An overly lengthy discussion of the KnoxGothic camera policy

X · Post by X » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:00 am

This is why i don't do two shows anymore babe, i just don't.

Post by **Bone** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:21 am

First off, before anyone gets up in arms please be sure to read the contract unemotionally and carefully.

The point and reason of all of this contract in its current form is this:

Photos at Sanctus have been becoming an increasing problem over the last year. There have been several times that pictures have been posted to the web that people in the community wanted removed from public view for whatever reason. We of the KGB understand that images on the Web can be dangerous to some of our patrons. Be it for job security, legal reasons (divorces, child custody, etc) or what not. Fortunately to date, with the exception of the Halloween issue, things have always been pleasantly resolved... up till now.

Vader, Arkady and I DON'T want to make a camera policy. We all love taking photos, posting them and looking at all the pics of everone from a night.

However, we of the KGB feel responsible to the community to protect those involved in it as much as we can at official KG events. We want people to feel safe to come to one of our events and be who and what they are.

Even a signed agreement is shaky to non-existent legal document. They are very easily dismissed. Owning copyright is the only STRONG legal grounds we can come up with for making someone remove an offending picture from the web.

Selling the images for those of you who wish is easily worked out as long as you have releases from the subjects.
This brings me to a point not covered specifically in the contract. First off, we want the photographer to be fully creidited for any photos he or she takes.

For those that have submitted photos to KG to post, we have always tried to credit the photographers. We would FULLY expect any photographers to credit their photos on the pics before posting. Its a great way to get exposure to the masses for your photographic talents. In addition, we have MANY potential models who would love having a portfolio made.

All three of us on the KGB have worked hard to continue to do the best thing we can do to protect the night and the community. This is what we came up with. If anyone has legal knowledge and wishes to offer a solution that will work as good or better, we are more than willing to listen and take a look at it. Please bring it to our attention. That being said, I am currently going through some channels to get some legal advice as to what laws are already in place and what further can be done, hopefully, without the need to secure copyright of photos.

We are NOT wanting to take away pictures at Sanctus. We do want to protect the patrons though. Thats what this is all about.

Thor · Post by **Thor** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:17 am

Like the drink or 21 years of age policy ( wrist bands or stamps on the hand ) ! If you do not want your picture taken wear a wrist band, or better yet a button that flashes brightly)!. I know where/how you can get kewl buttons that flash a nice RED diod ( sp )? To identify your-self as one who does not want ones picture taken? This would tell a photographer I do not like or give permission with-out written ( photographer/ subject ) permission to take my picture with/out a contract signed! I say let the few who have a problem identify themselves, and work out their issues between the photographer, and the subject?!

If I bring a camera, and only intend to take pictures of my-self? Do I need to sign this form? Or to take pictures of my-self, with others who consent to be in the picture with me?

As far as I know Bluecats/Santus is a public place. If a paytron choses to PAY the entry fee ( door fee ) then they must abid to said rules etc... If you pay to get into Bluecats/Santus then you must consent to these rules etc... Basically that I'm in a PUBLIC place, and forfiet any pictures of myself to the PUBLIC!

What about movies, alot of digital camera's take movies?

gwenhwyfar · Post by **gwenhwyfar** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:50 am

its really sad that it has come to this.

i bring in a camera to take pics of my friends. then i post them online so they can see them and save them.

i can see both sides, but i think this issue should be for the "pros" exclusively. i dunno how or have ideas for a better way, but i think the contract is pretty excessive.

i've been in contact with 2 photographers that call themselves pros, at sanctus in more than a yr that i've been attending.
one i'm happy to pose for, and he brings me back copies of the better pics as he has also done for my friends.
the other i am still irritated with, because she took pics of me without asking, despite my screaming across the crowd. posted them on her photopages, and they are still up to this day. never asked if it was ok with me, ever!
my pics being posted online does not bother me when they were taken by friends and i know about it. but i don't know her, she didn't ask, she ignored my yelling at her and simply walked away, posted them online-though they aren't for sale to my knowledge. i even look livid mad in one of them, that should have been a hint.

