Convention Photos of Writers, Artists, Filkers, Fans Now On the Web
Michael Kube-McDowell
I've attended more than a hundred SF conventions over the last fifteen
years, and I was rarely without a camera. In order to share some
highlights of my convention photo album with the community, I've added
a feature to my Web site called "K-Mac's Con Log: Surveillance
Photography From SF Fandom, 1982-Present." The first batch of photos
are described below (and there are many more to come). To browse
through the con log, point your browser at:
http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac
Greg Bear
Writer Greg Bear (Blood Music) at L.A. Con II, September 1984,
Anaheim CA. Also in photo: Octavia Butler. (376x360x16M - 54K)
Marion Zimmer Bradley
Writer Marion Zimmer Bradley (The Mists of Avalon) at
InConJunction V, July 1985, Indianapolis IN. (292x360x16M - 38K)
Octavia Butler
Writer Octavia Butler (Bloodchild) at the Norwescon Alternacon,
March 1987, Seattle/Tacoma WA. (280x460x16M - 73K)
Ru Emerson & Brian Thomsen
Writer Ru Emerson (To the Haunted Mountains) and TSR editor Brian
Thomsen at the Norweson Alternacon, March 1987, Seattle/Tacoma WA.
(398x340x16M -51K)
Frank Kelly Freas
Artist Frank Kelly Freas at Lone Star Con (1985 NASFiC), August
1985, Austiin TX. (390x370x16M - 66K)
InConJunction IV West Caftan Contest
Contestant Rose Carlson in the InConJunction IV Wet Caftan
Contest, July 1984, Indianapolis IN. (438x355x16M - 64K)
InConJunction V Wet Caftan Contest
Contestant Laura Bodine in the Last Annual InConJunction Wet
Caftan Contest, July 1985, Indianapolis IN. (380x460x16M - 54K)
L.A. Con II Hall Costume
A striking Elfquest hall costume spotted in the dealer's room of
the 1984 Worldcon in Anaheim. If you know the wearer's name, please
E-mail me. (284x470x16M - 49K)
David & Marilyn Lunde
New Wave writer and poet David Lunde and his wife Marilyn at the
Third Conference on the Fantastic, May 1982, Boca Raton FL.
(280x465x16M - 48K)
Bill Maraschiello
Filker Bill "Many-Instruments" Maraschiello in concert at Marcon
XIX, May 1984, Columbus OH. (332x440x16M - 56K)
Dave Smeds & Karen Joy Fowler
Writer Dave Smeds (The Schemes of Dragons) and writer Karen Joy
Fowler (Artificial Things) at the Norwescon Alternacon, March 1987,
Seattle/Tacoma WA. (400x335x16M - 65K)
L. Neil Smith
Writer L. Neil Smith (The Nagasaki Vector) at the Third
Conference on the Fantastic, May 1982, Boca Raton FL. (280x460x16M -
68K)
Melinda Snodgrass and Walter Jon Williams
Writer Melinda Snodgrass (Circuit) and writer Walter Jon Williams
(City On Fire) at Lone Star Con.
Gene Wolfe
Writer Gene Wolfe (Soldier of the Mist) at InConJunction IV, July
1984, Indianapolis IN. Also in photo: Timothy Zahn, Paul O. Williams.
(428x370x16M - 54K)
Kathleen Woodbury
Writer and workshop leader Kathleen Woodbury at the Norwescon
Alternacon, March 1987, Seattle/Tacoma WA. (280x480x16M - 72K)
---] Michael Paul McDowell, writing as Michael P. Kube-McDowell [---
---] Author of THE QUIET POOLS and STAR WARS: BEFORE THE STORM [---
---] For more info: http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac [---
---] *** NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: K-...@sff.net *** [---
Mean Green Dancing Machine
[posted and e-mailed]
In article <33511482...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I've attended more than a hundred SF conventions over the last fifteen
>years, and I was rarely without a camera. In order to share some
>highlights of my convention photo album with the community, I've added
>a feature to my Web site called "K-Mac's Con Log: Surveillance
>Photography From SF Fandom, 1982-Present."
It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
you remove the photos until you get permission.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
gfarber: Thank God, or the belief system of your choice.
pddb: Does human perversity count as a belief system?
Michael Kube-McDowell
>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
>you remove the photos until you get permission.
>--
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
With respect, I believe you're mistaken on both counts.
Does Charles N. Brown ask permission before publishing con photos in
LOCUS, or Andrew Porter before publishing con photos in SCIENCE
FICTION CHRONICLE? I've certainly never been asked for -my- permission
on the occasions when my photo appeared there or elsewhere.
Does your local newspaper ask permission before publishing photos
taken at public events? In the three years I worked as a
writer-photographer for an Indiana newspaper, I was asked to secure
identifications whenever possible for the many photos I had published,
but never permissions.
Since my Web site is and always has been completely free, and the
photos are not being used in advertising or other commercial purposes,
I'm not sure where you see a problem. (In fact, some of the subjects
have already seen their photos, which were posted a short time ago on
two commercial services and the SFF Net private news server--and none
of them saw a problem, either. In fact, the response was quite
positive.)
Could you elaborate on the basis for your concerns?
Best,
K-Mac
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <33532dd2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:45:21 GMT, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
>Machine) wrote:
>>
>>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
>>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
>>you remove the photos until you get permission.
>
<shrug> I'm simply reporting a rather terse summary of the discussions
I've seen on Usenet.
Richard Brandt
Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
>
> In article <33532dd2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:45:21 GMT, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
> >Machine) wrote:
> >>
> >>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
> >>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
> >>you remove the photos until you get permission.
> >
> >Could you elaborate on the basis for your concerns?
>
> <shrug> I'm simply reporting a rather terse summary of the discussions
> I've seen on Usenet.
Well, I'm with Mike. That's pretty much the silliest thing I've ever
heard. When I worked in television news, we certainly never had to get
permission from any of the hundreds of people attending a public event
to
use their picture on the air. Not to mention, most "snapshots" that are
taken of people are done with their explicit or implicit permission in
the
first place. Regardless, I very really truly heavily sincerely doubt
that it
"may possibly be illegal" to reproduce a photograph you took of someone
appearing at a public event. (Exceptions noted for public performances
of
music or theater for which photography and reproduction rights have
*not*
been granted.)
Usenet, like fanzines, is the source of all knowledge, but also of a
hell of a lot of misinformation.
--
============================================================
http://rgfn.epcc.edu/users/af541/virtual.htm
"Downtown Yuma was ailing. It resembled SimCity with a chimp
at the controls." -- Mark Frauenfelder
John Moreno
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
] In article <33532dd2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
] Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
] >On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:45:21 GMT, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
] >Machine) wrote:
] >>
] >>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to
] >>post pictures of other people without explicit permission. I
] >>suggest that you remove the photos until you get permission.
] >
] >Could you elaborate on the basis for your concerns?
]
] <shrug> I'm simply reporting a rather terse summary of the
] discussions I've seen on Usenet.
You need to listen a little more closely - the issue with posting
pictures on the internet is indeed a copyright issue. But this has very
little to do with privacy and you can legally post photos that you have
taken of anybody. But you can't post copyrighted cover photo's or the
bio photo's that are sometimes in/on the back of the book.
It is illegal to take a cover pict, say by Vallejo, and then put it up
on your web page without getting his permission. And he might even be
able to win a substantial lawsuit if you did so.
--
John Moreno
Philb
In article <aahzE8L...@netcom.com>, Mean Green Dancing Machine
<aa...@netcom.com> writes
>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
>you remove the photos until you get permission.
photographer. Unless you know different?
Phil.
--
Electronic Publishing Consultant: CD-ROM, Networking, Internet, WWW.
Author: Information Science, CD-ROM, Networking, Internet.
Trainer: CD-ROM, Internet, Web Page design, Training.
http://www.philb.com/ ***New*** http://www.philb.com/
P Nielsen Hayden
Richard Brandt <rsbr...@cris.com> wrote in article
<335166...@cris.com>...
> I'm with Mike. That's pretty much the silliest thing I've ever
> heard. When I worked in television news, we certainly never had to get
> permission from any of the hundreds of people attending a public event
> to use their picture on the air. Not to mention, most "snapshots" that
> are taken of people are done with their explicit or implicit permission
in
> the first place. Regardless, I very really truly heavily sincerely doubt
> that it "may possibly be illegal" to reproduce a photograph you took of
> someone appearing at a public event. (Exceptions noted for public
> performances of music or theater for which photography and reproduction
> rights have *not* been granted.)
Richard Brandt is entirely correct; Aahz is wrong. Moreover, fans have
been publishing collections of con snapshots for as long as there have been
cons. I have fanzines dating back to thje 1940s featuring convention
photos. I doubt very much that more than a tiny fraction of these appeared
with the explicit permission of the subjects.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Brandon Ray
In note <aahzE8L...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
>In article <33532dd2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:45:21 GMT, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>Machine) wrote:
>>>
>>>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
>>>you remove the photos until you get permission.
>>
>
><shrug> I'm simply reporting a rather terse summary of the discussions
>I've seen on Usenet.
> --- Aahz (@netcom.com)
>
Well, it is not an entirely correct summary. It depends on the circumstances
under which the photo was taken, but in general, the copyright of a photograph
(or other verbatim recording, such as a videotape or an audio tape) belongs to
the person who made the recording. If the photograph (in this instance) is
taken in a public place (such as on a public street, in a shopping mall, etc)
I don't THINK the subject of the photo would have much of a leg to stand on if
they didn't like where you published. Now if you surreptitiously photographed
someone in their bath, that's another matter...
>Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
>Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
>
>gfarber: Thank God, or the belief system of your choice.
>pddb: Does human perversity count as a belief system?
---
******************************************************************************
"The message is clear: on THE X-FILES, a woman who is co-opted by the
patriarchal order gets turned into a puddle of goo."
--Rhonda Wilcox & J.P. Williams
"'What Do You Think?': The X-Files,
Liminality, and Gender Pleasure"
******************************************************************************
Michael J. Lowrey
> That's pretty much the silliest thing I've ever
> heard. When I worked in television news, we certainly never had to get
> permission from any of the hundreds of people attending a public event
> to
> use their picture on the air. Not to mention, most "snapshots" that are
> taken of people are done with their explicit or implicit permission in
> the
> first place. Regardless, I very really truly heavily sincerely doubt
> that it
> "may possibly be illegal" to reproduce a photograph you took of someone
> appearing at a public event. (Exceptions noted for public performances
> of
> music or theater for which photography and reproduction rights have
> *not*
> been granted.)
The only possible exception might be a person who has a fiduciary interest
in their own image: a big-name actor, something like that. Even that
feels kind of iffy.
--
Sunrise Book & Software Reviews
1847 N. 2d Str.
Milwaukee, WI 53212-3760
David Power
Brandon Ray <Pub...@panda.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>Well, it is not an entirely correct summary. It depends on the circumstances
>under which the photo was taken, but in general, the copyright of a photograph
>(or other verbatim recording, such as a videotape or an audio tape) belongs to
>the person who made the recording. If the photograph (in this instance) is
>taken in a public place (such as on a public street, in a shopping mall, etc)
>I don't THINK the subject of the photo would have much of a leg to stand on if
>they didn't like where you published. Now if you surreptitiously photographed
>someone in their bath, that's another matter...
>
In the UK, at least one video tape has been published which basically featured a
collection of clips from various security cameras in shopping centres, rail
stations, car parks etc. A small number of the clips were funny, but the majority
were basically film of various members of the public being stupid enough to assume
that a dark doorway on a deserted street or an empty car park was a reasonable
place to get to know one another intimately<g>.
attempts to ban the piublication by some of the recogisable victims failed.
It did however, raise the issue of the control such cameras.But as far as I'm
aware it resulted in nothing more than a brief public outcry against the practice.
Dave
Mean Green Dancing Machine
{Yes, I'm following up to myself.}
In article <aahzE8L...@netcom.com>,
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <33532dd2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Michael Kube-McDowell <K-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:45:21 GMT, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
>>Machine) wrote:
>>>
>>>It is generally considered rude (and may possibly be illegal) to post
>>>pictures of other people without explicit permission. I suggest that
>>>you remove the photos until you get permission.
>>
>>Could you elaborate on the basis for your concerns?
>
><shrug> I'm simply reporting a rather terse summary of the discussions
>I've seen on Usenet.
I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've seen
about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's rude to
post pictures without permission.
Granted, this has been more in the context of semi-public events
primarily organized through the Net; however, given the changing
dynamics in both recording media and publishing capabilities, I would
prefer to see caution as the rule. I can be more explicit with examples
if necessary.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Jay Denebeim
In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Your body is in the public domain.
Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
up.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written Marcus L. Rowland <mrow...@ffutures.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[. . .]
: This is discussed in the current New Scientist, an article on the
: legalities of surveillance cameras and related issues. Well worth a look
: if you are interested in public privacy. The article a couple of weeks
: ago on tiny flying camera drones (some of them with miniature ram jets)
: for military use and espionage could also be relevant, since this sort
: of technology usually trickles down to Big Brother wannabees eventually.
There was a fascinating article last week (The NY Times, I think?) on the
fast-moving projects sponsored by the US Dept. of Justice for various
technologies to see guns through clothing at a distance via various forms
of radar, sonar, etc. They appear to be on the verge of deploying this
technology in about two years to various local US police forces. Wait for
the public reaction, and the legal fallout.
[rec.music.filk snipped from followup]
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Stevens R. Miller
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> Richard Brandt <rsbr...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <335166...@cris.com>...
>
> > that it "may possibly be illegal" to reproduce a photograph you took of
> > someone appearing at a public event.
>
Patrick is right. There are loads of laws, both statutory and
decisional, that support privacy and commercial interests in
one's likeness. All of these, however, are trumped by the First
Amendment. One may photograph a public event largely without
fear of legal reprisal. Courtesies grounded in community
standards and practices are another matter, but I can't think of
any that would argue against photos of anyone at a con.
--
WEB PAGE: FINDING A NEW YORK LAWYER | Freedom from fear and want.
http://www.users.interport.net/~lex | Freedom of speech and religion.
(Remove "JUNK" from my address for e-mail. Sorry it's come to this.)
Philb
In article <5itsvs$n...@marvin.deepthot.cary.nc.us>, Jay Denebeim
<dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> writes
>In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
>Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Your body is in the public domain.
>
>Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
>up.
Actually.. taking it to extremes, I wonder if your parents own the
copyright on your body? Maybe they could sue on your behalf?
Martin Glassborow
Of course, if someone asks you to remove a picture of them from your
web-site, it would probably be nice to do so even if you have no legal
obligation to do so.
Spell
Marcus L. Rowland
In article <5it5nk$b...@romeo.logica.co.uk>, David Power
<Pow...@logica.com> writes [re unauthorised use of video images]
>It did however, raise the issue of the control such cameras.But as far as I'm
>aware it resulted in nothing more than a brief public outcry against the
>practice.
This is discussed in the current New Scientist, an article on the
legalities of surveillance cameras and related issues. Well worth a look
if you are interested in public privacy. The article a couple of weeks
ago on tiny flying camera drones (some of them with miniature ram jets)
for military use and espionage could also be relevant, since this sort
of technology usually trickles down to Big Brother wannabees eventually.
--
Marcus L. Rowland
"We are all victims of this slime. They... ...fill our mailboxes with gibberish
that would get them indicted if people had time to press charges"
[Hunter S. Thompson predicts junk e-mail, 1985 (from Generation of Swine)]
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
: In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
: Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >Your body is in the public domain.
: Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
: up.
Being in the public domain doesn't necessarily mean someone wants to
access you. ;-)
Besides, selling you is what your agent is for. If you don't have one,
get one, and don't forget that 10-15%.
Jay Denebeim
In article <5iu9od$s...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.written Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
>: In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
>: Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: >Your body is in the public domain.
>
>: Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
>: up.
>
>Being in the public domain doesn't necessarily mean someone wants to
>access you. ;-)
No, no, Gary, you're inverted....
Robert Sneddon (SEE .SIG TO RE
I might mention that my own con pics are still available on my Web pages
- http://www.ibfs.demon.co.uk/nojay/, although some of the links are
broken due to images having been pulled to make space for other stuff.
I'll get round to updating them sometime soon...
--
*** SPAM BLOCKED ADDRESS *** To reply, remove the string "_nospam_" from
the address above. If you don't, mail will bounce and I'll never see it.
This is done to prevent spammers from junk-emailing me.
Robert (nojay) Sneddon
James D. Keeline
Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
>
> In article <335166...@cris.com>, rsbr...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > That's pretty much the silliest thing I've ever
> > heard. When I worked in television news, we certainly never had to get
> > permission from any of the hundreds of people attending a public event
> > to
> > use their picture on the air. Not to mention, most "snapshots" that are
> > taken of people are done with their explicit or implicit permission in
> > the
> > that it
> > "may possibly be illegal" to reproduce a photograph you took of someone
> > of
> > music or theater for which photography and reproduction rights have
> > *not*
> > been granted.)
>
> The only possible exception might be a person who has a fiduciary interest
> in their own image: a big-name actor, something like that. Even that
> feels kind of iffy.
An interesting and possibly outdated example of the "rights" of an
individual is cited in Everett F. Bleiler's introduction to EIGHT DIME
NOVELS (Dover, 1974) referring to Edward S. Ellis, a prolific author
of thrillers and dime novels inspired by James F. Cooper and popular
sets of history for school children:
"A sampling of these books shows Ellis to have been a fluent popularizer,
without much to say, or any great depth, but a good master of easy
exposition. He obviously took his work seriously, as can be seen by a
very odd lawsuit in which he was concerned. He had written a particularly
low-level thriller under a pseudonym; when a publisher, who held rights to
the work, insisted on republishing the work under the name Ellis, Ellis
attempted to restrain him. Ellis lost the suit, thereby establishing the
legal precedent that an author does not have the right to his own name."
On the other hand, I have heard of authors who have successfully blocked
the publication of private personal letters to individuals.
James
--
=========================================================================
James D. Keeline | The Prince and the Pauper Collectible Children's Books
kee...@adnc.com | 3201 Adams Ave, San Diego, CA 92116-1654
| * (619)283-4380 * fax (619)283-4666 * (800)454-3726 *
| "The Largest Source of Books from YOUR Childhood"
=========================================================================
jk...@watson.ibm.com
Personal opinion:
It's polite to at least give folks a chance to say "Oh, don't post
_that_ one -- it's embarassing enough that you should auction
it for Interfilk instead." <grin> If nothing else, if someone ever posted
a photo of me I'd want to have a chance to review the description
to make sure the context is being correctly reported (and possibly
add to same).
In legal terms, I'd expect this is bound by standard photographic rules:
you can shoot anything, but you need a photographic model's waiver
from the "recognizable individuals" before you can make any kind of
profit from the pic. A good photography book would probably give
a more accurate and useful description of recommended procedures.
The fact that it's electronic rather than ink _shouldn't_ make any
difference. (Which is the basis for most of the objections to the CDA,
but that's a topic for another group.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kesselman, Team OS/2 member (acronym: "We're Staying Topmost!")
Folkies and filkers: More info at http://pages.prodigy.com/keshlam
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.fandom jk...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
[. . .]
: It's polite to at least give folks a chance to say "Oh, don't post
: _that_ one -- it's embarassing enough that you should auction
: it for Interfilk instead." <grin>
"Interfilk": isn't that that elitist, undemocratic fan fund that, unlike
all other fan funds, such as TAFF, DUFF, and GUFF, isn't run by means of a
democratic and open election, but is instead chosen by an elitist group
via a secret and star-chamber-type method?
[extremely evil grin]
[. . . .]
Bruce Baugh
In article <3352B7...@interport.net>, "Stevens R. Miller" <JUN...@interport.net> wrote:
>Amendment. One may photograph a public event largely without
>fear of legal reprisal. Courtesies grounded in community
>standards and practices are another matter, but I can't think of
>any that would argue against photos of anyone at a con.
Right. In some communities - like cypherpunks - there's a general
discouraging of picture-taking. But this is spelled out in the notices
of face-to-face gatherings. SF con pictures seem A-OK to me.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> http://www.kenosis.com
Moderator, comp.os.ms-windows.win95.moderated
List manager, Christlib, Christian/libertarian mailing list
Host, new sf by S.M. Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Todd VerBeek, gwm
My pal Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> said:
>In article <5itsvs$n...@marvin.deepthot.cary.nc.us>, Jay Denebeim
><dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> writes
>>In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
>>Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Your body is in the public domain.
>>
>>Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
>>up.
>Umm.. maybe they're asserting their moral rights? (or something anyway).
>
>Actually.. taking it to extremes, I wonder if your parents own the
>copyright on your body? Maybe they could sue on your behalf?
