pouët.net

understand if people would assume others might believe such a thing.*

Some people have requested pictures of them not appear on Slengpung, but that doesn't take care of other people's personal galleries. Plus if the photo was shared by someone who didn't mind being photographed or even wanted it to have photos of them there then it is removed to that person's detriment. Seems in such a case if the person is willing, not tagging them in shared photos is reasonable.

(I'd like at least one photo of me at Sundown as proof I was there. :P Nobody managed to get a photo with me in it at Revision for 2015.)

Yeah, that said a little discretion from the photographers goes a long way too. If I saw someone really making an ass of themselves or doing something questionable in one of my photos, I wouldn't post it online (or at the very least I'd ask the person beforehand.) I haven't followed the Evoke thread but I'm guessing this debate is coming up now for a specific reason (i.e. someone was annoyed about a photo of themselves.)

Well it's come up in the past too, just one or two people who wished not to appear (or be tagged) on Slengpung and due to time since the request, and possible changes in people who worked on Slengpung the req was forgotten.

The issue from the Evoke thread seems to be that the camera capturing the timelapse* was discreet and as nobody was warned, they had no idea they'd be in such a thing and las had questions about that. (Not denigrating las here.) Others also seem to have issue with people who sneak around to take "covert" photos of others at the party.

* The remaining timelapse was from a very visible camera on a tripod outside so people had an idea it was going on.

Seems to me you shouldn't need to sneak around to get photos of people at the party and if you're somewhat overt about taking photos those who don't want it can have a chance to say so, get out of the way, or at least say they'd rather that photo not be released. As long as the photographer doesn't purposely follow anyone who moves out of frame to capture them, all is good. (That'd be kind of a dick thing to do, even if the photographer sees it as a joke.)

Anyway, I think easy solution is one already described: just announce on the party page text like exists for Function and as noted in the original post of this thread. It's like freenode, where you're required (I believe) to put in the topic if you publicly log the channel so people understand and leave if they don't want.

Legal perspective (though IANAL): I just checked the relevant (German) law and as far as I understand it, it is generally legal to take and publish pictures of people who are attending events like this. Note that this goes further than the event just being a public space - generally you still need permission for taking a picture of someone in public if they are an important part of the picture. At a public event though, it would appear that you can do close-ups and publish them without a problem.

However, the picture might still not be allowed if the publication would violate a "legitimate interest" of the person depicted. That term isn't really well defined, but apparently it can be taken to mean pictures that would seriously harm someone's reputation. It also applies to privacy, so don't take ninja pictures of people in a place where they expect to have some degree of privacy - toilets obviously come to mind, which is so obvious that it feels ridiculous to type out, but it might also apply elsewhere (think of a couple in some quiet corner where noone is obviously watching).

Of course that doesn't mean we can't make some extra rules, but I think it's good to consider this when discussing what rules people should expect to be followed.

Just to add a little something: How do you know that even a very visible camera is taking images?

Ninja Photographers:
I had several situations where I turned away continuously from photographers, even with some friendly "I saw you" eye contact with the "ninja". Does not seem to be enough in at least 70% of the cases. It is really a pain in the ass - the only thing that seems to work is approaching the respective photographer and answering "why don't you want a photo of you taken?" bullshit questions.

Regarding the evoke thread: I did not have the intend to cause any harm, I was just asking myself whether this was known to anyone.

Last but not least, the way Function handles this is definitely not the way I prefer.
In the fictional case we would have this color thing, I would be switching between yellow and red.

To me it seems like putting a disclaimer on the site is just a legal safety belt for the organizers and does nothing for the individual to resolve this. I'm pretty sure 99% of party visitors know about the fact that there will be photos and stuff, doesnt mean they have to like it.
Calling out for "common sense" doesnt cut it either, some people are strictly against their picture in the open, no matter if its an embarassing situation or not - also people have a lot of different opinions. For one person making a picture of a group just doing a round of Krawall! is a nice thing to remember, for others its evidence of an alcohol problem they just dont want their (future) boss to see at any circumstances.

I dont think there is an easy way to solve this as both parties have their reasons, so I will just go with my own personal opinion here:

Being emberassed about what you did last summer(tm) is fucked up. Its OK to have a party once in a while and its OK to get shitfaced once in a while. If your employer sees it differently maybe its not the right place for you after all? Hell, if some guy wont hire me because he found a picture somewhere on the interwebs with me and a bottle of booze he can stick his job offer where the sun never shines. Sure - every person has a right for holding on to a perfect facade on the outside, but is this really what we want? Do we really believe mr. perfect exists and he is eager to take your place because you werent careful enough?

Then there are the tinfoilhats: what happens if our democratic system gets turned into a fascist police state regime and all the data available on the internets will be used against us eventually? Well, of course that would be fucked up - but lets face it: if that really happens we will have a much larger problem at hand than some photos on slengpung. If you dont want any digital traces of you being stored anywhere accessible to THE MAN you better kill your facebook, your google account, toss your telephone and make sure not to touch anything remotely connected to the internet.
Dont get me wrong - I see a lot of dangers relating to the amount of personal information on the net and how it can be abused... I just dont think being a dick about someone taking a photo of you at some party does anything to prevent this. This battle has to be fought on a larger scale.

And last but not least there are the people opposing it because they can. Never give anything away freely, at least not without being upset about it. Data (about you) is valuable, right? So better not let anyone have it, in the end they even might get credits for it while you dont. Unthinkable! Well... I'd say think again. This is just not how it works (and secretly you are looking up every interesting scener on slengpung or whereever as well, admit it).

So yes, in the end its a cost/benefit calculation. At least I would like to think that the benefits of having recordings and pictures of events and moments is doing us more good than bad. I love to relive parties and special moments, be it live recordings of some compo entry or DJ set (with people dancing in front) or just a nice picture of how things were back at Breakpoint 2010.

Maybe its true and the internet really brought mankind into the post-privacy era. Maybe the ice we walk upon is so thin it will eventually break and drown us. But for all I know fighting each other over a simple photograph (or many of them combined into a timelapse) is not going to help, in fact quite the contrary.

my 2 cents.

Two things have changed since 1998: Digital imaging, including video, has evolved that far that even a small still image extract often yields better quality than a typical old analogue photo. And photos are no longer private/selfhosted but often and up on (a)social networks, fire-and-forget hosters and similar providers, including continuosly improving image search, recognition and big data services.

I´m pretty much with las here - though I have to add that hardly any safari animal succeeded in avoiding to end up as a living room trophy just by making eye contact with its hunter...

@wysi: indeed, it is a cost-benefit relation. but it is not ok to impose a higher cost on everyone else just for getting more benefit which not everyone agrees with.
And the job issue might often be overrated, but just think of someone beeing a teacher or in a similar position where the third-party image needs to be free of questionable parts.

That said I haven´t encountered a party picture of me beeing on the net completely inacceptable. But I still consider it as "photo/video usually tolerated, but take into account that there might be a deletion request anytime to be fulfilled ASAP" and thus won´t visit any event stating "capturing photo/video and publishing it fully allowed, deal with it"

if you're afraid of your boss discovering how you behave in public you should really be looking for a better job. just saying.

I know this may sound a bit obvious - and probably might be a bit hard to work, but designated areas for photos?

I'm on my kids school P&C - we run discos fairly regularly. Altho the school does a permission slip thing for photos at the start of the year - that covers the staff etc. photographing in class and at school events it's a bit hard to police parents taking pics at discos.
So, what we did was setup a photobooth area - it's done up noicely in the style/theme of the disco, parents can head to it with their kids and snap away.Anyone seen taking pics in any other area is politely instructed by the volunteers that there is the appropriate place to take pics ONLY.

As I said - might seem a bit OT but it works and *most* parents are respectful - those that aren't (and there have been 1 or 2) find it very difficult to get tickets to the next disco...

Or maybe be a bit more mindful (and respectful of others space/sensibilities) of how you behave in public?

I think it's probably a bit of both. The point was that if you have an employer that digs up old stuff or purposely goes around the net to keep tabs on you, then it may not be a place you want to keep working at. You may never know that your beer with friends may show up as a very oddly framed photo that makes it look worse than it was, perhaps. Who knows.

Well I think that's the point of a chunk of the people here in a way: you're not asking for a ban on cameras (and what with all cell phones being a camera nowadays anyway that'd be tough proposition), but the updated Function legalish text does state people should be considerate and cognizant of other's wishes and privacy.


All the seriousness aside, I will totally laser cut people badges that say "Please ask before photographing" or "Do not ̶f̶e̶e̶d̶ photograph the animals". :D

I'm really surprised this is an issue. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the USA there is no expectation of privacy whatsoever in a public place or venue. It's understood -- both from a legal standpoint as well as a common-sense standpoint -- that if you are in a public venue, you should have no expectation of privacy and none will be granted.

I personally think this is how all demoparties should operate. I think it would be fairly easy to cover yourself legally (and otherwise) by having people agree to this in order to register for an event, maybe by checking an "I HAVE READ THE RULES" checkbox or something when submitting payment.

trixter, that's what Function is doing in a way. They changed their rules. Basically doing the EULA approach: by being there, you accept the rules as stated.

Just read it -- that's definitely the way to do it. Nice.

The EULA approach works for party organizers but it's neither respectful nor inclusive of (potential) visitors.

Again, to make a parallel with web conferences, the best ones have a similar "I HAVE READ THE RULES" checkbox when submitting a talk or payment, except it is not about an EULA but for a "code of conduct".

FWIW, in France, there is the right of image which means that individuals "owns" the right of their own image and it's not allowed to snap, and publish, pictures of random people without their consent. It's about respect.

Didn't read the whole thread tbh, but a few thoughts:

- There's a big difference between being in the background of a shot and being the subject of it. I find it's a good rule to get permission when e.g. photographing some people working on something, but if photographing a party hall at a distance it's not so important.

- Think carefully about the privacy issues here. Facial recognition means your face is effectively your ID. Not a huge issue now, perhaps, but what goes on the internet tends to stay on the internet.

In 10 years a search on your name might find your company profile page with a photo, which links you to some slengpung pics, from there your scene handle, which links you to that demo with all the dick jokes you made while drunk at a party and that video of you puking on a bench.

(And yeah, I know slengpung isn't indexed, so I'm happier if pics of me appear there instead of flickr etc. :)

@Las:

Sorry, as organizers we don't have the resources to handle this on a personal request basis, or play jury in every single case. As someone wrote earlier, people being paranoid about their presence being recorded on a public event should A., stay home B., create their own invite-only Anonymous demoparty instead. I know that sounds rude, but either that, or we have to cancel the party. Or just ignore the whole issue altogether. But no one came up with a better idea yet for orgas, which works in the real life. If that happens, we are happy to reconsider, but we can't cut the stream every time, because someone with a red badge accidentally crawls into the image then starts moaning about his/her privacy.

But we will of course have no-photo zones on the party. The primary obvious example is the sleeping room (apart from the even more obvious like restrooms and showers...). But if you're in the main hall, lounge area or in our beer garten, then sorry, it's your problem, we told you beforehand.

I think nobody is blaming partyorgas for not constantly monitoring everyone with a camera (or banning them altogether), its more about finding a workable solution that is ok for (almost) everyone.
Maybe there should be more photowalls like at Revision (according the number of pictures taken it seems to have been a huge success), but of course those "productions" are not the same as capturing the party spirit, be it inside or outside.
I don't think the people taking pictures at parties are not to be reasoned with and dont care for our privacy, but asking around everytime before you do the click is very tedious as well.
I think no-photo-zones are not the worst idea, there also could be a couple of rows/seats in the hall marked as such. Of course that wont prevent the people sitting there to appear on big hall-shots (or while they are sitting around outside or in front of the bigscreen), but at least individual photopraphers know that the people sitting there most likely dont want to be photographed up close (or their machines/screens for that matter).

The idea of photo/no-photo areas is nice and easy to put in place.

Hence the colorful badge/lanyard/armband approach. Write a nickname or something easily search-able to to review the photos and voilà.

:-)

As a hobbyist photographer I'm against all restrictions of taking photos of anything in the public. Badges are just an awful idea that add barriers to expression and documentation. You have a right to privacy when you're at your home, nowhere else. Obviously demoparties aren't exactly public either, but it's up to the organizers to decide upon and impose rules regarding taking photos. So far I don't think any parties have had any.

Still by default you have no right not to be photographed, and I for one am virulently against any restrictions of taking any photos in the public (as long as it doesn't turn into harassment, as defined by law, not someone's personal opinion). Candid shots are against photography etiquette though, don't take questionable pictures of people without their knowledge, be open about it. I have to also remark though that consent is not required in most countries, i.e. I'm not required to delete a photo of you even if you ask for it, and I'm even free to publish it.

My bottom line is: if you don't want to be photographed, stay home. If you impose any ridiculous restrictions I'll just leave my camera home altogether, or hell, I'll just not attend the party in the first place.

I feel a bit uneasy when it comes to boycotts, so I hope it doesn't come to that. I do see both sides of the problem though, and I think this is where kb's argument eventually breaks down - there's no "common sense" in this case.

Most demoparties I went to had "current country law applies" in their rules for years..

Doesn't that actually includes the current country law regulations considering photographing individuals?

(Read: This has to be "solved" / "dealt with" on a case by case / country by country basis)