogynist, snide, unfunny douchebag has published a book!? Like he wasn't satisfied with the popularity that he had with like-minded sexist Digg readers.
Note that he's not suing for libel... :)
This proves he's a top flight d-bag.
I discovered long ago that once you come to grips with who you are, you'll be much happier. I'm a white trash guy from WV. See, now I can drink cheap beer with my buddies and watch monster trucks on tv without guilt.
Yeah...my first thought was "geez, have a sense of humor about it" but really, I'd be pissed too if someone were using my face, without my permission, to make money by calling me names - to be funny sure, but not really in a "joking around" way.
It's not the guy on the cover of the book, at least if you go by the description.
That book sounds like clicking a link to digg.com
Think the authors paid the db to sue, so they'd get the publicity?
whats up with all the haterade?
mujadaddy - Note that he IS suing to libel.
Does anyone know if people in this book signed any sort of release form to have their photo published? Or is it ok now to take pictures of strangers, publish them in books insulting and harassing them, and as long as its all in the name of comedy its ok...?
Favorite General Allegation of the complaint
25. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be the subject of ridicule in that he has been now, and continues to be called a Douchebag by friends, acquaintances, coworkers, employers, and strangers alike.
Most confusing General Allegation of the complaint
30. The Publication depicts Plaintiff has a "Douchebag" and a dubious man.
Time for an old joke:
A guy walks into a bar, and goes up to the bar. The bartender walks over and asks the guy what he'll have. "I'll have a gin and tonic," he says, then points to a woman at the end of the bar; "and get that douchebag whatever she wants."
The bartender is taken aback, and says, "listen, buddy, this is a classy joint, and i'm sure that lady would not appreciate being called that." The guy replies, "Whatever. Just get her whatever she asks for."
So, the bartender approaches the woman and says, "excuse me Miss, but that guy at the end of the bar wants to buy you a drink--what would you like?"
"Vinegar and water, please."
Dah, Dum, Dum!
This one is easy to solve, check out his girlfriend/wife, if she is smokin hot, he is a douche.
Not that there is anything wrong with being a douche to get hot women...
Well, unless the photographer got these people to sign well-worded model release forms, he's almost certain to lose.
You know... taking pictures of people under almost certainly false pretenses, so that you can hold them up to ridicule for your own profit would normally qualify you as a douchebag yourself. Or Sacha Baron Cohen.
I hope he wins and the authorn burns. The book might as well have been titled "Proles, why they are filthy animals".
banjology - "@mujadaddy - Note that he IS suing to libel."
No, the complaint does not use that word (unless I missed it). He does allege that the defendant's allegations are false.
mujadaddy:
"Claiming that he has been unfairly branded a "douchebag" in the book "Hot Chicks with Douchebags," a Las Vegas man has filed a libel lawsuit against the volume's author and publisher."
Wow, Birdseed. That's a whole lot of hostility over something so minor.
I think that since this is the opinion of the author(s) that the basis in court is going to be pretty hard to prove.
Although, if the suit does come to a close--we may finally have a legal definition of the term 'Douchebag' as it applies to human beings.
Of which, I have been waiting for my entire life.
I question whether or not his suit holds any merit. "Douchebag" is a rather subjective term, and is difficult to quantify.
Penn & Teller use this same logic to avoid lawsuits on _Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"... you can get sued for calling someone a con artist, a charlatan, or plain old thief. But call someone an asshole, a prick, or a motherfucker? That's all opinion, and thus protected speech.
Seems to me that calling someone a "douchebag" is not too dissimilar.
Ahaha hah ha...
Have you seen the pictures of these people?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1023082hotchicks2.html
"three New Jersey women have sued the book's author and publisher, claiming that the "vulgar" title has unfairly tarred them as "females who date dubious men.""
Where is that great boing boing thread about fake tans....
And after spending time in Miami Beach, watching carbon copies of such people beat up traffic signs and each other while yelling "We're from Jersay" I can lend empirical weight to the charge of duochebaggery.
