They have the power to kick people out. What they don't have is a proper system in place to do much of anything for anyone.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Group wants anti-harassment policy at Comic-Con
- Thread starter Exile20
- Start date
- Status
They have the power to kick people out. What they don't have is a proper system in place to do much of anything for anyone.
So the rule would be "no rude photos" ? How exactly does that work?
If a girl bends over to sign something and you run over with your phone. Is it really so hard to imagine? No one expects perfect enforcement or reporting, but everyone who has been to a convention has seen people do this kind of stuff.
Honestly it sounds like more of this moronic "oh well you can't prevent it 100% so best not try!" nonsense.
Probably to earn a few bucks? Put some food in their mouths? Or maybe they like the attention? Who cares. People need to mind their own damn business and stop complaining about what others do with their bodies.
BumblebeeCody
Member
It shouldn't have to be. It should just be "be a decent human being you fuckin' wanker".
Yeah but then you get those incredibly unfunny douchebags on YouTube who make videos based entirely on the subject matter.
"Look I'm unfunny popular YouTuber at Comic-con, let's get in peoples face and talk about boobs".
Omegasquash
Member
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone acted like that, but assholes are going to be shitty.
Oppo
Member
she has no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. it is slimy as fuck of course, yes. but to institute a policy on what is a distasteful photo given the nature of these conventions and many of the cosplays is crazy.
You've said it's crazy. You haven't offered an explanation as to why it's crazy.
No reasonable expectation of privacy? This isn't in public. The convention can institute a policy to prevent such a thing and, with the rule or rules codified, people could be reported and reprimanded or caught by staff and reprimanded.
I think even without any kind of radical changes to policy, this thread has come up with some no nonsense ways to cut down on harassment.
1). Better communication of what the con considers unacceptable.
2). Better signage to state clearly what is unacceptable.
3). Better enforcement of those policies.
1). Better communication of what the con considers unacceptable.
2). Better signage to state clearly what is unacceptable.
3). Better enforcement of those policies.
Basically it comes down to this because, at the end of the day, you really have two types of offenders here:
- Socially dysfunctional and unable to comprehend that what they're doing is wrong.
- Malicious creepers who understand that it's wrong and take creep shots and cop feels anyway.
stufte
Member
Pretty much this.
There unfortunately needs to be an explicit explanation of what is unacceptable.
I mean, they have to explicity TELL people at quakecon to wear deodorant, ffs.
While I like that standup, it's not applicable to this situation.
John Kowalski
Banned
No candids for anything but journalistic or documentarian purposes, portraits have to be requested beforehand, and all photos must be deleted if such is requested by anyone who has been photographed. Hire a specialist on photography ethics and law that can discern genres and social and artistic merit. That would be a nice start.
No it's not, most photography laws around the world restricting where, how, and who you can shoot are motivated first and foremost by a desire from people not to be photographed in less than favorable ways.
Omegasquash
Member
Wat.
This is insane. You think a candid photo is invasion of privacy but somehow you want to review my phone/camera files? Some arbitrary judge of artistic merit? Are you serious right now? How the hell would you enforce this in a 100,000 person con?
Yeah I am going to stick with get over it.
Oppo
Member
because you would have to make an on the spot judgment on every single photo taken at the event, which is of course impossible. especially with net connected cameras.
Big public events such as sporting events are, as far as I know, considered public events. Even if they are on private property.
A cop (in Canada at least) cannot even ask you to delete files on your camera, it may be different in the US.
I wouldn't let one dumbass discredit the entire issue, though. Especially when accounts like this are pretty commonplace:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123017359&postcount=135
Yes (I'd also include, per Scalzi here, that what to do in cases of harassment be made very clear). This is both obvious and straightforward and there doesn't seem to be much reason to oppose any of this. The people nervous about getting unfairly punished under unclear standards will know exactly what those standards are, and the people who are worried about being harassed will know exactly what to do in cases of harassment.
This as well. The great thing is that if incidents from people who are simply socially awkward decrease due to better communication of what's considered harassment, it will become much easier to go after the malicious people.