all in all, i consider her to be rude and very unprofessionall and if i ever catch her taking pics of me again without asking, we may fight. i don't care how many of my friends she's done shoots with, she NEVER asked me, prolly doesn't even know my name and posted them.
so perhaps the contract is neccesary.
it sure beats the hell out of KG members having to pull me off some rude bitch with a camera.
beats the hell out of me going to jail in my sanctus attire for assault

sighs :shrug:

tat2jay · Post by **tat2jay** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:59 am

Thor wrote:Like the drink or 21 years of age policy ( wrist bands or stamps on the hand ) ! If you do not want your picture taken wear a wrist band, or better yet a button that flashes brightly)!. I know where/how you can get kewl buttons that flash a nice RED diod ( sp )? To identify your-self as one who does not want ones picture taken? This would tell a photographer I do not like or give permission with-out written ( photographer/ subject ) permission to take my picture with/out a contract signed! I say let the few who have a problem identify themselves, and work out their issues between the photographer, and the subject?!

If I bring a camera, and only intend to take pictures of my-self? Do I need to sign this form? Or to take pictures of my-self, with others who consent to be in the picture with me?

As far as I know Bluecats/Santus is a public place. If a paytron choses to PAY the entry fee ( door fee ) then they must abid to said rules etc... If you pay to get into Bluecats/Santus then you must consent to these rules etc... Basically that I'm in a PUBLIC place, and forfiet any pictures of myself to the PUBLIC!

What about movies, alot of digital camera's take movies?

this idea i like, alot, maybe even a big scarlet P pinned to them hahahaha

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:37 am

Bone wrote:First off, before anyone gets up in arms please be sure to read the contract unemotionally and carefully.

I'd like to think I did, seeing as how I don't even take pictures yet recognized its draconian nature. There's not even discussion of reverting copyright back to the actual author, which I'd like to think a reasonable measure to be entrusted to secure parties such as Jay.

Also, nobody from the KnoxGothic Board of Directors has addressed the issue of camera phones; is the silence to endorse the concept of a camera phone being a recording device and thus subject?

We of the KGB understand that images on the Web can be dangerous to some of our patrons. Be it for job security, legal reasons (divorces, child custody, etc) or what not.

That's the way of a lot of public places. Going into a porn shop or cruising Magnolia for dates are questionable as well, but they're all public places and people should be aware of the risks that are posed if they're in positions which could be compromised by such activities. The short, entirely legal answer would be to either suck it up and deal with being in a public place with a stigma or don't go out. A hard-handed RIAA-like response is not a solution.

We all love taking photos, posting them and looking at all the pics of everone from a night.

Do you have to sign the waiver? Once the KGB has secured copyright, what's the process used to determine usage? Is there discussion with a majority vote, unanimous, or individual usage?

Even a signed agreement is shaky to non-existent legal document. They are very easily dismissed. Owning copyright is the only STRONG legal grounds we can come up with for making someone remove an offending picture from the web.

If you want to get shaky, consider the mixing of alcohol and legal documents. A contract is dismissable upon evidence of being in an altered state of mind, such as inebriated. Like, oh... photographs.

Selling the images for those of you who wish is easily worked out as long as you have releases from the subjects.

For or to?

I'm no legaltologist, but those are some of my observations.

shadow dancer · Post by **shadow dancer** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:49 am

What will help solve the matter is factual based legal information that can determine how well the people of Sanctus are already protected.

As for current laws, I am no legal expert, but I have put in a call to a friend of mine, who is a lawyer to determine her opininon combined with written law on what is covered under right of privacy and publicity to protect the patrons of Sanctus without the photographer giving up copyright to the photos. I'll let you know what I find out.

As for camera phones, that is definitely a whole new can of worms. If I am not mistaken, there are laws that are going through the United States government at this time to govern what kind of photos can be taken with them. I think the recent case of what happened in a Texas supermarket has put a stress on that one. I am curious to see the official outcome of that one. Camera phones have been outlawed in many "private" areas, such as gyms, etc. already in many cities across the United States. Pictures that are taken with camera phones in those places are subject to legal ramifications. I'm not saying that's the way it should be for Sanctus, but that's what's been happening lately across the US.

