Japan's Comiket Prohibits Low-Angle Cosplay Photography

[Olas]

Seems like just about the most reasonable thing in the world. Also, why the hell would people bother taking these "low-angle" photos to begin with? Does Japan not get deviantart or something?

snip

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment? Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

 

[Dragonbums]

The fact that no one is against this (nor will be, I imagine) makes me want to take the opportunity to remind us all of a recent Texas court ruling: https://news.vice.com/article/court-ruling-makes-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts-legal-in-texas

(Do you feel progressive?)

Yeah....but it's Texas. That state is a whole nother level of backwards insane. Nobody is surprised by this anymore.

 

[Scow2]

The fact that no one is against this (nor will be, I imagine) makes me want to take the opportunity to remind us all of a recent Texas court ruling: https://news.vice.com/article/court-ruling-makes-taking-pictures-up-womens-skirts-legal-in-texas

(Do you feel progressive?)

That law was too broad to survive. Did you see what got it shot down? A guy taking pictures of kids swimming. Another case is a guy taking pictures of Cheerleaders at a football game. What do those have to do with upskirt photos (Which everyone agrees are abhorrent). The Texas lawmakers need to get their act together and make a law that prohibits upskirt photos without prohibiting perfectly normal uses of a camera.

 

[Epicspoon]

How the hell do they enforce a rule about not being allowed to leave in cosplay? What happens if your normal clothes get fucked up for some reason while you're in costume?

 

[Micalas]

How the hell do they enforce a rule about not being allowed to leave in cosplay? What happens if your normal clothes get fucked up for some reason while you're in costume?

Then I guess you're going home naked! Now shoo, the con is closed!

 

[Olas]

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment?

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

I didn't. I read the whole thing. Carefully. And trying to dodge criticism by talking down to me and assuming I don't know what you mean is a cheap, and somewhat rude tactic.

All your qualifiers and disclaimers don't change what your actual point is, which is that people who dress a certain way shouldn't expect to be free from treatment that many people would find offensive or uncomfortable. Am I wrong? You mentioned things like "don't be a dick/****" which I guess is better than nothing, but is vague and left up to one's own interpretation of what a dick/**** actually is.

And for the record, I don't find any of your post "offensive", just concerning.

Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/****, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.

[sarcasm]Thanks for making it easier[/sarcasm] but still you're relying on the vague and interpretive nature of what is "inappropriate". Anyway, if you're saying you're against "inappropriate" touching, then why not crystallize what you mean and and make an enforceable rule about it? Simply saying it's against your "basic views" is hardly going to stop someone else from doing it.

At this point I'm wondering if a con where cosplaying isn't allowed would be prefferable to some.
I'd certainly enjoy it more if I could freely take pictures without worrying about some bouncer kicking me out, because a cosplayer is on the edge of one of my shots.

Unless I'm mistaken, having a cosplayer on the edge of one of your shots isn't what is being prohibited, so I think your fine.

The point is to have fun and relax, not to pander to oversensitive people so they can leave their home without getting hissy fits. In other words, I'd rather attend that kind of con than take any risk of being accused.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is becoming a thing of the past in this age of hysterical groupthink.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider not wanting to be sexually harassed as "oversensative". It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. I don't see how these rules would prevent any normal person from having fun. The only way you seem to justify disliking them is painting these rules as some straw-man Orwellian nightmare, which I don't see at all. You seem to suggest that the rules would lead to innocent people being falsely incriminated, but that seems more like a presumption about how the rules will be enforced. Obviously I'm against false incrimination, but I don't think the solution is to remove the rules one could be accused of breaking, just make reasonable rules and enforce them properly.

Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

I'm terribly sorry for butting in and snipping a lot of your post.
I just wanted to address this single statement.

Whatever happened to innocent until guilty?
"he who gives up a little bit of liberty for security deserves neither"
Etc.
To condemn all people before they've performed the act that is against the rules is a little bit too slippery slopery (okay, not a word but..lets go with it)..

Anyone can be offended by anything and it will not stop with just prohibiting low camera angles.
What about shots from behind? or bust shots? or certain side-view shots?
Or the cosplayer might feel threatened by the shooter. S/He might be just a bit too close, or look a bit too long, or...
I think you see where I'm going.

What about establishing certain enclosed areas/rooms for cosplayers who want to show of or be more risque?

I don't know really..

Anyway, thanks for reading. I don't usually engage in the more political topics.

 

[Olas]

Anyway, I'm not completely unsympathetic to people who might be concerned that this will make the atmosphere of cons more uptight. But if I weigh the desire for a relaxed atmosphere against the desire to not be harassed, the latter is going to take precedent every time.

I'm terribly sorry for butting in and snipping a lot of your post.
I just wanted to address this single statement.

Whatever happened to innocent until guilty?

Nothing. I agree that people should be innocent until proven guilty. Why do people assume I don't? And in scenarios involving pictures I'm pretty sure the photo itself is pretty good evidence to prove one innocent or guilty.

Admittedly I think it's a little unfair that the burden of proof always falls on the person claiming to be a victim, but I'd rather have that than convict people over unproven accusations.

"he who gives up a little bit of liberty for security deserves neither"
Etc.

Well that's a stupid quote and you shouldn't have used it to try and make your point. Obviously one has to try and balance freedom and security. We can disagree over how much weight to put on each, but to say any amount of freedom takes precedent over any amount of safety is ludicrous. Do you not believe in rules at all? Because any rule is basically sacrificing some freedom for some added safety.

To condemn all people before they've performed the act that is against the rules is a little bit too slippery slopery (okay, not a word but..lets go with it)..

Yes, agreed, only a madman would think otherwise. Where do you get the assumption that I would want to prejudge people before they've done anything?

Anyone can be offended by anything

This isn't a rule about offending people, it's a rule about specific behavior that a lot of people find offensive, or uncomfortable. My goal wouldn't be to create a utopia for everyone, just a convention that's considerably less shitty for a significant percentage of people.

and it will not stop with just prohibiting low camera angles.

Slippery slope argument. Prove that enforcing these rules will INEVITABLY lead to more and worse ones.

What about shots from behind? or bust shots? or certain side-view shots?

I would say anything visible from one's normal line of sight is fine. You're trying to make this complicated, but really it's not. People dress assuming they'll be seen from the front and back, if they make their busts visible from this angle then it's fine. It's only when you're on your knees or elbows taking pictures from a low angle, without asking the cos-player if it's okay, that it's a problem.

Or the cosplayer might feel threatened by the shooter. S/He might be just a bit too close, or look a bit too long, or...
I think you see where I'm going.

Ya, a straw-man argument.

I didn't realize rules about closeness, or longness were being debated. I would say probably a foot or two away is fine, and no following a person around like a stalker without some good reason.

You know, reasonable restrictions. And if a person isn't comfortable with the protection they offer it's their issue.

What about establishing certain enclosed areas/rooms for cosplayers who want to show of or be more risque?

Sounds like an interesting idea.

I'm also partial to the idea of people wearing stickers or something notifying people if there's anything in particular their uncomfortable with. The details of the rules are probably something best left to someone else. I just think it's ridiculous to be against any sort of rules protecting cosplayers from harassment.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

-snip-

Whoah..that was a lot more words than I expected. (And quotes)
Have to look up some fallacies as well, so I wont address them now.

I did probably read a bit too much into your statement, I did not mean to imply anything sinister about you.
I was just trying (ineffectually) to understand how you meant that fear of harassment should take precedent over people photographing cosplayers.
I was painting a picture of the scenario as I saw it, so that my meaning would come across better.
I will try to do better next time.