Why wouldn't they have? This has been an ongoing issue across many conventions, much discussed over the last few years, and loads of people have communicated their dissatisfaction directly to the organizers of the conventions whose responses they weren't satisfied with.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I don't think you can get kicked out of Comic-Con for anything short of being a belligerent drunk.
Is this real life?
LostCaress
Member
Most people (and the law in most places) wouldn't agree with me, but I still believe you shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of people, even in public, unless they're public figures or not part of the focus of the photo.
When I see a hot girl in public, I'll look at her, but I won't look back, and taking a picture of her is simply creepy.
When I see a hot girl in public, I'll look at her, but I won't look back, and taking a picture of her is simply creepy.
I've only been to a couple of cons, but one of them was big (Dragon*Con) and I totally believe the "please wear deodorant" thing, sadly enough.
Con funk is a thing.
Events on private property are obviously not in public. I have no idea under what circumstances you're referring to when you say a cop cannot ask you to delete photos. In public, police cannot make you delete pictures in the US since they're protected speech. Again though, conventions and sports stadiums are private property. You can be ejected from either for doing things that would be protected in public spaces.
Omegasquash
Member
I've experienced the smell, and it ain't pretty, but I just assumed it was a one time thing (at PAX east, 2012, I believe).
Those concerns sound like a grey areas that needs to better defined.
I can see the problem with this scenario being similar to an upskirt-shot:
But if the girl isn't bending over and people are still taking her pics in a decent manner without her consent then it still goes under unwillingly photographed.
She deleted the message.
I think its just about people being decent, and not encroaching on people's private space. I mean you have girls wearing this and are more than willing to get a picture of them taken as long as you are polite and ask. So why be a dick and start groping them.[
Let's take those two girls for example.
I can see it being difficult to figure out exactly who is taking indecent photos (ex. focus on ass or breasts) of girls who are scantly dressed since can be taken without them bending over.
Then you have this statement from the article which is also true:
This seems like a situation where you have to take an extreme stance (dress codes, limiting or banning certain photography, etc.) that will effect people who mean well in these cons.
John Kowalski
Banned
Hum, no it isn't? I'm assuming this con is largely happening on private locations? If that is the case then the entity in charge of that location is free to restrict photography and to act on those restrictions. And yes, the right to publicity is paramount to your right to maintain your photos private. Artistic merit is an important discriminator because the freedom to photograph publicly in the US is strongly influenced by photography's right to artistic and speech freedoms, which can themselves be argued to be more important than the right to publicity.
And you don't enforce it, you inform everyone that they are in their right not to be photographed and that any nonconforming individuals should be introduced to the responsible authorities.
Better than nothing at all.
What part of my post are you objecting to?
Omegasquash
Member
I could see this sort of thing getting out of control, but what about asking attendees to call out creeps when they see it? Confronting and embarrassing these people might help to cut down occurrences.
It might also bring on the white knight crowd too, but still.
It might also bring on the white knight crowd too, but still.
Its arbitrary. Can I review your cosplay and kick you out of the convention if I find it without artistic merit? If a convention or wherever wanted to enforce these kind of crazy rules you know what I would do? NOT GO THERE.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yea but I bet they were being really nice about it, complimenting how pretty she was as they all showed off their custom fedoras. Then when she got creeped out and left they shit on her for not putting out after they complimented her button.
That's how I envisioned it in my head.
I feel like the photography thing is also pretty straightforward.
Some people like to be photographed or at least don't mind being photographed.
Some people don't like to be photographed (or want a say over how they are photographed).
It's been argued in this thread that if you put on a costume you must want to be photographed, but that's pretty clearly not true. We have plenty of counterexamples. So if wearing a costume isn't implicit consent, how can we distinguish between the two groups of people? Well, the easiest solution is to simply ask for explicit consent before taking a picture. The people who are cool with it will say yes, the people who aren't will say no. Easy peasy.