The suit posted by Mindpowered notes that at least one of the women was denied a job because of the book. Since no one gave their consent at any time -- and they are not public figures -- I would think that the suit as merit, or, if it doesn't, ought to.
It's Simon & Fucking Schuster. You don't think they had their lawyers look at this thing before they published it?
/headslap
P.S. That guy may yet challenge John Edward for Biggest Douche In The Universe.
"Proles, why they are filthy animals"
I see no need to change the title of the book - it appears to accurately represent the subject matter...
I think this falls under educational or editorial use, so it could be argued no releases would be needed.
It's important to educate the public about douchebags, after all.
The guy is probably a douche, but I've seen far douchier in my time, and I've never even been to LA.
As others have said: Any time a picture focuses on a specific individual who had a reasonable expectation of privacy, you need a model release before you can publish. (Pictures of a whole crowd don't; pictures where the interest comes from what one person in the crowd is doing do.)
If he signed the release and then just dislikes the way it was captioned -- if he's going after it as a libel issue rather than invasion of privacy -- that's a different kettle of worms; the photographer is safe but the author/editor may not be.
Call me old fashioned if you like, but I still think respecting others' reasonable right to privacy is just plain polite...
Can someone - for the sake of those of us who have forever eschewed the use of ["gay", "girly", "wuss", "pussy", and other female-associated notions] as insults - please provide a reason why "douchebag"/"douche" is not only inherently an insult, but also provide some hard-and-fast criteria as to who would be labelled as such?
People who cannot transcend an insult to an art form ought to refrain from indulging in them.
The whole "Hot Chicks with Douchebags" meme is retarded.
The girls in the photos are just as shallow, moronic, and slave to fashion trends as the boys.
Why isn't it "Female Douchebags with Male Douchebags"?
It's not like having boobs should make you less worthy of contempt.
Thanks to @#4/...themelonbread, I finally have some independent guidance as to whether it's sexist or otherwise un-PC to use the term douchebag. (Years ago, I was scolded for doing things such as calling men "pussies" and women "girls," and I guess it stuck with me.) I recently had several encounters with popped-collar country-club Repuglicans, both of the young and (chronologically) maturing varieties, and "douchebag" seemed to be a commonly agreed-upon term to describe such entities.
At any rate, I think we can all agree that subject male is a major cornhole. I'm not so sure about the author, but if I was "douchebagg'd" by him, I'd be pissed and likely inclined to seek him out and inflict some bodily harm rather than taking my chances with the legal system and the court of public opinion.
you'd think he'd have signed a release for publishing a picture of him.
yeah, he kinda sounds like a douchebag, and the girls probably are females who date dubious men... so what's the problem ?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Also, @ #30 - agreed.
Uh, where's the hot chicks? I don't see any. I just see a bunch of slimy ho action that looks too manly for my tastes.
cow by day - douche by night - super hero
#19 - I'm sorry, I just have a huge problem with smart-ass middle-class wankers who perpetuate the (Marxian) ideology by habitually and constantly racking down on the cultural practices of the working class. Can you imagine any other marginalized group in the same role? A book that generalised, as "douchebags", blacks or homosexuals or the disabled? Working class Italian-American men are seemingly okay to bully.
Plus I'm kinda fond of the "guidos" (I realise this is also a derogatory term, but at least it's better than "douchebags") - their rejection of a lot of traditional male attributes is quite refreshing.
If he's suing, that confirms his douchebaggery. He can't take a joke!
Hmmmm... I should send the authors of this my old wedding photos. I believe they would qualify as a hot chick (me) with a douchebag (my ex).
Those douchebags are Italian-American? The paisans around here don't look like that. Of course around here they are mostly craggy-featured sunburnt construction worker types, these douchebags look like investment bankers who spend their lunch hours on the nautilus.
Huh. Italian-American... who'd a thunk it. Did you get that from the text? I didn't bother reading it, it seemed rather likely to be just a douchebag author writing douchbaggery about his target douchebags. I was just checking out the hot chicks.
Birdseed, what "traditional male attributes" are they rejecting, exactly?
Birdseed & Anonymous,
I dated one of them. He was Italian-American. He was also a lawyer and definitely not working class. Do you have any idea what it costs to keep up that spray tan and get collagen in your lips every three months?
"Don't touch the hair!"
#37 JENNA -- as they say on 4chan (Xeni must be influencing me), show us "pics or it didn't happen."
Birdseed: While the overlap between douchebags and Italian-American working class men might be significant, douchebag is not some alternate slang term specifically meaning working class Italian-Americans (or Canadians, in my case). In fact, most of the douchebags I've ever met (of the type portrayed in this book, any way) are businessmen of some sort. Very few of them worked what I would consider working class jobs, almost all of them were in sales/marketing, or had some sort of promotions/club management type job.
I certainly hope this ridiculous lawsuit doesn't see the light of day. Should it actually result in a win for the plaintiff, then every single person who has ever experienced ridicule in any setting will be eligible to sue their antagonists. Pencil-pouch packing nerds can get back at the stoners who stole their lunch money and the jocks who gave them wedgies in the locker room.
It's really simple: if you don't want to be labeled a douchebag, do the following:
- put the collar down (its intended position)
- turn the bill of your ball cap around fully to the front
- pull your pants up around your waist (again, the intended position)
- stop with the fake gang signs at the camera
- kill the kissy lips (again, that camera nonsense)
- lay off the tanning cream; you're ORANGE, for crying out loud!
- guyliner and mandannas do not cover baldness nor crow's feet
- hair gel is a no-no for a man, as is the blowout
- smile if you're photographed with a pretty lady; the angry/entitled look signifies you as a douchebag
- if you're not a tribal warrior, you do not deserve a tribal tattoo
- do not render military style dogtags a trendoid accessory; if you are not ex-military, TAKE THE DOGTAGS OFF. Get your money back from Abercrombie & Fitch.
Easy stuff. Read the book or visit hotchickswithdouchebags.com to find out more.
perhaps a Douchebag Czar should be appointed.
What is a prole?
Ah, thanks #43 for rushing in and underhandedly supporting my point. Look at the sheer bile! This kind of hate for a subculture is surprisingly common if the subculture is an acknowledged underclass - do a Google search for "chavs" or "manelisti" if you don't believe me. You know, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with, say, hair gel over wax or tribal tattoos, it's just their context (on the arms of the proles) that inspires such hate.
a helot
Thank you, #30.
So... if this was presented from the other side.. "Hot Guys with Ugly Hos" (or similar) would there be a different discussion about mysoginy?
(Not that these are hot guys, but if they were...)
The whole meme is entertaining, sure, but it's also a bit mean spirited. Douches or not.
#43, please allow me to introduce you to the fallacy of the slippery slope --
"Should it actually result in a win for the plaintiff, then every single person who has ever experienced ridicule in any setting will be eligible to sue their antagonists."
There are many barriers to prevent a win for the plaintiff sliding into courts clogged with adjudicating personal insults.
- slander v. libel
- duty to show material harm
- truth as best defense
etc.
This may shock you, but if real harm comes from playground insults that are provably false - those can ALREADY see the inside of a courtroom. We are already at the bottom of the slippery slope.
I agree with other posters that the author is likely to have some kind of waiver, or will experience some turbulence.
====================
Say, didn't I see you on the cover of "non-hottie women & their guys warped with hatred for douchebags who are getting the hotties"??
it's just their context (on the arms of the proles) that inspires such hate.
Proles? That's a nice little coat you have there.
THEMAGE, stop it with the "getting" women thing, it is misogynist. Women are not things to be acquired. Grow up! Also, I second BARDFINN on eschewing female-associated derogatory terms. For real.
RE: #30
that subject matter is covered in the book and on the site. They are called Douchebaguettes or Bleethes and are equally ridiculed.
To sum up every blog post on that website,
"Look at how that young man is flamboyantly dressed, overly muscled, and overly confident in his body language. He must be a homosexual. Look also at that unfortunate young woman standing next to him. Alas, she is such a fair maiden yet has chosen of her own free will to accompany such an unscrupulous rake. Her mental faculties must be either deficient or momentarily impaired."
Here's the Great Douche Discussion Thread.
a douchebag coat-of-arms tattoo.... heralds?
The bend would have to be a fake tan burnt orange...Perhaps a knight falling on his own sword?
This lawsuit is about as retarded as Bat Boy suing the National Enquirer for using his photo without permission.
I prefer Bat Boy over this douchebag and his whining any day.
a very short sword
#30 CS LOSER: The answer should be obvious if you've ever browsed /b/. Although /b/ is less obsessive about these things and are purposely offensive about every possible group and subject out there.
@ #49 Justin Franc and #52 DICTRESSJULIA: You just made me remember Mighty God King's deconstruction of the "Nice Guy" rant and how much it applies to this situation.
(http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2007/12/16/the-internet-nice-guy-rears-his-ugly-head-once-more/)
Hot Chicks With Douchebags very definitely seems to have has pervasive overtones of entitlement and anger at women who don't "give it up" to the author. If reading the posts don't make this apparent, read the comments. They're septic.
I'm sorry (not really), but a female may not by definition be hot in the first place if she is consorting with a douchebag. No intellect equals no appeal.
1.Clark County -- where the plaintiffs always win!
2. A douchebag is a contraption ostensibly designed to 'clean' a woman's nether region, not pollute it. ;)
3. If we mean bully, or shallow, or acting entitled, we should say so -- after all, their language skills are also lacking, and nothing pisses them off more than their own confusion.
4. Though I completely understand and relate to these feelings, that shade of green is quite toxic internally.
Birdseed, you claim (in #46):
"This kind of hate for a subculture is surprisingly common if the subculture is an acknowledged underclass"
Status is measured by many things, but a very important measure of status is mating with the most desirable females. This is particularly true in mammals, and of course in primates.
No book that alleges to be about hotties' dating partners can be about an underclass. By definition.
a very important measure of status is mating with the most desirable females.
Clearly I live in a parallel universe.
I would also like to add that if this guy wins, then every paparazzi photographer and publication that has ever taken an unwanted photo of somebody, then commented on said photo, will be up to their necks in lawsuits. All the celebrity stalker 'zines would have to get permission first, like that's going to happen...
I think a lot of people here are missing a simple and obvious flaw to most of the complaints in the suit:
The author of the book did not take any of the pictures in question. If you know (from his website, which he talks about quite often) - he sifts through pictures from Facebook (mostly) and other douchey social-networking sites. The pictures are publicly posted and totally up for ridicule.
If the photographers were claiming copyright infringement - he might still be able get them with fair-use: claiming that he is making a political/whatever statement about the images he is portraying.
As for ridiculing the people in the pictures - as we all know from surfing the internet...there's nothing you can/should be able to do about that. If you post ridiculous pics of yourself in these situations online - it is fair game. Caption contests and Photoshop fun abound. Deal with it.
No they wouldn't, they're public figures. Precedent has already been set in regards to private vs. public figure privacy expectations and this documentation wouldn't change anything.
Read page 5 of the documentation after the link. Point 29. "Plaintiff's privacy has been invaded, as Plaintiff is not a public figure".
So no 'public figure' could ever use this case as precedent.
---------
Also to Birdseed.
Proles specifically refers to working class. I don't think anywhere on the website (of which I've just had a quick browse) does there seem to be any attack on 'working class' people. It seems more like he goes after just about anyone that's posing to the camera like a moron.
What that has to do with 'Italian-American' working class people I'm not really sure as there seems to be just as many 'skinny white rockstar wannabes', 'buff-looking jocks' and random other ethnicities of varying weight, build, etc.
The only thing that seems consistent is that the people seem to be posing stupidly at the camera and that there is some kind of 'hot' girl around.
Frst ff, th lnk prsntd n th pst shld hv lnkd t th thr's st, nstd f drctly t mzn.cm s BB cld gt th 'clck-thr'. Th thr's st hs 'by my bk' lnk tht wld gv hm th crd wth mzn.cm nstd f t gng hr.