Your parents could then sue =you= if you had yourself cloned. Procreation
(creating derivative works) would also be a bit dodgy.
Cheers, Todd
------
For up-to-date info about my love Andy's recovery from
his brain aneurysm, see http://verbeekt.cit.hope.edu/Andy/
Phil Bradley
In article <33536cc2...@198.110.98.23>, "Todd VerBeek, gwm"
<ver...@hope.edu> writes
>My pal Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> said:
>>Actually.. taking it to extremes, I wonder if your parents own the
>>copyright on your body? Maybe they could sue on your behalf?
>
>Your parents could then sue =you= if you had yourself cloned. Procreation
>(creating derivative works) would also be a bit dodgy.
infringement, they might need to have me tattoed with a (c)Mr&Mrs
Bradley on my forehead or something..
Jay Denebeim
In article <TY+EUBAl...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
Phil Bradley <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <33536cc2...@198.110.98.23>, "Todd VerBeek, gwm"
><ver...@hope.edu> writes
>>My pal Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> said:
>>>Actually.. taking it to extremes, I wonder if your parents own the
>>>copyright on your body? Maybe they could sue on your behalf?
>>
>>Your parents could then sue =you= if you had yourself cloned. Procreation
>>(creating derivative works) would also be a bit dodgy.
>True.. though to be certain that they could claim copyright
>infringement, they might need to have me tattoed with a (c)Mr&Mrs
>Bradley on my forehead or something..
Well, I don't have to worry about this, I was adopted, so I'd say my
parents gave up their copyright.
David E Romm
In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
Dancing Machine) wrote:
> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've seen
> about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's rude to
> post pictures without permission.
And those people were wrong.
A lot depends, of course on circumstance. If you're at a con, someone can
merrily snap away, posting said pics. If you're in the can, it's a
different story.
After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the sayso
ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing otherwise
untoward about the pic, then probably not. If it's a picture that the
poster thinks is funny but someone finds embarrassing, then the pic should
probably be removed. But maybe not.
Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
property. The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
everyone in the shot.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
visi.com web site coming soon: Change all Winternet links, please
"I fell on my knees and cried and cried, and that's when those security guards threw us out." -- Weird Al, "The Biggest Ball of Twine in Minnesota"
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.fandom Bruce Baugh <br...@phix.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Right. In some communities - like cypherpunks - there's a general
: of face-to-face gatherings. SF con pictures seem A-OK to me.
There's certainly no Sacred Tradition against publishing pictures of fans
and pros -- rather the reverse. Still, if asked my personal preference:
while I'm egotistic enough to enjoy seeing a decent picture of myself in
distribution, I always appreciate being asked first before said photo is
published. There are some photos I am, or would be, unenthused about
seeing distributed widely. Y'know, those red-eyed, hanging upside-down,
covered in vaseline ones, where my stomach bulges so, while my nose-hair
is highlighted. Insufficiently, that is.
So I would not back up Aahz's overly-stiff reprimand, but I would agree
that it is nice and polite to ask before posting or publishing pictures,
when possible, even if it is not mandatory under any custom.
[rec.music.filk removed from followup]
John Moreno
Jay Denebeim <dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us> wrote:
] Phil Bradley <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
] >"Todd VerBeek, gwm" <ver...@hope.edu> writes
] >>My pal Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> said:
] >>>Actually.. taking it to extremes, I wonder if your parents own the
] >>>copyright on your body? Maybe they could sue on your behalf?
] >>
] >>Your parents could then sue =you= if you had yourself cloned.
] >>Procreation (creating derivative works) would also be a bit dodgy.
] >
] >True.. though to be certain that they could claim copyright
] >infringement, they might need to have me tattoed with a (c)Mr&Mrs
] >Bradley on my forehead or something..
Copyright notice is NOT required. Although it is of great benefit in a
lawsuit.
] Well, I don't have to worry about this, I was adopted, so I'd say my
] parents gave up their copyright.
Not necessarily, if they explicitly placed you in the public domain,
then possibly yes. Think of freeware where the programmer retains all
rights to software to see why it's not a definite yes. But if they
either misplaced you or just tossed you in the trash, then definitely
not.
--
John Moreno
Stevens R. Miller
David E Romm wrote:
>
> In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
> Dancing Machine) wrote:
>
> > post pictures without permission.
>
> And those people were wrong.
Yeah, certainly they were being simple-minded. Imagine going to a ball
game and taking a picture that includes the entire far side of the
stadium. Who has time to get releases from 30,000 people? Likewise, a
convention is going to have lots of shutterbugs snapping lots of people
in groups. You just can't expect to be asked for permission from each
and every person who might get your mug in the shot. Hell, one might
even ask why the protocol doesn't require the person in the picture to
ask first if they can be in the photographer's line of sight.
> After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
> murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the sayso
> ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing otherwise
> untoward about the pic, then probably not. If it's a picture that the
> poster thinks is funny but someone finds embarrassing, then the pic should
> probably be removed. But maybe not.
Attempting to make rules, or even guidelines, about this sort of thing
is
fraught with peril. For example, suppose the reason the picture in your
exception above were embarrassing because it showed someone misbehaving
in some way (like, say, those NYPD cops at their convention in DC a few
years ago)? That would have informational value of interest to people
who
might want to investigate the problem or avoid (or go to) such an event.
That's why news is news.
In general, I agree that people's feelings should be among the most
important concerns in all our interactions. What else is life about?
But I can imagine situations where a picture is too important or too
valuable by any of several hard-to-define standards to drop from public
view, just because someone in it is upset by it.
In the end, on the tougher cases, I favor leaving a picture in the
public
view. This is because, unless the picture has been altered, it is only
an image of reality. And, to the extent that it is unflattering, or
does
not present reality the way I wish it would, I trust most of my
neighbors
to know that pictures are not perfect; they've all seen a shot or two of
themselves that weren't great likenesses or flattering. They may laugh,
but I think they know, mostly, better than to assume a bad picture is
much
more than a bad picture.
As for those few oddballs who just have an attitude problem about being
photographed at all, I have less sympathy.
> Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
> property. The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
> but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
> pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
> everyone in the shot.
Yeah, that's about it, I think. It won't protect everyone's feelings
all the time, but it's a pretty good policy. Throw in a dash of
judgment on the photographer's part and some general common sense on
the part of the public (that being why it's called "common" sense),
and there's not much better you can do.
Johan Anglemark
In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) wrote:
>Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
>property. The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
>but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
>pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
>everyone in the shot.
Quite. Imagine for example that someone casts a bronze bust of you (a
spitting image) and sets it up in his front garden for every passer-by to
see.
I think we have a hang up on photography somehow being identical to the
real thing. (Understandably so, but...)
-Johan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Anglemark (Sweden) johan.anglemark<at>bahnhof.se
anglemark.j<at>euro.apple.com http://www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Scott
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>Still, if asked my personal preference:
>while I'm egotistic enough to enjoy seeing a decent picture of myself in
>distribution, I always appreciate being asked first before said photo is
>published. There are some photos I am, or would be, unenthused about
>seeing distributed widely. Y'know, those red-eyed, hanging upside-down,
>covered in vaseline ones, where my stomach bulges so, while my nose-hair
>is highlighted. Insufficiently, that is.
Ah, yes. I remember _Playfarber_ <FX: sniggers>
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Now with added cobwebs: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Zev Sero
"Stevens R. Miller" <JUN...@interport.net> wrote:
>For example, suppose the reason the picture in your
>exception above were embarrassing because it showed someone misbehaving
>in some way (like, say, those NYPD cops at their convention in DC a few
>years ago)?
Do you mean the ones who turned out never to have been anywhere
near New York, and had bought souvenir-type fake NYPD regalia
that weekend?
--
Zev Sero Don't blame me, I voted for Harry Browne
zs...@idt.net For more info, see http://www.lp.org
Mean Green Dancing Machine
{rec.music.filk trimmed}
In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>>
>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
>> seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
>> rude to post pictures without permission.
>
>And those people were wrong.
Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
>After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
>murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the sayso
>ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing otherwise
>untoward about the pic, then probably not. If it's a picture that the
>poster thinks is funny but someone finds embarrassing, then the pic should
>probably be removed. But maybe not.
>
>Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
>property. The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
>but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
>pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
>everyone in the shot.
And you've ignored my primary point. Sure, posting a crowd shot taken
in a public place isn't a problem. But we're rapidly getting to the
point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
invasion of privacy. Given that as a backdrop, I'm going to continue
pushing for restraint.
Mark A Mandel
James D. Keeline (kee...@adnc.com) wrote:
: An interesting and possibly outdated example of the "rights" of an
: individual is cited in Everett F. Bleiler's introduction to EIGHT DIME
: NOVELS (Dover, 1974) referring to Edward S. Ellis, a prolific author
: of thrillers and dime novels inspired by James F. Cooper and popular
: sets of history for school children:
: "A sampling of these books shows Ellis to have been a fluent popularizer,
: without much to say, or any great depth, but a good master of easy
: exposition. He obviously took his work seriously, as can be seen by a
: very odd lawsuit in which he was concerned. He had written a particularly
: low-level thriller under a pseudonym; when a publisher, who held rights to
: the work, insisted on republishing the work under the name Ellis, Ellis
: attempted to restrain him. Ellis lost the suit, thereby establishing the
: legal precedent that an author does not have the right to his own name."
: On the other hand, I have heard of authors who have successfully blocked
: the publication of private personal letters to individuals.
In the first case we're talking about rights under an existing contract,
whose details we in this discussion are not generally privy to. In the
second, it's an established principle that while physical rights to the
ownership of a letter belong to the recipient, authorial rights to its
content remain with the author (or maybe sender). So while these are
interesting, neither bears on the issue at hand, which is the 'Net
publication, without advance consent, of photos of people taken at public
events.
--
-------------------------------------------------
NO SOLICITORS OVER 18
Religious, commercial, charitable, or otherwise
** Offenders will be COMPOSTED **
Walter Daniels
In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
ro...@visi.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>
>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've seen
>> about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's rude to
>> post pictures without permission.
>And those people were wrong.
>A lot depends, of course on circumstance. If you're at a con, someone can
>merrily snap away, posting said pics.
This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have no right
to do this. There are people, for perfectly valid reasons, **that do not want
their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and post it
wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
>After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
>murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the sayso
>ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing otherwise
>untoward about the pic, then probably not.
You seem to live in a fantasy world, where no one is at risk form anyone
else. You **do _not_** have the right to display the likeness of *anyone*
without their permission. THe sole *legal* exception is for _public persons,
as defined by the courts. This means if you're a "Kennedy, Rockefeler, etc.",
you have no protection. *You have given up the right privacy by putting
yourself in the "public eye."
> If it's a picture that the
>poster thinks is funny but someone finds embarrassing, then the pic should
>probably be removed. But maybe not.
>
>Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
>property.
No. However, every individual is *presumed* to have a cerain level of
privacy and _control_ over their own image. By becoming a "stage/screen" star,
politician, etc., you have given up that protection. _I_ have no right to
*take* it from you. Your concept of _property rights_ and privacy is very
severely lacking. If you persist in behaving as the sole arbiter of whether I
can stop you from taking/showing my picture, you _will_ find yourself in
court. I can also gaurantee that this will get you banned from conventions.
The second time you do it, after I ask the convention to stop you, will get
you _both_ sued.
> The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
>but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
>pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
>everyone in the shot.
Again, _you_ decide if they are *offensive* and the person in the shot has
no say. From where did you obtain this right?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Walter Daniels FBN Graphics - The place where your mug says what YOU want!
Custom orders cheerfully done on quality coffee mugs, with no minimum order.
You can order quantites of 1 to 100 for use by individuals, club, etc.
Win a free B&W design mug, in the bi-monthly design survey.
For info contact: fbng...@indy.net http://www.digiserve.com/fbngraphics/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
John Creasey
When I was taking photojournalism in college (1966) it was explained
that a models release was required it the photos were to be offered
"for sale" or otherwise published for revenue. If they were not, a
release was not required.
John Creasey of Random Factors
Stevens R. Miller
Mean Green Dancing Machine wrote:
> David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
> >(Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
> >> it's rude to post pictures without permission.
> >And those people were wrong.
> Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
On Usenet, it's wrong when it's a small minority.
For example, a small minority sometimes posts what they think
about what is wrong. The majority of Usenet posters believe
this is wrong, so it is not commonly done and always criticized.
My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> we're rapidly getting to the
> point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
> connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
> invasion of privacy.
In my opinion, that is balderdash. Privacy is not inherently
violated by the existence of any or all of these things. Moveover,
the damage that photographs can do to privacy is hardly contingent
on increased technology.
What's the big deal, anyway? Conventions are full of people
taking pictures and have been for ages. Who has suffered?
R. Tang
In article <5j3i85$mr$5...@news.indy.net>,
Walter Daniels <fbng...@indy.net> wrote:
>In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
> ro...@visi.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>>
>>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've seen
>>> post pictures without permission.
>
>>And those people were wrong.
>
>>merrily snap away, posting said pics.
>
> This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have no right
>to do this.
I do not believe that this is at all correct.
If you are in a public area, with a corresponding low degree and
expectation of privacy, you have little right to expect this. And being at
a con is a public event.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Bernard Peek
In article <aahzE8q...@netcom.com>, Mean Green Dancing Machine
<aa...@netcom.com> writes
>{rec.music.filk trimmed}
>
>In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
>David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>>In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>>>
>>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
>>> seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
>>> rude to post pictures without permission.
>>
>>And those people were wrong.
>
>Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
Even the opinion is probably not wrong. You said that it's generally
accepted on Usenet that it's rude to post pictures without permission.
It's probably true, for the majority of Usenetters. You haven't claimed
that it's always wrong. Each group makes it's own rules. This particular
group, SF Fandom, doesn't generally have a problem with seeing their
pictures on the web, we get to meet face-to-face quite a lot anyway.
>And you've ignored my primary point. Sure, posting a crowd shot taken
>in a public place isn't a problem. But we're rapidly getting to the
>point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
>connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
>invasion of privacy. Given that as a backdrop, I'm going to continue
>pushing for restraint.
I'm with you on this one.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
R. Tang
In article <aahzE8q...@netcom.com>,
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
>>> seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
>>> rude to post pictures without permission.
>>
>>And those people were wrong.
>
>Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
Make that a wrong opinion.
>>Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
>>property. The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
>>but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
>>pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
>>everyone in the shot.
>
>And you've ignored my primary point. Sure, posting a crowd shot taken
>in a public place isn't a problem. But we're rapidly getting to the
>point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
>connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
>invasion of privacy.
How can you be "private" in public?
The method doesn't change the concept.
John Moreno
Walter Daniels <fbng...@indy.net> wrote:
] ro...@visi.com (David E Romm) wrote:
] > aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote:
] >
] >> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
] >> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless
] >> of traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates
] >> I've seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that
] >> it's rude to post pictures without permission.
]
] >And those people were wrong.
]
] >A lot depends, of course on circumstance. If you're at a con,
] >someone can merrily snap away, posting said pics.
Absolutely true.
] This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have
] no right to do this. There are people, for perfectly valid reasons,
] **that do not want their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can
] take it and post it wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
Absolutely false. Legal protection of privacy is limited to places
where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now whether or
not you have a moral right to not have your likeness displayed all over
the world would be another issue completely. But anything that you do
in a public area, where there can be no reasonable expectation of
privacy, is available for fair use. It's slightly different if you sell
the resulting copies.
] >After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
] >murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the
] >sayso ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing
] >otherwise untoward about the pic, then probably not.
]
] You seem to live in a fantasy world, where no one is at risk form
] anyone else. You **do _not_** have the right to display the likeness
] of *anyone* without their permission. THe sole *legal* exception is
] for _public persons, as defined by the courts. This means if you're a
] "Kennedy, Rockefeler, etc.", you have no protection. *You have given
] up the right privacy by putting yourself in the "public eye."
You *do* have the right to display the likeness of just about *everyone*
without their permission. The exception actually apply to _public
persons_, i.e. if you make your living selling your image, then you have
a right to keep your image from being sold without your permission. But
if you do a striptease in the middle of Times Square on New Years Eve
while holding a goldfish between your teeth, I can sell a video or still
pics of it to anybody I want, and there's not jack that you can do about
it.
] > If it's a picture that the poster thinks is funny but someone finds
] >embarrassing, then the pic should probably be removed. But maybe
] >not.
] >
] >Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not
] >your property.
]
] No. However, every individual is *presumed* to have a cerain level
] of privacy and _control_ over their own image. By becoming a
] "stage/screen" star, politician, etc., you have given up that
] protection. _I_ have no right to *take* it from you. Your concept of
] _property rights_ and privacy is very severely lacking. If you persist
] in behaving as the sole arbiter of whether I can stop you from
] taking/showing my picture, you _will_ find yourself in court. I can
] also gaurantee that this will get you banned from conventions.
You might be able to get a restraining order against somebody to keep
them at such a distance that it would be very difficult to take a
picture, but unless you make your living selling your likeness your not
going to have much luck specifying that I can't take your picture.
] The second time you do it, after I ask the convention to stop you,
] will get you _both_ sued.
The convention would not be at risk in any case. It is not their job to
enforce the non-existent laws that you are describing, and even if the
laws did exist it still wouldn't be their job to enforce the laws.
] > The subject of a picture should be given some consideration, but
] >their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
] >pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
] >everyone in the shot.
]
] Again, _you_ decide if they are *offensive* and the person in the
] shot has no say.
As long as it is a true, untouched image - yes.
] From where did you obtain this right?
By the fact that you stood up, lay down, sat, or leaned in a public
place where I could take your picture.
Let's take a wild example: You (Joe Blow) as a absolute nobody working
at MacDonald's as fry cook are very surprised when the President and his
entourage plus the news crew show up at your work place. He finds the
fries less than perfect and throws a hissy-fit and while calling you a
incompetent cook dies of a stroke. You make the 5,6,7,10 and 11 o'clock
news. Nobody ever approaches you for your permission to publish your
likeness.
Now if you had invited him into your house and told the news crew to
keep out and one or more of them didn't - THEN you would have a good
case. And the networks would be willing to pay big money to get your
permission quickly - although if it ever came to court they could make a
good case for "In the public interest" so you probably wouldn't get more
than a couple of million.
--
John Moreno
John Moreno
Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
] In <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing
] Machine) wrote:
]
]
] >I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
] >statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
] >traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
] >seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
] >rude to post pictures without permission.
]
] I suppose I'm cautious about posting pictures, which is why I don't
] have more with the con reports. I use a digital camera and always ask
] permission of the person/people in the image. Usually I ask before I
] take the picture, but there are times when a picture must be taken
] *then* in order to get what's happening and then I ask after. If
] someone doesn't want it available then, I delete it from the camera.
] Sometimes people would like a better picture and then I take more
] until we get one they like and I delete the others. I carry a small
] note-taker and put the name of the people and how to reach them on
] that, keyed to the image numbers. I don't think people expect to have
] pictures of them posted just because they're at a con, so I prefer to
] give them the choice.
Real overkill unless you are selling these pictures.
--
John Moreno
Marilee J. Layman
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
patt...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.suba.com/~janice
AOL keyword: FR > Science Fiction > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
Aaron Bergman
In article <5j3i85$mr$5...@news.indy.net>, fbng...@indy.net (Walter Daniels)
wrote:
[posting pictures]
:
: This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have no right
:to do this. There are people, for perfectly valid reasons, **that do not want
:their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and post it
:wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
What is your legal basis for this? I can't think of any action one could take.
: You seem to live in a fantasy world, where no one is at risk form anyone
:else. You **do _not_** have the right to display the likeness of *anyone*
:without their permission.
What law are you talking about?
: THe sole *legal* exception is for _public persons,
:as defined by the courts.
How about first amendment exceptions?
(munch)
:
: No. However, every individual is *presumed* to have a cerain level of
:privacy and _control_ over their own image.
Why? Certainly you have control over commercial exploitation of your
identity, but I don't think this is commercial. If you're in a public
area, I don't see where the right not to be photographed comes from.
(munch)
: The second time you do it, after I ask the convention to stop you, will get
:you _both_ sued.
On what basis?
(munch)
:
: Again, _you_ decide if they are *offensive* and the person in the shot has
:no say. From where did you obtain this right?
:
Last I checked, there's no right not to be offended.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman -- aber...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
<http://pantheon.yale.edu/~abergman/>
"Smithers, I believe this dog has been in Skull and Bones."
Pam Wells
In article <33552D...@interport.net>
JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
> My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
^^^^^^^
Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
HTH.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk http://www.bitch.demon.co.uk
Sharon L Sbarsky
In article <5j3knb$c...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
John Creasey <cre...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>When I was taking photojournalism in college (1966) it was explained
>that a models release was required it the photos were to be offered
>"for sale" or otherwise published for revenue. If they were not, a
>release was not required.
