Pages to Fold
A Trash Bin Quandary
Introducing Ask Torontoist
Lake Shore's Dump Sites Get the Blues
City of Toronto Releases Union Offer Details
In the epic battle between shark, bear, and wankster, there can be be no winners.
Last Friday night at Wrongbar, Kavin Wong—the photographer known best for his party shots on Shark Vs. Bear—had finished up taking photos for the night and hopped into the washroom. As he wrote in a particularly dramatic Facebook note, he found himself cornered there by "half a dozen wanksters," one of whom was none too pleased about being photographed earlier and wanted the shot vanished. Wong "showered him with apologies and complied to delete the photo. But he wanted to make sure I never [did] it again, ever." So the guy took matters and Wong's camera into his own hands, grabbing the Canon EOS 5D and fumbling around with it, trying to delete the photo. When he couldn't figure out how to, he chose the next most logical route: he slammed the camera into the toilet and flushed it. Then he picked the camera up out of the toilet, threw it to the ground, and, with his friends helping and Wong helpless, kicked it around a little. All told, the lens, flash, and body were totally ruined, their total value well over $3000.
Wong is not only a great photographer—in the vapid world of party photos, his shots are far better than they ought to be, their prettiness transcending rather than simply mimicking the prettiness of his subjects—he is also a really, really nice guy with lots of friends, and a lot of them are pretty angry about the destruction of his gear. So, this Friday, those with Kavin on their minds will descend on the scene of the crime, Wrongbar (1279 Queen Street West), for a fundraising party thrown in his honour. Hosted by Pink Mafia, it'll feature Mansion, Shit La Merde, Syntonics, and Nasty Nav. Drop by after 10 p.m. with at least $5 if you wanna help right the Wong.
Photo courtesy of Kavin Wong
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Is a wankster like a wigger or a hipster?
The fundraiser is great and all, but is he doing anything to get the wankster(s) in question charged with assault and destruction of property?
now that's parkdale
white + gangster = wankster? :\
From Urban Dictionary:
"Wankster - Someone that pretends to be a ganster and tries to talk in gangster language and wear ganster clothes when the really don't know anything about being a ganster."
I managed to snap a photo of some of the friends of the camera smasher (this was prior to learning the reason for all the commotion - camera smashing), not sure if they were involved in the smashing as well, maybe the stomping that was involved. Right after I took the photo one of them grabbed my lens and attempted to smash my camera as well! Camera smashing party! He was not successful.
Kavin is a great guy so help him out!
Why is there need for a fundraiser?
He can just claim the loss on his insurance.
If he takes my photo, I expect to be paid with a drink.
Several drinks if he distributes or publishes my image.
He didn't have insurance.
A fundraiser is all well and good, but is Wong pursuing any legal avenues?
Oh. T-rek already siad that. Nevermind.
Not that violence or property destruction is justified, but maybe it would be polite to ask before sticking your camera in someone's face...?
He's a moron for not having insurance.
Question is, will he bother to grow up and get some with the free camera people are buying for him?
Spacejack - perhaps you should read his description of the event:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=33666841890
Kavin is a regular in this area and I can say that most of the people at the bar know Sharkvsbear/Kavin. These guys were not regulars and were not aware his photography is enjoyed and well-known at Wrongbar.
Davedave, you're a bit of an asshole. I'm sure he's kicking himself for not having insurance now. He did not request a fundraiser or assistance from anyone, but people have been very generous and that's hard to ignore. Is it really that bad people want to HELP him in his community?
Ya, well, I don't use facebook. I'm also more familiar with a Parkdale where sticking your camera in someone's face without asking would just be asking for trouble. It's pretty gentrified now, but maybe the transformation isn't yet quite as complete as you think.
wtf - I never said it was a bad thing that people wanted to help him.
However, I will say he's extremely lucky that people's generosity is making up for his immaturity and incompetence - and he needs to be made aware of this. Sorry if that ruins your little sunshine and lollipop parade.
If one were walking down the street on a Saturday afternoon in Parkdale and decided to stick a camera in someone's face, they'd be asking for trouble. But in this situation, I'd say more times than not people are expecting to see some kind of photographer covering the event, and welcome having their photo taken. It's pretty evident in his shots.
I can't believe anyone is actually arguing about whose fault it is that Wong's camera got smashed.
Three words: Small Claims Court.
People need to be taught a lesson that they just can't grab people's stuff and trash it.
I don't really know what happened, but what's up with this characterizing of photographing a party event as "sticking a camera in people's faces"? Is this playing to most people's dislike of having any object "stuck" in their faces?
I'm just a sunshine and lollipops kinda person, Dave! :)
While the wanksters did go too far in the destruction of the camera, I wonder if that'll give Kavin some food for thought in the future when taking pictures of people. While I realize that photographers and videographers are within the law for taking public photographs/video of people (for non-profit purposes), I really believe some manners should be employed and those people be asked if they want to be photographed/video'd and to delete photos when (hopefully) politely asked to do so. Obviously this wouldn't apply to wide crowd shots were people can't be identified.