In addition, for those of you who know photographers with newspapers, magazines, media, etc. You might want to ask them what kind of laws they are aware of that are in place. I understand that they work by a different set of laws for public use, but they might be aware of the laws governing private use as well. It is another source to tap for information.

Taking pictures at Sanctus is a sticky situation: its a privilege that people can enjoy, but there is also room for people to take advantage of it. I have had a couple of those "questionable" pics taken of me, and yes, it irritated the hell out of me, but I also accept that I am ultimately responsible for what I wear, what I do and the fact that I show up for Sanctus. I realized through all of those actions that the result was a possiblity: it is for everyone who attends. I think the majority of the course of action that started this thread resulted from the final blow of several people, who are members of this forum, getting upset over a photographer taking and selling pictures without the subjects' permissions. Will it or will it not happen again? I've seen more done for the almighty dollar. I don't put it past a person if someone thinks he or she can possibly make money off of it. The question is: do people care that this is happening and are they willing to continue coming to Sanctus knowing that this could be a possibility without the option of pursuing some kind of legal recourse or controlling what images of them are on display? That question being asked, I would be curious to know the replies from those whose images were, in fact, up for sale or those who have requested photos to be removed.

Mother Mo · Post by **Mother Mo** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:30 pm

Some folks just aren't comfortable with regulations of any kind. It's not the patriot act, folks. It's an appropriate response to a legitimate problem, & I'm glad it's being addressed. No one wants to discourage anyone from taking pics of their friends when they go out. Take 'em, post 'em, & we'll all enjoy them just like always. But now there's a recourse for when it's done incorrectly. This has been a problem for a while now. If you take issue with the remedy, either suggest an alternative or don't bring the camera. Simple.

KG isn't trying to rain on anyone's parade, they're only to trying to respond to the many complaints on this topic & do their duty by the community. I, for one, appreciate it.

Silver Frost · Post by **Silver Frost** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:07 pm

ok guys heres the thing...there is no way for anyone to know when certain pictures were taken if you have a disposable camera anyways...i still have undeveloped pics from Sanctus a year ago. if you make copies there's no way the people at walgreens or what ever are gonna look at the pics and say " No way dude! These were taken at Sanctus!!" it's just what the KGB are trying to do in order to mollify people who were upset and keep assholes from taking pics of folks without thier permission and selling them. i for one know of very scandelous pics taken of me at Sanctus w/o my drunken knowledge...but I don't happen to care. Just get permisson first or don't bring your camera :roll:

JaNell · Post by **JaNell** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:33 pm

I found a good legal paper on the subject:
Substantive Law Behind Model Releases.

National Press Photographers Association

The contract really does need to be rewritten by an actual lawyer or legal aid if you're going to use it. To misquote from The Princess Bride, I don't think the current draft means what you think it means!

Post by **DarkVader** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:59 pm

OK, let me be clear on what we are saying with this.

First, it says that if you take pictures at a KG event, you CAN post them on the net, you CAN give copies of them away, and you CAN do whatever you would normally do with them, as long as you don't charge people money for them.

Second, it says that you can't take pictures of anyone who doesn't want to have their picture taken. It was a good thought - now it's Sanctus policy.

Third, if you DO want to sell pictures you've taken at Sanctus, we're not going to stop you. All we're going to ask is that:
a. We get a full-resolution copy of the picture.
b. We get copies of the model releases for all individuals in the picture.
c. We get a written statement of what you want to do with the picture.

We ARE NOT going to charge you for permission to sell the picture.

We also ARE NOT going to sell it ourselves. The only reason we are doing this is to prevent a repeat of abuses that have occurred in the past.

Relax. This is good for everybody.

Post by **DarkVader** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:01 pm

Oh, and this policy DOES apply to camera phones. Unless you are willing to sign this, please don't bring your camera phone into Sanctus.

iblis · Post by **iblis** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:04 pm

I think it'd be cool if you just made them sign to agree that all photos taken at Sanctus are GPL'd.

Yes, you'd have to modify the agreement to fit the situation - photos themselves don't exactly have "source code" - but still, the concept seems to have worked pretty darn well for Linux, if I do say so myself.

BearDragonLady · Post by **BearDragonLady** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:15 pm

Okay, here's something to probably cloud the situation further...one of the things i've learned in chargebacks is that the only thing they have to do to make a case against the contract is to say that they didn't understand what they signed- it's that freakin' simple... as caustic pointed out, they could claim they were under the influence of alcohol at the time and just didn't understand... it sucks, but in a court, they'd win... i see enough merchants run into this problem and have had it confirmed by a lawyer that has lost cases in this regard, who was none to happy about it

vicious_blood · Post by **vicious_blood** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:17 pm

tat2jay wrote:
Thor wrote:Like the drink or 21 years of age policy ( wrist bands or stamps on the hand ) ! If you do not want your picture taken wear a wrist band, or better yet a button that flashes brightly)!. I know where/how you can get kewl buttons that flash a nice RED diod ( sp )? To identify your-self as one who does not want ones picture taken? This would tell a photographer I do not like or give permission with-out written ( photographer/ subject ) permission to take my picture with/out a contract signed! I say let the few who have a problem identify themselves, and work out their issues between the photographer, and the subject?!

If I bring a camera, and only intend to take pictures of my-self? Do I need to sign this form? Or to take pictures of my-self, with others who consent to be in the picture with me?

As far as I know Bluecats/Santus is a public place. If a paytron choses to PAY the entry fee ( door fee ) then they must abid to said rules etc... If you pay to get into Bluecats/Santus then you must consent to these rules etc... Basically that I'm in a PUBLIC place, and forfiet any pictures of myself to the PUBLIC!

What about movies, alot of digital camera's take movies?

this idea i like, alot, maybe even a big scarlet P pinned to them hahahaha

Ok, I have a question...if someone signs this release/waiver/contract thing, and they take my picture even tho I told them no, what happens? That's what I'm more concerned about.
Cause if your gonna say people can't take pics without the other persons permission, but when they do and I or whoever come and tell you and you do nothing about it...well, someones gonna get their ass kicked.

Maybe I'm confusing this all, I don't know.

And I agree with Caustic, too. I don't take pictures but this does seem a bit harsh. Also, you know somewhere, somehow, the rules are gonna get broken. They always do. So what are you gonna do then?

BearDragonLady · Post by **BearDragonLady** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:19 pm

oh, and in addition from my class on contract law- automatic void of contract inlcudes under the influence of alcohol or drugs and also includes insanity

tat2jay · Post by **tat2jay** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:09 pm

would it be legally ok (to avoid the drinking and signing problem) to post a sign at the entry that says "ALL PHOTOS TAKEN AT SANCTUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE KG FAIR USE POLICY"
then have somthing available to would be photographers that states the rules for photography at sanctus, yeah you wuldnt have signatures but they dont hold up in court anyway, and if its standard policy clearly posted then that should be sufficiant and it avoids the copyright issue

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:38 pm

Or, spinning off of Ibbie's idea, you could look into a Creative Commons-like waiver on an individual, event by event basis, even though I find that a bit ludicrous as well.

Ray+Wendy · Post by **Ray+Wendy** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:17 am

DarkVader wrote:OK, let me be clear on what we are saying with this.
<snip>
Relax. This is good for everybody.

Thanks for the clarification. As long as I know what KG plans to do, it really doesn't matter about signing the thing.

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:33 am

DarkVader wrote:First, it says that if you take pictures at a KG event, you CAN post them on the net, you CAN give copies of them away, and you CAN do whatever you would normally do with them, as long as you don't charge people money for them.

Sure, until somebody from KnoxGothic decides you can't, since you've signed off your rights of ownership.

What guarantees do you offer? Because I may be paranoid, but phrases such as...

Relax. This is good for everybody.

...never inspire me with confidence.