This post is part of our Hottest Products of 2007 feature. Also check out our other Hottest Products of 2007 posts and let us know which product you think is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

In one pocket, perhaps you have your camera, which takes great, high-resolution shots. Maybe it was even one of 2005's hottest products.

In the other pocket is your cell phone. The photos it takes are low res, but you don't have to upload them to your computer before sharing them with friends.

The Nikon Coolpix S51c is one of our hottest products of 2007 because it captures the best of both worlds. As a camera, it offers 8.1 megapixel resolution, which will stand up to coffee-table sized prints, in an elegant case that fits neatly in your shirt pocket.

I'm fascinated by the recent attempt of Australia's Virgin Mobile to apply the internet's unruly, free-for-all mindset on the real bricks and mortar world. If you missed it, Virgin used royalty-free images from Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO)'s photo-hosting site Flickr in a print ad campaign, and subsequently faces some courtroom headaches.

Now comes the equally engaging inverse of that case -- a situation that could be woven only on the web. Popular technology blog TechCrunch has been threatened with litigation seeking $1.5 million, accused of misappropriating this professional photo of Ashton Kutcher, the actor and host of MTV's Punk'd.

What's the evidence? This Google search, apparently. Go ahead -- click the search. Assuming Google hasn't switched things around on us, the, uh, dreamy beefcake shot in question should show up at the top, promoting Google (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s image search (by the way, when did the great Googly Moogly start returning "Extra Large Images"? I gotta keep up).

If you click on Ashton's shiny, hairless torso, you'll be taken to this TechCrunch post, regarding the voice-over-IP gizmo Ooma (bewilderingly, Demi Moore's main man-boy is Ooma's creative director). Clicking on a Google image-search result typically takes you to the web page where you can see the picture in context.

Damning evidence? Here's where it gets interesting, at least for those of us whose job duties include ritual prayers to Google -- TechCrunch never actually used the photo. What has the photographer's agency all litigation-happy actually stems from Google's rocket science.

Apparently, a sass-talking TechCrunch reader, in responding to the Ooma post, included a link to the offending photo of Kutcher -- just a link, mind you, not the image itself. In indexing the TechCrunch post, Google's search math processed the linked image and associated it with the TechCrunch post (the ones and zeros at work are somewhat related to Google bombing -- if you're unfamiliar, here's a rundown of the most notorious incident thereof).

The photographer's agency had best walk away from this one -- it has no case. Or maybe Ashton's really Punk'ng TechCrunch, and this is all a brilliant promotion as part of his duties as Ooma's creative director. After all, had you heard about Ooma before?

UPDATE: It figures -- the Google search now links Kutcher's photo to this Yahoo! Answers page -- I guess it's their headache now. Learn more at TechCrunch's post.

I had a notion once to start a guerrilla marketing company, offering to destroy competing brands by dressing the ugliest, most loathsome people I could find in that competing brand's product.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that Dean Cain (Superboy) or G.W. Bush (Superpresidenter guy) fall into that category, but Crocs Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX) has to be a little concerned when the brand shows up on C-list actors and unpopular politicians.

This caused me to jot down a list of Crocs-killers -- people who, by adopting the footwear, could trash the brand. In no particular order --

• Kim Il Jong
• Larry King
• Ziggy
• Mike Tyson
• Osama bin Laden (only in U.S., however)
• Draco Malfoy
• Joan Rivers
• Al Gore
• Tom Barlow (if you knew me, you'd understand.)

There's a reason trendy nightclubs have doormen to weed out us dweebs. Perhaps Crocs should consider the same.

The year has been tough for tech IPOs, that is, until recently. Some of the blow-out offerings include DivX and Riverbed.

Today there was another tech deal: Shutterfly. True, the stock increased only 3.7%. But, then again, the stock was priced at the top of its $13-$15 range.

Shutterfly was founded in April 1999 and even has a dot-com legend as its Chairman, Jim Clark. He founded Netscape, Healtheon/Web MD Corp, and Silicon Graphics.

As for Shutterfly, it is a Web-based consumer property that allows users to share, print and preserve their pictures. It is also possible to turn these pictures into physical photos and even books.

But unlike many dot-coms, this one has morphed into a real business. Over the past year, sales have been roughly $108 million. In fact, revenues are growing at 30%+.

There are certainly risks. After all, the company has lost money this year. Also, the current valuation is hefty – at 3X revenues.

Yet, with the Christmas season coming, there is probably some momentum left in this stock. But definitely do not expect a smooth ride.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.

I think it is generally recognized that the Web 2.0 world loves flickr, with its viral, community-focused fun and its AJAXerrific cool. But a recent report from Hitwise shows that flickr is a distant sixth in terms of market share, at just less than 6%, beaten handily by 44% dominator PhotoBucket (the company's competitive strategy: be a storage backend for users who wish to post photos to MySpace), and even by the far less sexy service of flickr's parent, Yahoo! Photos, at 18% (in second place). Webshots Community, Kodakgallery.com (formerly Ofoto.com), and ImageShack all rank ahead of flickr in terms of market share.

There's a story here, that flickr may seem cool but it's not even a big deal in the traffic big dogs. I don't know if I buy it. LeAnn Prescott, who blogs the market share charts, notes the MySpace strategy of PhotoBucket and mentions that three photo sharing sites in the top 10 are getting the vast majority of their traffic from the teen-centric social network, including Imageshack and Slide.

It's all about the growth of the platform, and the longevity of the business strategy. As a hard-core photo enthusiast who lives and breathes Web 2.0, I've used most of the non-MySpace services. I did Webshots Community, then I switched to Ofoto, and when Kodak bought it I was using Yahoo! Pictures and my own web site. And then I discovered flickr. Now I have 1,859 photos uploaded there. I think that I -- an early adopter who has already convinced any number of friends, family, and colleagues to switch to flickr -- am a fair indicator that the prospects for flickr are good. I have to wonder if PhotoBucket and others who rely so much on one source of traffic.

There it is: the real question. Is that one source a long-term play? Will MySpace still be rocking and rolling in three, five, 10 years? I doubt it. I'd put my money on the technology and monetization potential of flickr anyday.