I don't want pictures of myself showing up on whatever website and always make myself clear to those camera happy friends or acquaintance's. I don't recall having to deal with a stranger yet about that...
Oh, a $3000 camera owner who has a thing for public photos of people and no insurance? Not very bright. If you can afford a camera such as that then you should be shelling out a little more $$$ for insurance.
davedave is not only an asshole when it comes to graffiti, he's an asshole in all other situations too!
It's ridiculous that people are arguing that pictures can't be taken inside a clubbing venue.
I think people are being way too hard on Kavin. Party photographers take hundreds of shots a night and most people don't complain, they even come to expect it. It would also be counterproductive for him to be annoying and "shove the camera in their faces" as if he was a celebrity stalking paparazzo.
Whatever you imagine happened doesn't excuse the jackasses who assaulted him (grabbing someone or something they're holding is assault) and destroying his property. "She had it coming, wearing that short skirt..." He complied with the request that he delete the photo, but these assholes obviously didn't care about that so much as they wanted to project their tough guy personas at the perceived "dis".
Well, it was not apparent to me from reading the article that the venue was hosting an event like that. Like I said, the property destruction isn't justified, but in general most people think it's kinda rude to have their picture taken without asking.
wtf antiboy - what did I say that makes me an asshole? That I mocked a fool who didn't bother to insure the one thing that earns him his livelihood? I'm not condoning what happened to him for fuck's sake.
So that's what the inside of a 5D looks like!
Good photo of the culprit(s) Sarizzle, maybe that photo should be circulated so that if anyone sees that guy they can dunk his douchebag head in a toilet.
That sucks for Kavin, but hey, it's a legit excuse to upgrade to the MKII.
just wondering what kind of insurance covers a camera damaged when its damaged outside of the home?
like, it wouldn't be homeowners' insurance...
just wondering if anyone knows
But doesn't home insurance cover some items outside of the house, like if you're bike gets stolen? I don't know for sure. What is covered by homeowners' insurance?
Well this story nicely sums up two of the reasons I stay the hell away from events like this: random photographers and drunken hothead douchebags. Ick.
Too bad he was kind enough to delete the photo(s) when he was asked, it would've made it a lot easier to identify the perpetrators (looks like the rest of the photos survived the beating). Is it possible to recover deleted photos on this camera?
Was a comment removed? Perhaps a comment with a link to pics of the wankster's posse?
What? No. No comments on this article have been removed. Are you talking about this one, rek?
... maybe.
atomeyes raises an excellent point.
it's easy to say "he should have had insurance", but what kind of insurance covers the use of your camera at a night club and how easy is it to get? Obviously if it's such common knowledge that he should have been covered, then I feel silly because I don't know myself.
Maybe what Kavin should do (or should have done) is press charges, obviously lots of witnesses....though I suppose any one of them could have called the cops too.
He didn't delete the photos. The thugs took the camera, got frustrated with trying to figure out how to delete the photos, and then smashed the camera. The memory card somehow survived being submersed in water and the photos have been retrieved, including one of the culprit.
^^^^ that is EXCELLENT. hopefully torontoist will keep us up to date with what happens next!
Sarizzle - Maybe it's a misquote but the article says "Wong 'showered him with apologies and complied to delete the photo. But he wanted to make sure I never [did] it again, ever.'"
Taking someone's photograph does not warrant assault under any circumstances. It seems like he had permission from the establishment to be there photographing the event anyway, but if he didn't, you go to a club staffer and ask that they tell him to stop. I would have called the police on the spot if I had been assaulted that way.
As for insurance, the cost of insuring portable camera gear (like insuring laptops) is incredibly expensive, and almost as much as the camera gear itself. However, any personal insurance held by the ones who assaulted the photographer (if they have it) should cover the cost of the equipment if the photographer sues them, in the same way it handles other personal lawsuits, like your dog biting someone. And then there is the club's insurance, if they knew about the attack and failed to stop it.
^^ u would've called the cops? LOL... where are you from? Trenton? B real people. Sure he had permission from the club to take pictures, OF THE CLUB. Last I checked, individuals ARE NOT the property of the club, despite them being inside the club (unless it's the clubs cameras taking pictures for security reasons). I have a few friends who are club photographers at some of Toronto's biggest clubs, and they always ask the person for their permission to take a picture, unless it's from a distance. This seems like it was at a pretty close range since they took the camera from him. I feel sorry for such a nice camera to have been damaged and destroyed the way it did, but when someone says F$#% off and don't take my picture, it would be very unwise to go ahead anyway. Most of you sound like out of towners who think that security or the cops would bother to go through all that hassle just to rescue a camera. I can almost guarantee he will spend more of his $$ and resources trying to take this person to small claims, than is worth it. You have to know when to fold them my friend, count your losses and move on.