This makes sense. However, with publishing a picture on a Web Page, what's
stopping someone else from downloading that picture and then offering it
for revenue? (besides the ethics of the people downloading the picture.)
Sharon
Mary Kay Kare
<lots of belligerent stuff snipped>
Jeez fella. Mellow out. It sounds to me like think the whole world is
out to get you and you're going to stop them no matter what. Conventions
are, as we are discussing on a thread in rasff, a shared community.
Communities are built on trust. If someone has some phots of a con and
wants to post them and you happen to be in them, well, so what? Mellow
out. And learn some grammar.
MK
Mary Kay Kare
Compuserve's Team SF/F
Brandon Ray
In note <5j3i85$mr$5...@news.indy.net>, fbng...@indy.net (Walter Daniels)
writes:
>In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,>>In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>>
>>> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>>> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>>> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've seen
>>> about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's rude to
>>> post pictures without permission.
>
>
>>A lot depends, of course on circumstance. If you're at a con, someone can
>>merrily snap away, posting said pics.
>
>right to do this. There are people, for perfectly valid reasons, **that do
>not want their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and post
>it wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
>
public place, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy". The person who
snaps the pic owns the copyright, and may do whatever he or she wishes with
that negative -- whether the subject is Bill Clinton or just me (or you).
>>After the pic has been posted and a person objects, the etiquette is
>>murkier. Should the poster remove an offending picture just on the sayso
>>ot the subject? If you're in a crowd, and there's nothing otherwise
>>untoward about the pic, then probably not.
>
> You seem to live in a fantasy world, where no one is at risk form anyone
>else. You **do _not_** have the right to display the likeness of *anyone*
>without their permission. THe sole *legal* exception is for _public persons,
>as defined by the courts. This means if you're a "Kennedy, Rockefeler,
>etc.", you have no protection. *You have given up the right privacy by
>putting yourself in the "public eye."
You most certainly DO have a right ot display a likeness of another person, if
that likeness was obtained in an appropriately non-invasive way.
>
>> If it's a picture that the
>>poster thinks is funny but someone finds embarrassing, then the pic should
>>probably be removed. But maybe not.
>>
>>Pictures do not steal your soul. Images of reflected light are not your
>>property.
>
> No. However, every individual is *presumed* to have a cerain level of
>privacy and _control_ over their own image. By becoming a "stage/screen"
>star, politician, etc., you have given up that protection. _I_ have no right
>to *take* it from you. Your concept of _property rights_ and privacy is very
>severely lacking. If you persist in behaving as the sole arbiter of whether
>I can stop you from taking/showing my picture, you _will_ find yourself in
>court. I can also gaurantee that this will get you banned from conventions.
>
> The second time you do it, after I ask the convention to stop you, will
>get you _both_ sued.
>
Wrong wrong wrong. It is becoming increasingly clear that you have confused
libel law with privacy law. Under libel law, a distinction is made between
private citizens, public figures and public officials, as you describe.
EVERYONE has a right to privacy, but that right to privacy is tempered by the
"reasonable expectation" standard. If you are in your own home with the
shades drawn, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and people may not
through subterfuge or brute force invade that privacy by photographing you.
If you are in a public area -- a city street, or the hallway of a convention
hotel, for example -- then you DO NOT have any reasonable expectation of
privacy. Anyone who wishes to do so may photograph you in still or video,
record your words, etc. etc., and there is NOTHING that you can do to stop
them from publishing the results.
>> The subject of a picture should be given some consideration,
>>but their rights are limited. Certainly the default is that unoffesnsive
>>pictures taken in a public area can be posted without checking with
>>everyone in the shot.
>
> Again, _you_ decide if they are *offensive* and the person in the shot has
>no say. From where did you obtain this right?
>
The U.S. Code.
>
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Walter Daniels FBN Graphics - The place where your mug says what YOU want!
> Custom orders cheerfully done on quality coffee mugs, with no minimum order.
> You can order quantites of 1 to 100 for use by individuals, club, etc.
> Win a free B&W design mug, in the bi-monthly design survey.
> For info contact: fbng...@indy.net http://www.digise
>rve.com/fbngraphics/%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
---
******************************************************************************
"The message is clear: on THE X-FILES, a woman who is co-opted by the
patriarchal order gets turned into a puddle of goo."
--Rhonda Wilcox & J.P. Williams
"'What Do You Think?': The X-Files,
Liminality, and Gender Pleasure"
******************************************************************************
Phil Bradley
In article <E8rqv...@world.std.com>, Sharon L Sbarsky
<sba...@world.std.com> writes
from the fact that they're going to be breaking copyright law, and they
can be taken to court.
Phil Bradley
> This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have no right
>to do this. There are people, for perfectly valid reasons, **that do not want
>their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and post it
>wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
also if you are just talking about the United States, the whole of the
world, or some other subset of it. Personally, I think you're talking
nonsense, but I'm happy to be proved incorrect in this assumption.
Ray Radlein
Pam Wells wrote:
>
> JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
>
> > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> ^^^^^^^
> Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
Only if he also mistyped "212F." He was trying to make a point about
opinions, IMHO.
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Pesach CV Lattin
Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
artistic manner. I forgot the actual case, but i do know that there is a
debate whether or not this applies to that within the public eye, such
as open windows.
Stevens R. Miller
John Moreno wrote:
>
> Walter Daniels <fbng...@indy.net> wrote:
> ] There are people, for perfectly valid reasons,
> ] **that do not want their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can
> ] take it and post it wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
>
> Absolutely false. Legal protection of privacy is limited to places
> where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The law in New York on pictures is set out by Civil Rights Law,
Section 50:
Sec. 50. Right of privacy
A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising
purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture
of any living person without having first obtained the written
consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
As you can see, the limitation applies when the picture is
taken for advertising or trade purposes. Posting on the Internet
just so people can see the picture would be as far outside this
limitation as anything short of burning the picture before anyone
ever saw it.
However, other states have other laws. These must all, of course,
comply with the First Amendment (New York's law has been
challenged on this basis; the challengers lost, because the
restriction limits commercial use, not political or philosophical
expression). I would be surprised in the extreme if any state
could pass a constitutional law prohibiting all use of a person's
photo without their permission.
Stevens R. Miller
Ray Radlein wrote:
>
> Pam Wells wrote:
> >
> > JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
> >
> > > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> > ^^^^^^^
> > Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
>
> Only if he also mistyped "212F." He was trying to make a point about
> opinions, IMHO.
Ray, if you are going to assert that something is your opinion, I
expect that assertion to be qualified by the assertion that it is
only your opinion that that something is your opinion. Or I think
I do. Frankly, I'm not sure of anything anymore. I think.
YMMV (OMN).
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <335615...@fantasylink.com>,
Pesach CV Lattin <mas...@fantasylink.com> wrote:
>
>Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
>that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
>de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
>artistic manner. I forgot the actual case, but i do know that there is a
>debate whether or not this applies to that within the public eye, such
>as open windows.
The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
Stevens R. Miller
Phil Bradley wrote:
>
> In article <5j3i85$mr$5...@news.indy.net>, Walter Daniels
> <fbng...@indy.net> writes
> > This may be true *if you are a public person*. Otherwise they have no right
> >their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and post it
> >wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
> also if you are just talking about the United States, the whole of the
> world, or some other subset of it. Personally, I think you're talking
> nonsense, but I'm happy to be proved incorrect in this assumption.
I think Walter is confusing privacy law with the public person
exception to defamation laws. The latter puts the public person
in a weak spot, if he or she wants to sue over something said
about their public position. Pictures are really another matter.
New York Civil Rights Law Sec.50 does limit what you can do with
a picture if you don't the subjects permission, but the limitation
is very narrow and not really applicable to this thread:
Sec. 50. Right of privacy
A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising
purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or
picture of any living person without having first obtained the
written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent
or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Note, by the way, that this law does not inherently create a civil
cause of action. It defines a crime. As a bit of legal theory,
that does not leave room for law suits, though, because the previous
law of privacy was all common law in New York. By codifying that
law through statute, the New York legislature has limited the
protections given to pictures to just what the statute says. There
are other statutes that make this crime civilly actionable, but
one really can't sue in New York over a picture violating one's
privacy rights (there are other rights, like the right not to be
defamed, for example) unless Sec. 50 is violated.
R. Tang
In article <aahzE8...@netcom.com>,
>Pesach CV Lattin <mas...@fantasylink.com> wrote:
>>
>>Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
>>that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
>>de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
>>artistic manner. I forgot the actual case, but i do know that there is a
>>debate whether or not this applies to that within the public eye, such
>>as open windows.
>
>The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public'
Incorrect.
> unless you
>claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
You got it.
Stevens R. Miller
Pam Wells wrote:
>
> In article <33552D...@interport.net>
> JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
>
> > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> ^^^^^^^
> Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
No. Those you can *lance* at 68F, but it hurts. (The boils, I
mean. Actually, you could lance bollocks too, but I shudder to
think about it.)
Bernard Peek
In article <aahzE8...@netcom.com>, Mean Green Dancing Machine
<aa...@netcom.com> writes
>In article <335615...@fantasylink.com>,
>Pesach CV Lattin <mas...@fantasylink.com> wrote:
>>
>>Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
>>that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
>>de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
>>artistic manner. I forgot the actual case, but i do know that there is a
>>debate whether or not this applies to that within the public eye, such
>>as open windows.
>
>The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
>claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
The pragmatic definition that has been used by photographers in the UK
is that anything visible on or from a public place may be photographed.
The courts have modified that slightly in that they consider that if
extraordinary measures need to be taken to get the picture then the
definition is altered.
Anything shot with a standard lens from ground level is OK.
Conventions are likely to be considered a public place by default, there
are no rules forbidding photographers or photography in most parts of
most UK cons
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
John Moreno
Stevens R. Miller <JUN...@interport.net> wrote:
] John Moreno wrote:
] >
] > Walter Daniels <fbng...@indy.net> wrote:
]
] > ] There are people, for perfectly valid reasons, **that do not want
] > ] their picture publicly displayed**. To say. "I can take it and
] > ] post it wherever and whenever _I_ want, is wrong.
] >
] > Absolutely false. Legal protection of privacy is limited to places
] > where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
]
] The law in New York on pictures is set out by Civil Rights Law,
] Section 50:
]
] Sec. 50. Right of privacy
]
] A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising
] purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture
] of any living person without having first obtained the written
] consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or
] guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
]
] As you can see, the limitation applies when the picture is
] taken for advertising or trade purposes. Posting on the Internet
] just so people can see the picture would be as far outside this
] limitation as anything short of burning the picture before anyone
] ever saw it.
I wasn't aware exactly of the NY law, but I was aware (as I indicated
later in my post) that there are exceptions concerning commercial use.
Which (as you say) simply do not apply to what is being discussed.
] However, other states have other laws. These must all, of course,
] comply with the First Amendment (New York's law has been
] challenged on this basis; the challengers lost, because the
] restriction limits commercial use, not political or philosophical
] expression). I would be surprised in the extreme if any state
] could pass a constitutional law prohibiting all use of a person's
] photo without their permission.
I don't think they could pass a law prohibiting MOST use of a person's
photo, let alone all. The only exceptions to the general "reasonable
expectation of privacy" clause, concern various commercial use of the
likeness.
But if I was to obtain a picture of Mr. Daniels in public place (on the
street, at a con, dining in a restaurant) and then bulk mail it to every
single person in the world then there would be absolutely nothing he
could do about it.
--
John Moreno
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.written <861153...@bitch.demon.co.uk> Pam Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <33552D...@interport.net>
: JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
: > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
: ^^^^^^^
: Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
Only if the water is at a very very high altitude.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright 1997 Brooklyn, NY, USA
John Moreno
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
] Pesach CV Lattin <mas...@fantasylink.com> wrote:
] >
] >Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
] >that those who participate in public events are giving their
] >permission, de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written
] >word or in any artistic manner. I forgot the actual case, but i do
] >know that there is a debate whether or not this applies to that
] >within the public eye, such as open windows.
]
] The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
] claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
Non-Public = Reasonable expectation of being private.
A private, enclosed space is usually judged non-public. Although there
are exceptions regarding things like open doors and windows with the
shades up or curtain open - although these are usually applied more
towards public people (politicians, actors) than private individuals
(Joe Blow & Jane Doe).
Non-public areas really boils down to places like private homes,
hotel/motel rooms, tents, private vehicles with areas not visible from
outside (i.e. for your standard 4 door the trunk is private, but the
back seat is public). A non-exact rule of thumb is - if your bumping
into people you've never heard of then it's public.
--
John Moreno
Mari J Stoddard
If you take a look at the "Ethics for the Press Photographer" page,
http://www.aipress.com/pressethics.html, you'll notice that photographers
may have to fight for position and it's recommended that compromising
pictures should be taken only if they're newsworthy -- but zip about
asking for permission from victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subjects.
--
Mari Stoddard stod...@u.arizona.edu
Arizona Health Sciences Library, University of Arizona
520 / 626-2925 (voice) 520 626-2922 (fax)
URL: http://amber.medlib.arizona.edu/homepage.html
David E Romm
In article <5j3i85$mr$5...@news.indy.net>, fbng...@indy.net (Walter Daniels)
wrote:
[I'm unable to respond to Mr. Daniels since he did not give me explicit
permision to read his post.]
--
New Shockwave Page up at last!
http://www.visi.com/~romm
Let me know if anything doesn't work.
Stevens R. Miller
John Moreno wrote:
> A private, enclosed space is usually judged non-public. Although there
> are exceptions regarding things like open doors and windows with the
> shades up or curtain open - although these are usually applied more
> towards public people (politicians, actors) than private individuals
> (Joe Blow & Jane Doe).
>
> Non-public areas really boils down to places like private homes,
> hotel/motel rooms, tents, private vehicles with areas not visible from
> outside ...
You are, I think, describing the Fourth Amendment standard that
governs searches and seizures. That's not applicable here.
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu
In article <5j3l0m$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@u.washington.edu
(R. Tang) wrote:
> If you are in a public area, with a corresponding low degree and
>expectation of privacy, you have little right to expect this. And being at
>a con is a public event.
I suspect that part of the confusion may be coming from people
who've read the articles that come out in photographic magazines.
These articles are written from the standpoint of warning new
photographers about all the things they can't do if they want
to avoid legal problems; that naturally causes such articles to
be shaded from the viewpoint of "if in doubt, don't do it."
An article written about the rights of individuals is typically
shaded the opposite way: "Don't waste your time, you have no
such right."
The blurry area lies in Roger's comment "being at a con is a public
event." I could see a lawyer making the argument that cons are
locales where "the public" aren't allowed in -- you have to
pay to get in, or be invited, or otherwise participate in it.
Certainly photography is routinely banned at things like
weddings, children's dance recitals, and museums, despite their
being at least as public as con panels, a filksing, or an
art show.
My personal interpretation, for want of an authoritative legal
ruling, is that if you've got the camera, you should behave like
Marilee J. Layman and get permission; this is both cautious and,
more importantly, polite. If you're in the photo, on the other
hand, you may want to consider long and hard before investing
money in a legal battle to protect a right that you may well
not have.
I'd love to see the guidelines that, say, Life magazine gives
their photographers; this would be a lot more useful than
the half-remembered ideas of us Usenet readers. But so far
I haven't seen anyone who's got such a source quoting it.
John Moreno
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
]In rec.arts.sf.fandom <1997041623...@roxboro-162.interpath.net>
] John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that you were reading rasff when you responded to my
message? I've been urging the writer of my newsreader to make that a standard
option for cross-posts.
] [. . .]
]
] : Real overkill unless you are selling these pictures.
]
] Or being thoughtful of other people's wishes, rather than standing on
] what's legal.
Legality aside, I still think it's overkill. If somebody happens to notice ask
you to remove the picture, yes (I haven't knowingly allowed my picture to be
taken in at least 15 years, except for my DL). If you are asking the people to
pose, yes. But not if you're taking a picture of a couple of dozen people
walking down a hallway. There *is* such a thing as being too solicitous.
--
John Moreno
Stevens R. Miller
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote:
> The blurry area lies in Roger's comment "being at a con is a public
> event." I could see a lawyer making the argument that cons are
> locales where "the public" aren't allowed in -- you have to
> pay to get in, or be invited, or otherwise participate in it.
[Adjusting my powdered wig.] This argument would be a real
stretch. Merely charging a fee does not convert a place of
public accomodation to a private one. The law will look not
to the form, but the substance. In the case of a con, the
dispositive question will probably be: Would anyone be able
to buy a membership? Since anyone could, a con would be a
public event for legal purposes.
> Certainly photography is routinely banned at things like
> weddings, children's dance recitals, and museums, despite their
> being at least as public as con panels, a filksing, or an
> art show.
I disagree that weddings are as public as con panels, but more
importantly they (and your other examples) involve an explicit
ban. If con membership rules banned photography, one would
be expected to abide by the ban if one bought a membership.
However, this ban would not create a cause of action (that is,
a basis upon which one could sue) for a member whose picture
was taken in violation of the ban. The con could sue the person
who violated the ban (can't imagine what the damage claim would
be based on, though) and maybe the photographed person could sue
the con for not enforcing the ban (though a membership agreement
clause could prevent that too). But, the fact that D and C
have a contract between them does not easily create a cause for
P against D, when D violates that contract. Exceptions exist
when the purpose of the contract is the benefit of third parties,
but I don't think they'd apply here. Whatever cause P might
have against D would have to arise not from a ban, but from a
common law or statutory restriction. As we've been discussing
here, that looks like a real loser for P. [Removing powdered
wig (gawd, those things are sweaty).]
> My personal interpretation, for want of an authoritative legal
> ruling, is that if you've got the camera, you should behave like
> Marilee J. Layman and get permission; this is both cautious and,
> more importantly, polite.
IMHO, that's overcautious. People have taken pictures at cons
since before I was born and everyone knows or should know it.
I'd take the opposite view: con members can reasonably expect
to be allowed to take memento photos at cons, no matter who
happens to be in them. That won't please everyone, but neither
would a no-pictures policy which, as a practical matter, is what
a no-pictures-without-permission policy equates to in a crowded
place.
> If you're in the photo, on the other
> hand, you may want to consider long and hard before investing
> money in a legal battle to protect a right that you may well
> not have.
Excellent advice to which I would only add, "and calm down,
fergawdsake; it's just a picture."
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.fandom
<1997041623...@roxboro-162.interpath.net>
John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Real overkill unless you are selling these pictures.
Or being thoughtful of other people's wishes, rather than standing on
what's legal.
Stevens R. Miller
> >
> >Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
> >that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
> >de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
> >artistic manner.
> The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
> claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
"Good" is subjective, but for purposes of deciding what is lawful
the definition is about is inclusive as you can imagine. Most
New York statutes that refer to public places or events don't even
bother to define them, relying on common sense meaning instead. An
instructive example to the contrary, however, is Civil Rights Law
Section 40, which seeks to prevent discrimination in access to
public places. Its definition is as follows:
A place of public accommodation, resort or amusement within the
meaning of this article, shall be deemed to include inns, taverns,
road houses, hotels, whether conducted for the entertainment of
transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health,
recreation or rest, or restaurants, or eating houses, or any place
where food is sold for consumption on the premises; buffets,
saloons, barrooms, or any store, park or enclosure where
spirituous or malt liquors are sold; ice cream parlors,
confectioneries, soda fountains, and all stores where ice cream,
ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where
beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises;
retail stores and establishments, dispensaries, clinics, hospitals,
bath-houses, barber-shops, beauty parlors, theatres, motion picture
houses, airdromes, roof gardens, music halls, race courses, skating
rinks, amusement and recreation parks, fairs, bowling alleys, golf
courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors,
public libraries, kindergartens, primary and secondary schools,
high schools, academies, colleges and universities, extension
courses, and all educational institutions under the supervision of
the regents of the state of New York; and any such public library,
kindergarten, primary and secondary school, academy, college,
university, professional school, extension course, or other
educational facility, supported in whole or in part by public funds
or by contributions solicited from the general public; garages,
all public conveyances, operated on land or water, as well as the
stations and terminals thereof; public halls and public elevators
of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by
the owner and one or more tenants.
As you can see, New York isn't really very tolerant of places that
make spurious claims not to be public accomodations. I'd be
shocked if a con weren't a "public place" for the purposes of this
question.
Kay Shapero
It's happening again... I think this has pretty much wandered off of the
rec.music.filk topic, so if people could trim their newsgroup lists before
replying it would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks.