Assuming you are an ordinary human being who gives moral weight to the preferences of other people, this is the best solution all around. You won't inadvertently take photos of people who would prefer you not to do so, they won't feel harassed, and all it requires is a modicum of effort in asking before doing.
Promoting this as a convention-wide standard of behavior would be a good starting point.
Some people like to be photographed or at least don't mind being photographed.
Some people don't like to be photographed (or want a say over how they are photographed).
It's been argued in this thread that if you put on a costume you must want to be photographed, but that's pretty clearly not true. We have plenty of counterexamples. So if wearing a costume isn't implicit consent, how can we distinguish between the two groups of people? Well, the easiest solution is to simply ask for explicit consent before taking a picture. The people who are cool with it will say yes, the people who aren't will say no. Easy peasy.
Assuming you are an ordinary human being who gives moral weight to the preferences of other people, this is the best solution all around. You won't inadvertently take photos of people who would prefer you not to do so, they won't feel harassed, and all it requires is a modicum of effort in asking before doing.
Promoting this as a convention-wide standard of behavior would be a good starting point.
I wasn't obecting to it.
Not really. It's pretty easy to see when a cosplayer is interacting with someone who has asked permission and is posing for them, and when someone is just snapping unasked for candids from behind. You're always going to get a few add-ons when posing, as people will take shots alongside the person who asked to take shots, which is a tad rude, but it's not hard to notice that some dude is snapping shots of a cosplaying girl's ass while she's standing around talking or in line for something.
Frankly one of the main ways to curb this behavior is for people like me, who notice such things, to speak up and make it clear that people other than the cosplayers are uncool with that behavior, which is something I have been sadly lax about. On one hand it's not con-goers' place to police other con-goers, but at this point the problem is so widespread and these events are so huge that the community is going to have to police itself to some degree. If it's unfeasible to eliminate this behavior via security procedures alone, maybe combining it with some good old fashioned peer pressure will help more.
Banning all photography seems extremely overbroad. If Comic-Con had an explicit policy for what constitutes harassment, and a method for attempting to enforce it, it could reduce a lot of the negative behavior. It would also educate attendees who wrongly think they are allowed to photograph anyone. I'm gonna guess that most people who dress up want to have pictures taken, but they want control when, where, and by whom, which is all reasonable. So post signs indicating that you must ask permission to take photos of other people, and create a means to punish violators. The idea of an area you can go to where photography is permitted in general is also a good idea.
As it stands, the policy appears woefully inadequate.
As it stands, the policy appears woefully inadequate.
John Kowalski
Banned
Ok, now you're just being obtuse. You're free not to go. I don't see why you think i'd care. I don't mean to say that artistic merit should be a point of defense, but that it's necessary to have someone who understands the concept and who is capable of dealing with the legal realities of art and photography. Clearly there needs to be some sort of equilibrium between protecting the con attendees from exploitative photography and to protect photographers to be able to do their jobs properly.
What if I don't want posed photos?
"Can I take a candid?"
stufte
Member
Not sure that's how candids work. Maybe take it then review the photo with the person?
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
That's not what I was implying
I'm just saying some of the same cosplayers who want to play as slave Leia do it for the cosplay factor while other girls try to over-sexualize the costume which leads to all these harassment towards all of them
This is a what if scenario
One year a slave Leia is very forthcoming, lets people take provocative positions of her, isn't very worried about being grabbed, touched, groped
Then the same people see another slave Leia and think it's A OK to do the same thing cause hey if one Leia allowed it, why not this one too!
Not everyone is open/free like others, just cause they wear the same costumes, doesn't give them the right to invade their space and use the good ol "Hey that other person let us do it!"
Or go with the earlier suggestion of having a designated area where photography is presumed to be ok without directly asking.
These aren't insurmountable problems.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Convention spaces are not typically privately owned; in the case in question, the Convention Center here in San Diego is publically owned, as are all of our stadia.
Still seems vague. Better to spell out it as no pictures without explicit consent of the subject.
John Kowalski
Banned
lol, you're funny
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked