Hang your head in shame!

No. Not autism, just badly phrased as part of a confusing gray area of "When are you allowed to use your phone in public?" online discourse.

There's plenty of people who sincerely believe you don't have any kind of rights to photography of anyone at any place for any reason, without explicit consent. There's others who believe heckling and cat calling is perfectly normal acceptable behavior. And then there's a thousand lines in between.

Standing half naked in a garish "please pay attention to me" costume near a sign that says "Stop taking my picture without asking me first" is confusing to the point of feeling like rage bait.

Maybe it is my autism, but I was specifically addressing the nuances and motivations behind subsets of people. People taking pictures are not all equal. The line of delineation between those taking pictures of a crowd and those taking pictures of the total event are one such difference. No one would argue that taking a picture of the entire convention center floor necessitates asking everyone present in images for their consent, likewise with taking landscape or panoramic pictures of some subset or section of the floor. There will be people closer and further away in such images. This is candid/in-situ photography. Anyone with minimal fundamental logic skills can follow this delineation and arrive at the conclusion that such behavior is nominal. Obviously, this is not the behavior that the sign in the original post was addressing.

So what is the sign addressing. Well the information about touching infers that the sign is about invasive behavior directed at cosplayers. So logic dictates that the information about photography is also about allaying similar disruptive behavior.

What types of behavior related to photography are most invasive. Entitlement is the primary issue. Under the surface of cosplay, there is a deeper layer of subtle servitude that goes unaddressed in the context of broader sociology. In terms of cosplay at an event, the role of entertainer does not imply the inferred subservient class of entertainer and the entertained. The event is intended to be an egalitarian aggregate of entertainers. It is likely that most people are not self aware within this heavily abstracted context. Nonetheless, this class role of entertainers is real and underpins all of the social interactions. In societies like ancient Rome, entertainers were a recognized social class.

When anyone acts entitled with photography or demands a cosplayer's time or attention, they are effectively forcing the role of subservience.

When people talk about how humans or some animals display complex social behavior, this kind of subtle or unspoken complexity is what they are referring to. Even when the entitled person demanding time or attention is a fellow cosplayer, within the same unspoken social caste, they are still imposing a subtle form of hierarchy and subservience. All humans engage on these layers of interaction with various degrees of self awareness. You did it when you replied. I did it in my original comment, and I am doing it now, some in ways that I am aware, and in many ways I am not.

The actual invasive behaviors about photography and interaction that this sign intends to address are the demeaning and emotionally taxing interactions that are likely to have a short and long term negative impact on cosplayers. The sign is short and anecdotal. It cannot address the subtle nuances of sociology that most people cannot grasp. Concepts of social hierarchy, complexity, and castes are are beyond the comprehension of most entitled people that the sign is intended to allay.

If you demand a person's time and obsequiousness in this context, you are demanding subservience. The sign is stating the egalitarian nature of the gathering, and that no one is expected to acquiesce in subservience. It is stating you must be respectfully egalitarian in this subculture.

Oh weird, it's worded a bit weird. Usually all these events have a huge clause that it's a public space and your footage can be used and published.

Guess it only counts for corporations

I read it closely and I agree. Men will take it as don't get near don't, move. Women will take it as any minor annoyance counts as SH. And both miss the nuance of it being that you can snap public areas, but no one owes you a touch or personal picture.