I wholeheartedly agree that people being rude and focus on doing panty-shots should be combated against, but prohibiting/banning people that take a "low-angle" photograph seems a bit too much for me.
Do not some of the cosplayers stand on podiums and the like?

I just wonder if there isn't another way, hence why I tossed out the enclosed area idea.

My apologies if I came across as anything other than sincere and honest.

 

[Scorpid]

Now if only Animes themselves could make such rules about low angle shots.

 

[Olas]

Are you for real? So people should have to dress in accordance with what other people won't find sexually arousing if they want to be safe from sexual harassment?

You obviously just skimmed my post and picked at whatever offended you, without reading the rest.

I didn't. I read the whole thing. Carefully. And trying to dodge criticism by talking down to me and assuming I don't know what you mean is a cheap, and somewhat rude tactic.

All your qualifiers and disclaimers don't change what your actual point is, which is that people who dress a certain way shouldn't expect to be free from treatment that many people would find offensive or uncomfortable. Am I wrong? You mentioned things like "don't be a dick/****" which I guess is better than nothing, but is vague and left up to one's own interpretation of what a dick/**** actually is.

And for the record, I don't find any of your post "offensive", just concerning.

You are not entirely wrong; People who dress differently, in this case specifically for attention, should be prepared for certain situtaions.
Your assumption is that I'm saying that they deserve it, which is inane and unreasonable.

No that's not my assumption, where did I say that, ever? I don't think you believe they deserve it, just that you believe it's acceptable if it happens, or at least it's not unacceptable enough to actually enforce rules against it.

So if people want to avoid these "certain situations" they would therefore have to dress in a non-provocative manner, whatever it means to be non-provocative. That's what I said in my first reply to you, which you said was the result of me skimming over your post to find the parts that "offend" me.

I think people should be free to dress how they want, so long as it's appropriate for the con, without fear of sexual harassment as a result. I don't see how that's too much to ask.

You may find my posts directed at you as rude and cheap, but I assure you that your response was no less frustrating to read.
So many people are shouting for equal treatment and are so busy judging others that they have no time to notice their own behaviour.
I believe you are one of these people, and I have no sympathy, courtesy or patience to spare for you.

I'm not asking for politeness, just that you take what I say seriously and not immediately draw a mental image of me. I don't

And I'm not passing judgement on you, just on the idea that you're arguing in favor of.

Honestly, why would you defend anyone's right to 'grope' another person?

I've bolded the relevant part for you to make it easier:

To deter idiotic assumptions I'll just briefly rattle off my basic views: Don't be a dick/****, don't touch anyone inappropriately and don't be an attention whore.

[sarcasm]Thanks for making it easier[/sarcasm] but still you're relying on the vague and interpretive nature of what is "inappropriate". Anyway, if you're saying you're against "inappropriate" touching, then why not crystallize what you mean and and make an enforceable rule about it? Simply saying it's against your "basic views" is hardly going to stop someone else from doing it.

Why would I? The only fathomable reason that you'd ask such an oddly specific question is so that you could nitpick it apart.
I've already stated what could be done; Hire a security company as consultants, because they have the necessary experience in preparing a crash course or meeting.

It's not unreasonable if the intention is to protect people "at risk".

I'm confused. How is my question oddly specific? It seems pretty central to the discussion to me. You say your against certain inappropriate behavior, but also want to allow people to have fun without fear of facing consequences for inappropriate behavior. The way I see it the best way to do that is to come up with simple, easy, but specific guidelines for what is or isn't okay and enforce them. Leaving it up to arbitrary distinctions like "don't be a dick" is bad for both cos-players and people wanting to interact with them. The cos-players have no idea what they're safe from and people wanting to interact with them don't know if what they're doing counts as being "a dick".

I know you probably think that people should just use common sense. I get that, and the "don't be a dick" clause is okay as a backup to your main set of rules so that people can't just find exceptions to them. But I'd rather have clear rules over unclear ones wherever possible.