I'm actually going to partly agree with you here. One fan telling another what to write and what not to is really problematic, at best, and any blanket ban seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nor do I personally support one - if an artist says he thinks RPF/S was spiffy and fans should feel free to write loads of it, I have no objection to RPF/S of that artist, and I'll support it as any freedom of speech cause. (And, admitting to a more problematically subjective "art is in the eye of the beholder" judgment, I've seen one piece of RPS I thought was a really stunning piece of writing; in the face of objections to that piece, I would ignore my own arguments to defend its right to exist based on its literary merits alone - to my mind, it was RPF in the way "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" was fanfic. I fully admit that's inconsistent, particularly as one of the two is still alive, but certainly I have no intention of running around telling people, oh no, they're not allowed to write RPF under any circumstances.)
However, I don't think that's the same as one fan saying that RPS is a Big Frelling Ethical Issue that deserves due consideration by fandom as a Big Frelling Ethical Issue. "Approve" and "ignore" aren't the only two options open to fans, although they're very useful ones in a lot of circumstances; "discuss ad nauseam", "censure", and "support" are also out there for use where there's an ethical belief involved. (I know someone who has moral objections to homosexuality and is running a ficathon where slash is banned; I can join in or I can ignore it, but I can also tell her that I won't be joining in because I have ethical issues with the terms of her ficathon, because the expression of ethical beliefs in a community is inherently valuable.)
The issue at heart here is actually very much related to your statement, though. With fanfic, the people directly involved are thee-and-me, and I can exercise my right not to be involved by simply clicking away. With RPF, the people involved are you, me, and the people being written about, and they don't have any option for declining involvement. They can only go to a lawyer, of course, but lawyers are the step demonstrating that the problem has already occured - they're there to redress the issue when things have gone too far already, not an opt-out mechanism before things get to that stage.
At its most basic, the question really seems to be, is there tacit permission to use someone's name-and-likeness until they opt to refuse that permission, or should the permission be obtained first. The law says the latter; regulations about release forms are pretty stringent. Ethically, I believe the latter. I can understand the former in circumstances that are unlikely to have significant legal or personal impact, or that fall under protected speech (attributing a false quote for humor value on a parody site, where parody is protected speech, for example), but I don't understand the former in a situation risking significant and warranted legal action based on damage to an individual. Your argument seems to me to be that there isn't significant or warranted legal recourse for RPF, and also that there is tacit permission. And I don't understand either of those viewpoints.
no subject
However, I don't think that's the same as one fan saying that RPS is a Big Frelling Ethical Issue that deserves due consideration by fandom as a Big Frelling Ethical Issue. "Approve" and "ignore" aren't the only two options open to fans, although they're very useful ones in a lot of circumstances; "discuss ad nauseam", "censure", and "support" are also out there for use where there's an ethical belief involved. (I know someone who has moral objections to homosexuality and is running a ficathon where slash is banned; I can join in or I can ignore it, but I can also tell her that I won't be joining in because I have ethical issues with the terms of her ficathon, because the expression of ethical beliefs in a community is inherently valuable.)
The issue at heart here is actually very much related to your statement, though. With fanfic, the people directly involved are thee-and-me, and I can exercise my right not to be involved by simply clicking away. With RPF, the people involved are you, me, and the people being written about, and they don't have any option for declining involvement. They can only go to a lawyer, of course, but lawyers are the step demonstrating that the problem has already occured - they're there to redress the issue when things have gone too far already, not an opt-out mechanism before things get to that stage.
At its most basic, the question really seems to be, is there tacit permission to use someone's name-and-likeness until they opt to refuse that permission, or should the permission be obtained first. The law says the latter; regulations about release forms are pretty stringent. Ethically, I believe the latter. I can understand the former in circumstances that are unlikely to have significant legal or personal impact, or that fall under protected speech (attributing a false quote for humor value on a parody site, where parody is protected speech, for example), but I don't understand the former in a situation risking significant and warranted legal action based on damage to an individual. Your argument seems to me to be that there isn't significant or warranted legal recourse for RPF, and also that there is tacit permission. And I don't understand either of those viewpoints.