The author's site includes more pics of the "douchescrotes" he rails against, as well as commentary by the author and visitors. Much of it is juvenile, but so is the premise of the book. However, visitors to the site will gain a greater understanding of the stereotype that the author finds so offensive -yet at the same time entertaining- and that all of us have seen but have been unable to classify from both the male and female perspective.
Well, sir, you were represented accurately with no slander... whats the problem here? Court dismissed.
Falcon_Seven,
Do whatever you like on your own website.
Sorry, but in my travels I have come across both 'guidos' AND 'douchebags'. Guidos can be douchebags, douchebags can be guidos, but neither is always the other.
While the guidos I have observed in nature were acting like douchebags, I still like to hope that there might be a few who aren't.
For the record, I do not discriminate: any subgenre of people who feel the need to dress/act/speak outrageously get my scorn. If one cannot distinguish oneself by any noble means and must resort to outlandishness, you pays your money and takes your chances.
Don't get me wrong, when I was younger I did the same thing. The difference is that I matured to the point where I don't need the attention.
Measure of classification: When I saw a guido doing something mischievous, if my gut reaction was "what a douchebag" then the tag fit.
Go with the gut.
I want more pics!
more hot chicks
more a la douche please
I sat in front of a couple of douchebags on a flight to Winnipeg last week. They behaved like five-year olds with dirty minds, kicking the backs of our seats and talking in loud voices about threesomes.
In the Winnipeg airport there were big signs everywhere -
"WELCOME CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA ANNUAL MEETING"
Case closed.
Guido shot first!
It surprises me, honestly, how many people here are willing to say that somebody is shallow, empty or stupid because the way he/she/ve/it choses to wear.
For all that we know, one of those guys could be a theoretical physicist exploring the epicurean side of life and finishing quoting Nietzche during his hangover. I know people like that.
What is shallow is all the finger pointing to people only because of their clothes.
And yes, my real name is Guido, and no, I do not get offended by its meaning here in America.
Guidodavid, it's not what they wear, it's how they wear it. They want to be pointed at, noticed, and (especially) yielded to.
That last point is the difference between a Guido and a real Douchebag.
Well, I do not think that is something you can tell from mere pictures. Pretty much like TSA behaviour detection, but with photos.
By reacting the way he does he's actually proving he's a douchebag.
Guido - Not really at all, since we're deciding individually whether to laugh - not using state power to derail someones vacation or business trip.
If you can claim a an equivalence between the two, then you are in need of a hot chick.
I do not need a hot chick, already have a (some) very hot man, thanks.
And I am not comparing the consequences, I am comparing the bogus assumptions about behaviour from insufficient data.
That is the point of analogies, isn't it? Compare two things that share some properties even if they are not equals. DNA is not magnetic tape, however, you could compare it to magnetic tape for explaining some points in molecular biology, specially for explaining virus insertions in the genome and why we cannot get rid of some of them.
And, laughing at someone is no the same than making claims about that person based on a single picture.
I guess everyone of us writing here has a douchebag picture at some point, even if it is not this kind of douchebag...
I suppose Guido has a point, that douchebag-ness is about behaviour, not clothing. But we as humans are very good at forming snap judgements about people and gathering a lot of information about them based on their appearance and body language. It's possible that the douche in question is actually the next Einstein. But I don't think it's likely.
If we are indulging stereotypes I'd still rather hang with a "douchebag" than a "hipster."
(And in my line of work I spend a lot of time hanging with the gay male equivalent of these macho pretty boys. Most act like they look, but others are really smart and sensitive guys.)
The smug ironic judgmental thing is really tedious. It's all making fun of everyone else without ever putting yourself out there.
@21: Absolutely. "douchebag" is exactly like "asshole" in that while denigrating it doesn't have a specific enough definition to warrant a libel claim. The db's lawyer should have told him that, unless there is also some color commentary that actually makes a provable claim.
re: release forms, privacy, et al
Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to assume Simon and Schuster know the publishing business, and the "models" have all signed releases. Releases that don't specify the use it was going to be put to, but comprehensive and legal nonetheless.
In which case, the douchebag loses.