Yes, if someone assaulted me and smashed my camera, I would have called the cops and pressed charges. That's what the cops are for.
Clubs patrons have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and are subject to whatever rules and policies the club has (so long as they don't violate the Charter). Furthermore the Charter defends the right of people to express themselves through photography except in security situations and in cases of criminal voyeurism or other criminal activity. And on top of that, privacy rules only come into play if release forms are signed, and in that case the photographer or agency is only responsible for securing the document and the information contained within. In Ontario the Privacy Act does not provide subjects the protection from unwanted commercial use of photographs.
The only people in a club with legal authority to tell you not to take a picture are the owners, people working on their behalf, and the police.
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php
Note points 2, 3, 6 under Recap/Myths Dispelled.
^^ I'm sure all this info. still wouldn't of been enough to prevent this photographer from having his camera destroyed. You can recite all the laws you want, but when someone's obviously not concerned about being reasonable, that's where common sense comes into play. He said he offered to delete the picture, but by then it was probably too late. Bottom line, use discretion and common sense in situations where you think someone may not react in a manner that's acceptable to you. Just because you're someone who upholds the law, don't assume that in a large city like Toronto (especially in certain areas) everyone else does too.
You missed the point. The law is on Kavin's side on all accounts; in defending his right to take the pictures, and having his losses redressed in a court of law, regardless of the attitude, awareness and intelligence of the morons who smashed his camera.
Rek - No misquote. He complied to delete the photos, yes, and was fully willing to do so, but the guys took the camera from him and wanted to do it themselves. When they couldn't figure it out, they decided to smash the camera. What logic! So, the photos were still on the card, including the photo of the culprit!
Well, at least now he has a really good excuse to get the Canon 5D MkII.
"what kind of insurance covers the use of your camera at a night club and how easy is it to get? Obviously if it's such common knowledge that he should have been covered, then I feel silly because I don't know myself."
spleen (32)
Just because you know nothing about insurance on personal belongings doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Did you ever consider that photojournalists have been in war zones for decades?A wee bit more intense than a bunch of tight jeansed hipsters hopping around a nouveau Parkdale club. I highly doubt their cameras aren't insured.
"the cost of insuring portable camera gear (like insuring laptops) is incredibly expensive, and almost as much as the camera gear itself. "
Marc Lostracco[36]
You have got to be kidding. What s this based on?
Sarizzle - I took that to mean he had deleted it.
Perhaps someone could contact Elio Barbati at Cooks ISI Insurance, who apparently do insurance for professional photographers.
ebarbati at nacora-can dot com
That way you could find out what it would cost, or perhaps Marc knows because he has it and is about to divulge just how much he spends on insurance for the flashy clicky picture thingies he gots.
El Zorro...what do you mean by "certain areas"? From the accounts, the photographer used common sense and was courteous and got a ruined piece of equipment for his trouble. I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
how did this start an argument about insurance? you're blaming this dude for not insuring a camera? hahaha
go down to the police station with witnesses and pictures and fill out a police report, let them investigate. start snitching! clean up parkdale!
On one hand, it's a shame that this fellow got assaulted by a bunch of idiotic thugs. On the other, I simply can't condone furthering the cause of obsessively documenting the nightlife of Parkdale hipsters. Therefore, I will not be attending at this particular fundraiser.
Is there any way we can donate to get him to start a new hobby? Model railroads are pretty nifty, for example. You'll be the coolest kid on the block! :D
insurance information update
the good news is that this story made me freak out a bit about my gf's equipment. she's asked to take pictures at various events. and at events, there is booze. and with booze commeth stupidity.
i called my insurer and this is what they told me:
i/we are covered up to $1million for household property. her camera is kind of/sort of part of my household property.
but here's the catch: for home self-employment, we are only covered for up to $6000. in Kavin's case, if he were my spouse (*shudder!*), his camera would just barely be covered. but let's say he had a wicked lens that was smashed up as well, and the total damage was $10K - he wouldn't be covered for the $4000 balance.
the only thing he would be able to do is claim he uses his camera for pleasure the majority of the time - like a 70:30 personal:work ratio. then an insurance adjuster would probably let him file under personal vs self-employment.
otherwise, he would have to seek self-employment/professional insurance which, i would guess, is kind of pricey.
Not to mention the deductible, which is usually at least $500.
I find it hilarious when people type paragraphs about things they don't have any real knowledge about.
And yes, continue the 'parkdale hipster' documentary spree. Pictures of the 905'er jock barbie-ken kids make me snore. Loud.
Why all the concern for this guys private property?
It`s only his property, they should have just spray painted it.
word glasswater