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.fandom <335661...@interport.net>
: No. Those you can *lance* at 68F, but it hurts. (The boils, I
: mean. Actually, you could lance bollocks too, but I shudder to
: think about it.)
Oh, it's the piercing topic. (Is anyone selling electronic bleeping and
blinking implants yet?)
Pam Wells
In article <1997041623...@roxboro-162.interpath.net>
phe...@interpath.com "John Moreno" writes:
> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> ] I suppose I'm cautious about posting pictures, which is why I don't
> ] have more with the con reports. I use a digital camera and always ask
> ] permission of the person/people in the image. Usually I ask before I
> ] take the picture, but there are times when a picture must be taken
> ] *then* in order to get what's happening and then I ask after. If
> ] someone doesn't want it available then, I delete it from the camera.
> ] Sometimes people would like a better picture and then I take more
> ] until we get one they like and I delete the others. I carry a small
> ] note-taker and put the name of the people and how to reach them on
> ] that, keyed to the image numbers. I don't think people expect to have
> ] pictures of them posted just because they're at a con, so I prefer to
> ] give them the choice.
>
> Real overkill unless you are selling these pictures.
Overkill? I read Marilee's description as politeness and consideration.
Like, she's just being nice; she doesn't *have* to be... what's wrong
with that?
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk http://www.bitch.demon.co.uk
Pam Wells
In article <3355D3...@learnlink.emory.edu>
r...@learnlink.emory.edu "Ray Radlein" writes:
> Pam Wells wrote:
> >
> > JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
> >
> > > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> > ^^^^^^^
> > Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
>
> Only if he also mistyped "212F." He was trying to make a point about
> opinions, IMHO.
But of course he was, and I was just trying to join in! Even a vacuous
tart whose country deals in Celsius temperatures knows that 68 degrees
Fahrenheit is neither the freezing nor the boiling point of water.
OK, so I made a joke that didn't work. So before the Humour Police come
to get me, I apologise. (Or maybe it really *did* work, and I'm failing
to spot the irony in all the replies. Either way, I'm sorry; OK?)
Richard Brandt
Walter Daniels wrote:
>Your concept of _property rights_ and privacy is very
> severely lacking. If you persist in behaving as the sole arbiter of whether I
> can stop you from taking/showing my picture, you _will_ find yourself in
> court. I can also gaurantee that this will get you banned from conventions.
For someone to attend a public event where cameras are likely to be
present,
and to assume that they are inviolable from being photographed, is
simply
unreasonable. If they're that concerned with privacy and escaping notice
by
the wrong people, I suggest they (a) stay locked inside their home or
(b) wear a funny mask to go with their badge name.
--
============================================================
http://rgfn.epcc.edu/users/af541/virtual.htm
"Downtown Yuma was ailing. It resembled SimCity with a chimp
at the controls." -- Mark Frauenfelder
Matthew Malthouse
In article <5itsvs$n...@marvin.deepthot.cary.nc.us>,
dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
} In article <uhpP7AA8...@twilight.demon.co.uk>,
} Philb <Ph...@twilight.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}
} >Your body is in the public domain.
}
} Tell that to all the women that shoot me down when I try to pick them
} up.
Okay, your body is in the public domain, their's are not :)
Matthew
--
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk [work]
mailto:dha...@geocities.com [home]
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
Steve Patterson
909 WARNING: term definition shift detected in article <erITGOAp...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> says:
>
>Even the opinion is probably not wrong. You said that it's generally
>accepted on Usenet that it's rude to post pictures without permission.
It is *definitely* considered rude to post binary files on USENET outside
of binary groups. However, the topic under discussion was the posting of
photographs on web pages, which is an entirely different matter.
If the photos were taken in a public venue, then I can't see any reasonable
grounds to consider such a photo an invasion of privacy. Now, if the
photos were taken at a private function or in a subject's residence, then
I'd understand if the subject wished to be consulted before his/her photo
was slapped onto the web.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note: My "from:" address has been altered to foil mailbots.
Please use the corrected address appearing below.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steven J. Patterson spatt...@wwdc.com
"Men may move mountains, but ideas move men."
-- M.N. Vorkosigan, per L.M. Bujold
See my pitiful webpage! http://www.wwdc.com/~spatterson
Steve Patterson
In article <aahzE8...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) says:
>
>The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
>claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
Odd. The photos in question (or, at least, the ones which touched off this
little debate) were taken at science fiction *conventions*. I think a very
good case could be made that these are public affairs, no?
Ray Radlein
Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>
> Pam Wells wrote:
> >
> > JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
> >
> > > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> > ^^^^^^^
> > Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
>
> mean. Actually, you could lance bollocks too, but I shudder to
> think about it.)
Lance Corporals I've heard of, but Lance Privates? Never!
- Ray R.
--
*********************************************************************
"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to RULE THE SEVAGRAM!"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************
Ray Radlein
Gary Farber wrote:
>
> Pam Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> : JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
>
> : > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> : ^^^^^^^
> : Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
>
Or otherwise in a sufficiently vacuous environment.
Hey! Wait a minute!
Gary Farber
In rec.arts.sf.fandom
<1997041723...@roxboro-176.interpath.net>
John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
: ]In rec.arts.sf.fandom <1997041623...@roxboro-162.interpath.net>
: ] John Moreno <phe...@interpath.com> wrote:
: Am I correct in thinking that you were reading rasff when you responded to my
: message?
Correct, as I'm doing again for this one. The version of Tin I'm
currently using (one of the 1.3 betas) allows you to set a large variety
of variables, including that various options for cross-posting. This Tin
seems to be a bit buggy, and I have to reset those defaults now and again,
but it also has a lot of options I prefer over the earlier 1.3 or 1.2PL
versions (such as showing a number for number of lines in the post at the
thread level, which is a nice clue to know before opening the post).
: I've been urging the writer of my newsreader to make that a standard
: option for cross-posts.
More power is good, particularly when you're not necessarily forced to
deal with it.
: ] [. . .]
: ]
: ] : Real overkill unless you are selling these pictures.
: ]
: ] Or being thoughtful of other people's wishes, rather than standing on
: ] what's legal.
: Legality aside, I still think it's overkill. If somebody happens to
: notice ask you to remove the picture, yes (I haven't knowingly allowed
: my picture to be taken in at least 15 years, except for my DL). If you
: are asking the people to pose, yes. But not if you're taking a picture
: of a couple of dozen people walking down a hallway. There *is* such a
: thing as being too solicitous.
<shrug> I wouldn't likely go to that much trouble myself, but I'm not
going to argue with someone who wants to bother.
David E Romm
In article <aahzE8q...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
Dancing Machine) wrote:
> {rec.music.filk trimmed}
>
> In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
> David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
> >In article <aahzE8M...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
> >Dancing Machine) wrote:
> >>
> >> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
> >> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
> >> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
> >> seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
> >> rude to post pictures without permission.
> >
> >And those people were wrong.
>
> Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
The mere existance of an opinion is neither right not wrong, but if the
content of said opinion is in error, then it is "wrong". Not a difficult
concept, Aahz.
--
New Shockwave Page up at last!
http://www.visi.com/~romm Let me know if anything doesn't work.
"I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them." -- George Bush
R. Tang
In article <rdkeir-1704...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
<rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>The blurry area lies in Roger's comment "being at a con is a public
>event." I could see a lawyer making the argument that cons are
>locales where "the public" aren't allowed in -- you have to
>pay to get in, or be invited, or otherwise participate in it.
It's not the payment part that's relevant.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue:
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gwangung/TC.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu
[rec.music.filk removed from Newsgroups as per several
requests]
In article <335689...@interport.net>, "Stevens R. Miller"
<JUN...@interport.net> wrote:
>rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote:
>
>> The blurry area lies in Roger's comment "being at a con is a public
>> event." I could see a lawyer making the argument that cons are
>> locales where "the public" aren't allowed in -- you have to
>> pay to get in, or be invited, or otherwise participate in it.
>
>[Adjusting my powdered wig.] This argument would be a real
>stretch.
I agree with you, but lawyers routinely win with arguments
that are a "real stretch" to most of us. God knows what kind
of venue the courts think an SF con is (I'm on the "public"
side myself, but don't take/publish photos of strangers without
permission out of courtesy if not out of legal obligation).
God, that's a strange picture: a bunch of fans, half in suits
and ties, half in hall costumes, all waiting to give "friend
of the court" arguments on behalf of someone in a case about
the "public" nature of an SF con. Reminds me of the time
twenty years ago when "King Michael of Boarshaven" took the
Society of Creative Anachronism to small claims court in
Champaign, IL, to sue for expenses "incurred while pursuing
his royal duties".... Fortunately for everyone except Michael,
they got a judge with a sense of humor, who ruled that (1)
being King was an honor, and if he ran up travel expenses
and phone bills that was his problem, and (2) he wondered if
any of the defendants liked "Monty Python" as much as he did.
But I digress...
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu
While we're on the general topic of the legal system, I'd
just like to note in passing a recent ruling by a judge
in Milwaukee.
An 18 year old was convicted for spray-painting graffiti.
His sentence? Four years and three months, plus a $20,000+
fine. The judge said that this sentence will "send a message."
Contrast this with the man who was convicted a few
years ago of attacking a woman in the UW Madison library
with a fire ax. He got seven years. He got out, and
was recently arrested for another attack on a woman in
a campus building.
I do not pretend to believe that the legal system in this
country makes sense; its only virtue is that it could be
worse.
David E Romm
In article <aahzE8u...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
Dancing Machine) wrote:
> 'Rudeness' is a matter of social convention between people. If a
> moderately large group of people hold the opinion that a particular
> action is rude, then you'll have difficulty convincing me (and many
> other people) that such an opinion is "wrong".
The consensus around here, if I read the messages correctly, is that it
isn't rude. I don't know where you were hanging out, but you'd be hard
pressed to repeat your experiment. And even if you did find a small
enough sampling to achieve your stated results (as you apparently did), it
wouldn't be a large enough representation to determine a social
convention.
An individual may be annoyed the a pic of them was posted without their
permission, but if they think society thinks the poster is being rude,
they were wrong.
--
New Shockwave Page up at last!
http://www.visi.com/~romm Let me know if anything doesn't work.
"It's my fanstasy. Trust me." -- Bashir, Julian Bashir
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu
In article <erITGOAp...@intersec.demon.co.uk>, Bernard Peek
<b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <aahzE8q...@netcom.com>, Mean Green Dancing Machine
><aa...@netcom.com> writes
>>And you've ignored my primary point. Sure, posting a crowd shot taken
>>in a public place isn't a problem. But we're rapidly getting to the
>>point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
>>connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
>>invasion of privacy. Given that as a backdrop, I'm going to continue
>>pushing for restraint.
>
>I'm with you on this one.
Bravo for Aahz and Bernard on this one.
For some alternately distressing and encouraging information
on this, one might want to check out the book "The Right
to Privacy" (Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy) which has
come out in paperback in the US fairly recently. I've just
gotten a copy, and it's been quite readable so far. The
chapter covering the rights of those photographed in their
own homes during a "ride-along" with cops, emergency medical
services, etc., is particularly interesting, though the most
interesting case they cite was settled out of court in one
of those neither-side-can-disclose-terms settlements that are
so frustrating.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <romm-18049...@192-16.dynamic.visi.com>,
David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>In article <aahzE8q...@netcom.com>, aa...@netcom.com (Mean Green
>Dancing Machine) wrote:
>> In article <romm-15049...@192-79.dynamic.visi.com>,
>> David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >Dancing Machine) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I will now take it under advisement that my rather weakly-worded
>> >> statement about copyright doesn't apply. Nevertheless, regardless of
>> >> traditional usage in fandom, I can assure you that the debates I've
>> >> seen about this subject on Usenet have generally agreed that it's
>> >> rude to post pictures without permission.
>> >
>> >And those people were wrong.
>>
>> Excuse me? How is having an opinion "wrong"?
>
>The mere existance of an opinion is neither right not wrong, but if the
>content of said opinion is in error, then it is "wrong". Not a difficult
>concept, Aahz.
'Rudeness' is a matter of social convention between people. If a
moderately large group of people hold the opinion that a particular
action is rude, then you'll have difficulty convincing me (and many
other people) that such an opinion is "wrong".
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"If there's an alter-ego, does that mean there's an alter-id?" --SFJ
Nyrath the nearly wise
R. Tang (gwan...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: > unless you
: >claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
: You got it.
So under this definition, a person in a mall rest room
is in "public". And could be photographed.
David E Romm
In article <rdkeir-1804...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu wrote:
> I do not pretend to believe that the legal system in this
> country makes sense; its only virtue is that it could be
> worse.
And it could be a _lot_ worse. We're seeing the effects of the mass of
barely-competent conservative judges Reagan shoved on the country. Thank
heavens for the liberals keeping idiots like Bork out of the system.
Thank heaven for Clinton vetoing the worst of the Republican extremes.
One of the ways I look at a set of laws is the 'ounce of marijuana' test.
What is the penalty for possesion of an ounce (not sale, or even use, just
possession) vs. other laws. There was a time, not that long ago, where
the average guy busted for possession got more hard time than most people
convicted of murder.
--
New Shockwave Page up at last!
http://www.visi.com/~romm Let me know if anything doesn't work.
"The best thing about rain forests is they never suffer from drought."
-- VP Dan Quayle
Eugenia Horne
In article <aahzE8...@netcom.com>,
Mean Green Dancing Machine <aa...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <335615...@fantasylink.com>,
>Pesach CV Lattin <mas...@fantasylink.com> wrote:
>>
>>Regarding the right to privacy, the supreme court specifically ruled
>>that those who participate in public events are giving their permission,
>>de facto, that their actions may be portrayed in written word or in any
>>debate whether or not this applies to that within the public eye, such
>>as open windows.
>
>The problem is that there's no good definition of 'public' unless you
>claim that everything outside one's home is 'public'.
Actually, there are a mess of court cases that
have defined "public" for legal purposes.
I (an unknown) have been photographed (or filmed) which
later showed up on the local news ("slow news day"), the
cover of the local phone book, and the local newspaper
simply because I was wandering through a "public"
area (University grounds, front steps of the Culture
Center, Hotel conference room) at the time they were
photographing or filming. I wasn't asked for permission
and sometimes didn't even know until someone else told me
they had seen the picture or film.
I don't think taking photographs at a con in the lobby,
meeting rooms, etc. is going to be even near the
"legal" line that separates "private" from "public".
Now, there have been some discussions of taking photographs
(or filming) the masquerade participants based on models',
performers', and artists' rights to control subsequent
publication of THESE images. And I have been asked to
sign waivers giving photographers (or filmers) permission
to take photographs (or film) at cons. Since it's not
something I do on a professional basis, I really don't worry
about it other than the "Can a buy a copy for myself?" deal,
because I like to have some, but I can understand why others
wouldn't want to give carte blanche to the photographers
(or filmers) to do as they wish with the images later on.
(I also don't think most cons permit photography of art works
in the art room for copyright reasons which are a little
clearer.)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The feelings of admiration and even love are not sinful - nor can you
prevent the impulses of one's nature - but it is your duty to avoid
the temptation in every way. - Prince Albert (via Queen Victoria)
Pam Wells
In article <64JqSCAh...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" writes:
> In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <861285...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam
> Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <3355D3...@learnlink.emory.edu>
> > r...@learnlink.emory.edu "Ray Radlein" writes:
> >
> >> Pam Wells wrote:
> >> >
> >> > JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
> >> >
> >> > > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
> >> > ^^^^^^^
> >> > Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
> >>
> >> Only if he also mistyped "212F." He was trying to make a point about
> >> opinions, IMHO.
> >
> >But of course he was, and I was just trying to join in! Even a vacuous
> >tart whose country deals in Celsius temperatures knows that 68 degrees
> >Fahrenheit is neither the freezing nor the boiling point of water.
>
> Depends on the pressure.
OK, opinions formed under intense pressure may well cause water to boil
at 68F. (Or something; I seem to be losing the plot rapidly here!) I may
have gotten myself into some sticky situations at times, but I don't ever
recall encountering *that* much pressure....
B. Vermo
In article <5j3knb$c...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
John Creasey <cre...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
|When I was taking photojournalism in college (1966) it was explained
|that a models release was required it the photos were to be offered
|"for sale" or otherwise published for revenue.
Strange. So a freelancer who snaps the bank robber jumping into
the getaway car has to locate him and get his signature before he
can offer the picture to the newspapers?
Mean Green Dancing Machine
In article <33552D...@interport.net>,
>>
>> point where the combination of cheap video cameras, high-bandwidth
>> connections, and raw computer power in and of themselves constitute an
>> invasion of privacy.
>
>violated by the existence of any or all of these things. Moveover,
>the damage that photographs can do to privacy is hardly contingent
>on increased technology.
If that's your opinion, you're lacking in either knowledge or
imagination. That we have no standard for privacy in public currently
is at least in part because available technology makes it impossible to
track every person. When that tracking becomes simple, we will add
another level to the ongoing invasion of our personal privacy.
Or are you one of those people who doesn't believe in a basic right to
privacy?
>What's the big deal, anyway? Conventions are full of people
>taking pictures and have been for ages. Who has suffered?
I honestly don't know. But that was then; this is now.
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <861285...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam
Wells <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <3355D3...@learnlink.emory.edu>
> r...@learnlink.emory.edu "Ray Radlein" writes:
>
>> Pam Wells wrote:
>> >
>> > JUN...@interport.net "Stevens R. Miller" writes:
>> >
>> > > My own opinion is that water freezes at 68F.
>> > ^^^^^^^
>> > Perhaps you mistyped 'boils'? (*Boils*, she emphasises; not bollocks!)
>>
>> Only if he also mistyped "212F." He was trying to make a point about
>> opinions, IMHO.
>
>But of course he was, and I was just trying to join in! Even a vacuous
>tart whose country deals in Celsius temperatures knows that 68 degrees
>Fahrenheit is neither the freezing nor the boiling point of water.
Depends on the pressure.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
pedants R us
Brandon Ray
In note <rdkeir-1704...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu
writes:
>In article <5j3l0m$h...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, gwan...@u.washington.edu
>(R. Tang) wrote:
>
>> If you are in a public area, with a corresponding low degree and
>>expectation of privacy, you have little right to expect this. And being at
>>a con is a public event.
>
>who've read the articles that come out in photographic magazines.
>These articles are written from the standpoint of warning new
>photographers about all the things they can't do if they want
>to avoid legal problems; that naturally causes such articles to
>be shaded from the viewpoint of "if in doubt, don't do it."
>
>An article written about the rights of individuals is typically
>shaded the opposite way: "Don't waste your time, you have no
>such right."
>The blurry area lies in Roger's comment "being at a con is a public
>event." I could see a lawyer making the argument that cons are
>locales where "the public" aren't allowed in -- you have to
>pay to get in, or be invited, or otherwise participate in it.
>weddings, children's dance recitals, and museums, despite their
>being at least as public as con panels, a filksing, or an
>art show.
>
However, in each of these examples, the ban on photography is explicitly
issued by the host(s) of the event -- and it STILL doesn't give the person
being photographed any cause for action; it simply gives the host the right to
ask violators to stop or leave. In extreme cases, the host might have a cause
of action, if they could prove monetary damages.
>My personal interpretation, for want of an authoritative legal
>ruling, is that if you've got the camera, you should behave like
>Marilee J. Layman and get permission; this is both cautious and,
>more importantly, polite.
When dealing with an individual subject, this is possible. In dealing with a
crowded convention hospitality suite, hallway, etc., it amounts to a ban on
photography.
>If you're in the photo, on the other
>hand, you may want to consider long and hard before investing
>money in a legal battle to protect a right that you may well
>not have.
>
>I'd love to see the guidelines that, say, Life magazine gives
>their photographers; this would be a lot more useful than
>the half-remembered ideas of us Usenet readers. But so far
>I haven't seen anyone who's got such a source quoting it.
---
******************************************************************************
"The message is clear: on THE X-FILES, a woman who is co-opted by the
patriarchal order gets turned into a puddle of goo."
--Rhonda Wilcox & J.P. Williams
"'What Do You Think?': The X-Files,
Liminality, and Gender Pleasure"
******************************************************************************
Terry Austin
ro...@visi.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>And it could be a _lot_ worse. We're seeing the effects of the mass of
>barely-competent conservative judges Reagan shoved on the country. Thank
>heavens for the liberals keeping idiots like Bork out of the system.
>Thank heaven for Clinton vetoing the worst of the Republican extremes.
Ya, thank God for the Clinton that signed the Communications Decency
Act, which would have meant federal prison time for discussing breast
cancer in a cancer support group on the Internet. Without Clinton,
life would just be Hell.
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Grand Companion of Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online Bookstore http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Encyclopedia Harnica auction, signed by N. Robin Crossby