From: Rich Addison <Rich_Addison@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Regarding Cameras at SCA events
Organization: U of Mich Organ Transplantation Center
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:05:20 GMT

Graydon, graydon@micor.ocunix.on.ca writes:
>z_berryrw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>
>> If one denies others the privelidge of photographing him/her, can
he/she also
>> deny the privelidge of commemorating him/her in song, or story?  Where
does i
>> stop?
>Well, there is a certain process difference between a composition,
>whether song, verse, or prose, and taking a photograph.  (Yes, I
>know there is something called composition that good photographers
>pay attention to; if you want to argue that a majority of the people
>who take photographs at SCA events are modern photographic artists,
>I'm just going to giggle at you.)

>> If the main objection if the potential commercial exploitation of
one's image
>> then I offer no possible solution, other than Suit for royalties or
damages.
>> In our overly-litiginous {sp?} society, this seem the way we solve all
>> problems, but I'm not sure it's the right one.  "Privacy" is becoming
a 
>> very vague (and at the same time important) term in the electronic era.

This may or may not be interesting.  I was recently at Liberty Con in
Chattanooga and noticed a handy fact sheet they had about the rights of
photographers/subjects in mundane law.  Apparently, according to such
law, anyone with a camera has the right to photograph anything they see
fit with it.  (Assuming such obvious exceptions as gaining illegal entry
for the purpose, etc.)  They only have to get permission from a person to
take their picture if they plan to sell it in some form.

Of course this is only the legal aspect.  I personally would consider it
a matter of common courtesy to ask a subject's permission before I
photographed them.  With the possible exception of candid shots which you
never ever ever intend to use for anything but private viewing.

>My opinion is that someone videotaping without prior permission of all
>concerned should have their video tape, and preferably their camcorder,
>too, chucked into a handy tesla coil.  This is not likely to be something
>the SCA would be willing to adopt as a policy, but a 'no video' policy
>doesn't strike me as inappropriate or difficult.

It's my humble opinion that one should be able to do whatever they very
well please, as long as they cause no harm to others.  If you want to
argue that being photographed without permission could have long-term
psychotraumatic side-effects you may, while I giggle back at you.  . . ;)

>Well - I'm not willing to put up with being photographed at all, in 
>general.  I actively detest sitting in a candlelit hall, hearing someone
>being roundly praised for their good service to King and Baron, and 
>having a mess of flashbulbs go off.  Right up there with hurling bckets
>of ice water on newlyweds for spoiling the mood.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that taking flash pictures at an event in
a darkened auditorium/ampitheatre/whatever is one of the rudest things
that can be done.  It's very disruptive.  Many indoor shows at public
places such as Disney World and Kennedy Space Center overtly disallow
flash photography in them, at the risk of being removed without refund
from the place.  I would hope that the SCA is lax enough, though, not to
take quite such a hardlined stance as this.

Sorry if discussing non-SCA events (e.g. Liberty Con) isn't appropriate
for this group.  I thought it was an appropriate reference.

Woefully mundane and looking for Ann Arbor, MI SCA contact:
Rich_Addison@med.umich.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Addison                   |        Do not meddle in
Programmer Analyst             |     the affairs of wizards,
U of M Organ Transplant Center |    for they are clever, and
Ann Arbor, MI                  | you would make a great doorknob.
From: Stephen.Whitis@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Stephen Whitis)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet