SEE PHOTOGRAPHY LAW HERE!!!

[cariephoto]

Legal precedent (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287-88 (1991)) gives photographers (and others) the following rights:


the right to reproduce work in copies (reproductive right);

the right to produce derivative works based on the copyrighted works (adaptive right);

the right to distribute copies of the work (distribute right);

the right to display the copyrighted work publicly (display right);

the right to claim authorship of the work and to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work she or she did not create (attribution right); and

the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of a distortion of the work and to prevent destruction of the work (integrity right).



Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

[mafiaman]

Legal precedent (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287-88 (1991)) gives photographers (and others) the following rights:


the right to reproduce work in copies (reproductive right);

the right to produce derivative works based on the copyrighted works (adaptive right);

the right to distribute copies of the work (distribute right);

the right to display the copyrighted work publicly (display right);

the right to claim authorship of the work and to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work she or she did not create (attribution right); and

the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of a distortion of the work and to prevent destruction of the work (integrity right).



Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

See, this is interesting to me because in order to have a valid copyright form like the one that has been suggested, EVERY PERSON WHO ATTENDS SANCTUS MUST DECLARE THAT KNOXGOTHIC HAS SOLE COPYRIGHT. This would include club staff as well in order to be valid. If anyone who attended did not sign, then it invalidates the legality of the attempt at copyright. See, since it is a public dance night, every person who attends would be considered to be the author of their own part of the dance night, contributing to the whole work (to be copyrighted) of Sanctus.

In short, everyone who is at Sanctus must submit a written legal declaration giving KnoxGothic the media rights to themselves in order to attend. It would place Sanctus in the same legal position over your individual media rights as Dick Clark's American Bandstand had over the people on the show.

I sure as Hell wouldn't give up my individual media rights for a night out, especially if I wasn't getting any compensation for signing away those rights. The owner of the copyright could do anything with them. It'd be like saying, "Yes, I'd love an enema with a thermite bomb Marquis de Sade".

[Sir Diddimus]

What you (cariephoto) have is a legal copyright issue for the rights of the photographer and not the individual in the photograph.....

TN State code (law)

39-13-605. Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy.

(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph or cause to be photographed an individual, when such individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of such individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor's parent or guardian, if such photograph:

(1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if such person appeared in the photograph; and

(2) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.

(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "photograph" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual so that such individual is readily identifiable.

(c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, dstroyed.

(d) (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


(2) If the defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person, a violation of this section is a Class E felony.

[Acts 1994, ch. 970, § 2; 1997, ch. 469, §§ 1, 2; 2000, ch. 667, § 2.]

Now, some might argue that you are in a public place so that throws privacy out the window....

There is a Tennessee State Law that answers this question in a VERY straight forward manner......

47-25-1103. Property right in use of name, photograph, likeness.

(a) Every individual has a property right in the use of that person's name, photograph, or likeness in any medium in any manner.

(b) The individual rights provided for in subsection (a) constitute property rights and are freely assignable and licensable, and do not expire upon the death of the individual so protected, whether or not such rights were commercially exploited by the individual during the individual's lifetime, but shall be descendible to the executors, assigns, heirs, or devisees of the individual so protected by this part.

[Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 3.]

Furthermore....

47-25-1105. Unauthorized use prohibited.

(a) Any person who knowingly uses or infringes upon the use of another individual's name, photograph, or likeness in any medium, in any manner directed to any person other than such individual, as an item of commerce for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for purposes of fund raising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services, without such individual's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of such minor's parent or legal guardian, or in the case of a deceased individual, the consent of the executor or administrator, heirs, or devisees of such deceased individual, shall be liable to a civil action.

(b) In addition to the civil action authorized by this section and the remedies set out in § 47-25-1106, any person who commits unauthorized use as defined in subsection (a) commits a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is no defense to the unauthorized use defined in subsection (a) that the photograph includes more than one (1) individual so identifiable; provided, that the individual or individuals complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals per se rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph.

(d) If an unauthorized use as defined in subsection (a) is by means of products, merchandise, goods or other tangible personal property, all such property is declared contraband and subject to seizure by, and forfeiture to, the state in the same manner as is provided by law for the seizure and forfeiture of other contraband items.

[Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 5; 1989, ch. 308, § 1; 1991, ch. 506, § 1.]

And, just in case anyone questions the validity of these Tennessee Laws...... They are listed in

Tennessee Code : TITLE 47 COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS : CHAPTER 25 TRADE PRACTICES : PART 11 PROTECTION OF PERSONAL RIGHTS







You must still have permission of the person to attempt any resale in any medium of the likeness of the person regardless of the originating location of the photograph.

So, all photographers trying to sell images taken at any event..... You are liable to civil action brought by the individuals in said photographs. This is Tennessee State Law! No more beating around the bush....... FINI

[JaNell]

Pretty much.

There are exceptions - photojournalism at actual news events, and public figures at public events - but I'm not clear on where the line is drawn so I've made a point to err on the side of the individual's rights when selling photos.

[Sir Diddimus]

Pretty much.

There are exceptions - photojournalism at actual news events, and public figures at public events - but I'm not clear on where the line is drawn so I've made a point to err on the side of the individual's rights when selling photos.

I can pull up that info from the laws as well. It is under the same Title and Chapter....but, since the photographs in question were not taken at a sporting event or by a news organization.....

[Coor]

OMG! You psed for a picture and now its being sold for a minimual amount.

1st- Why did you pose?
2nd- If someone wants to buy a picture of you for $2 be flattered, or insulted that they aren't charging more.


I understand that its the principle of the matter and all, but seriously. LET IT GO!

[JaNell]

OMG! You psed for a picture and now its being sold for a minimual amount.

1st- Why did you pose?
2nd- If someone wants to buy a picture of you for $2 be flattered, or insulted that they aren't charging more.


I understand that its the principle of the matter and all, but seriously. LET IT GO!

There are enough photographers here to make this a valid topic even if there hadn't been a problem.

Not all of the threads are interesting to me, either..
~ shrug~

[Mother Mo]

Carie, I'm sorry, but I've gotta come down on the side of privacy here. The rights of the photographer & the rights of the subjects must be balanced, but when in doubt, we should respect the privacy of the subject. There is obviously an issue with photographing folks in the community without consent, so the KGB have simply tried to prevent it from occuring further. There is room for compromise as much as there is antagonism, IMO.

[gwenhwyfar]

ok, i'll be a bitch. i don't care.

photography ediquette 101:

-ask someone before you take their picture!!

-if someone is screaming at you, you should stop taking pictures!! and you should defintiely not post them online, whether it be for sale or your fotopages. its just fucking rude!

-if someone is half naked, it should be common sense to ASK before snapping pics.

-DO NOT take pics of people you don't know without asking!!!

these aren't laws. they are simple and basic forms of common fucking courtesy. its not hard. i ask before i take pics of people that i don't know and i never have problems with this shit.

you can ignore what i just said, but don't be surprized when someone breaks your camera into small pieces and tries to shove them up your ass.

thank you for your time.

[Coor]

I do agree with the above.

But, I thought what started this whole thing was somone took a picture of another person, and said person was pissed, because he saw his picture for sale.

[JaNell]

Anyone would be pissed if their picture was taken, put for sell, and they weren't even given or offered a copy for themselves!

Not professional, and legally dubious.

[4X541N7]

OK...My two cents...

1.) If you take pictures of someone...ask...If you plan on posting or selling them...Make sure that your intentions are clear, & that they concent...

2.) The exception of rule #1: If there is not a individual subject...(i.e...Group shot, or a picture of say the dance floor...)...Then I will say don't sell it...Or make sure that it's topic friendly, if your are gonna post...Otherwise, make it clear to all parties, your intentions, & make sure you get their concent....I suggest in writting as well.

3.) Subject should recieve a copy of the work.

See...that's it...I just reilliterated like 5 posts...but I don't care...For all other questions...See Gwen's post...

[cariephoto]

ok, i'll be a bitch. i don't care.

photography ediquette 101:

-ask someone before you take their picture!!

-if someone is screaming at you, you should stop taking pictures!! and you should defintiely not post them online, whether it be for sale or your fotopages. its just fucking rude!

-if someone is half naked, it should be common sense to ASK before snapping pics.

-DO NOT take pics of people you don't know without asking!!!

these aren't laws. they are simple and basic forms of common fucking courtesy. its not hard. i ask before i take pics of people that i don't know and i never have problems with this shit.

you can ignore what i just said, but don't be surprized when someone breaks your camera into small pieces and tries to shove them up your ass.

thank you for your time.

Ok, I am going to respond to this rampant immature type of post. Listen and listen good: I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE BE PISSED about me taking their photograph. Logistically, if I go around asking everyone if I can take their picture, I will lose some of the basic and personal principles I use in photography. Maybe if you understood that I have taken photojournalism in college and the best photos I take are the candid ones. If I go around all night asking people if I can take their photograph, that would lose the very element of this type of style of photography! I HAVE asked EVERY person that I DO DO A PORTRAIT OF, if I can take their picture, but not when I am doing a candid shot.
Understand this: I in no way have ever knowingly taken a photograph of ANYONE at Sanctus or any other event in the attempt to be-little, or slander their person or character. Like I said in the previous post about you: IF I TAKE YOUR PHOTOGRAPH TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT. I DO ONLY TAKE PHOTOS OF PEOPLE I THINK ARE INTERESTING AND BEAUTIFUL at that moment!!!
Furthermore, If you have some issue about being "HALF NAKED" THEN WHY DRESS THIS WAY> It sounds like to me this is not about me taking your photograph, it is about something you feel about yourself.
AND, if you ever TOUCH my camera, be warned: YOU WILL REGRET THIS ACTION. Do not make idle threats on a forum, this is not a respectable thing to do. I never took your photo to disrespect you.
NOW, this issue is over! I am never going to photograph you, AND DO NOT EVEN LOOK MY WAY AT ANY OTHER EVENT!!! I will not talk to you about this insidious and ridiculous issue any further. YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT: DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH ME, I HAVE ISSUES WITH IT. OK OK I GET YOUR POINT!!!! I REMOVED ANY AND ALL PHOTOS OF YOU ON MY WEBPAGE.
There are way too many people at Sanctus and other event to even ask every single one of them. I would like to see you try to do what I do. Then, maybe if you put yourself in my shoes, you would understand and not get so upset.

** And on a further note, forget it, I am over with this stuff. I have lost ALL desire to shoot anything else at any of the events..It has killed my creative spirit.***

In response to the laws above: The key point, is if the photo is going to be sold. I only wanted to sell the Halloween photos for charity. If ANYONE wants for me NOT to sell their photo, then go and look at them and email me to tell me not to sell them for charity.

I only took photos there for fun anyway! Oh well, on to the next art project...

[4X541N7]

ok, i'll be a bitch. i don't care.

photography ediquette 101:

-ask someone before you take their picture!!

-if someone is screaming at you, you should stop taking pictures!! and you should defintiely not post them online, whether it be for sale or your fotopages. its just fucking rude!

-if someone is half naked, it should be common sense to ASK before snapping pics.

-DO NOT take pics of people you don't know without asking!!!

these aren't laws. they are simple and basic forms of common fucking courtesy. its not hard. i ask before i take pics of people that i don't know and i never have problems with this shit.

you can ignore what i just said, but don't be surprized when someone breaks your camera into small pieces and tries to shove them up your ass.

thank you for your time.

Ok, I am going to respond to this rampant immature type of post. Listen and listen good: I HAVE NEVER HAD ANYONE BE PISSED about me taking their photograph. Logistically, if I go around asking everyone if I can take their picture, I will lose some of the basic and personal principles I use in photography. Maybe if you understood that I have taken photojournalism in college and the best photos I take are the candid ones. If I go around all night asking people if I can take their photograph, that would lose the very element of this type of style of photography! I HAVE asked EVERY person that I DO DO A PORTRAIT OF, if I can take their picture, but not when I am doing a candid shot.
Understand this: I in no way have ever knowingly taken a photograph of ANYONE at Sanctus or any other event in the attempt to be-little, or slander their person or character. Like I said in the previous post about you: IF I TAKE YOUR PHOTOGRAPH TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT. I DO ONLY TAKE PHOTOS OF PEOPLE I THINK ARE INTERESTING AND BEAUTIFUL at that moment!!!
Furthermore, If you have some issue about being "HALF NAKED" THEN WHY DRESS THIS WAY> It sounds like to me this is not about me taking your photograph, it is about something you feel about yourself.
AND, if you ever TOUCH my camera, be warned: YOU WILL REGRET THIS ACTION. Do not make idle threats on a forum, this is not a respectable thing to do. I never took your photo to disrespect you.
NOW, this issue is over! I am never going to photograph you, AND DO NOT EVEN LOOK MY WAY AT ANY OTHER EVENT!!! I will not talk to you about this insidious and ridiculous issue any further. YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT: DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH ME, I HAVE ISSUES WITH IT. OK OK I GET YOUR POINT!!!! I REMOVED ANY AND ALL PHOTOS OF YOU ON MY WEBPAGE.
There are way too many people at Sanctus and other event to even ask every single one of them. I would like to see you try to do what I do. Then, maybe if you put yourself in my shoes, you would understand and not get so upset.

** And on a further note, forget it, I am over with this stuff. I have lost ALL desire to shoot anything else at any of the events..It has killed my creative spirit.***

In response to the laws above: The key point, is if the photo is going to be sold. I only wanted to sell the Halloween photos for charity. If ANYONE wants for me NOT to sell their photo, then go and look at them and email me to tell me not to sell them for charity.

I only took photos there for fun anyway! Oh well, on to the next art project...

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Fallen]

Now see what some yahoo(who isn't even attached to the scene), taking pics and offering them up for sale, has done for the scene. Taken out all the fun. Now I don't mind my pic being taken at events because I know said pics are usually always shared between the members of the scene. It gives a larger sense of community (not to mention some idea of who I was groping whilst seven sheets to the wind ) and togetherness, but well as with anything fun, drama had to step in... Here's what I think about...

Drama

Now that I've shared that wunderbar moment. I'd like to thank Carie, she actually put a nice touch of professionalism and art with her photos. As for the rest, well I don't mind my photos being taken by anyone in the scene to be shared with the scene, whether on KG or oh their own photopage and I bloody well wish this whole thing would all die a slow and painful death...

[Hardcoregirl]

I really hate having my picture taken....I am generally not happy with any of the outcomes.

I especially hate having my picture taken without my permission...I mean REALLY hate that. Sometimes people beg and beg, and if they are friends I'll let them...but rarely.

Sorry I don't care more for the arteeests rights over a person's rights. Artschmart.

Get candid shots of your close friends who you know ahead of time don't mind...not virtual strangers.

Of course the selling them for profit thing was total bullshit. I for one would be happy if not another camera was ever seen at any events. I don't care if I'm absent from your images, if I'm in your memories....

OH, and I'd totally bust or simply take a nice camera from someone disobeying my wishes.

[DarkVader]

See, this is interesting to me because in order to have a valid copyright form like the one that has been suggested, EVERY PERSON WHO ATTENDS SANCTUS MUST DECLARE THAT KNOXGOTHIC HAS SOLE COPYRIGHT. This would include club staff as well in order to be valid. If anyone who attended did not sign, then it invalidates the legality of the attempt at copyright. See, since it is a public dance night, every person who attends would be considered to be the author of their own part of the dance night, contributing to the whole work (to be copyrighted) of Sanctus.

In short, everyone who is at Sanctus must submit a written legal declaration giving KnoxGothic the media rights to themselves in order to attend. It would place Sanctus in the same legal position over your individual media rights as Dick Clark's American Bandstand had over the people on the show.

I sure as Hell wouldn't give up my individual media rights for a night out, especially if I wasn't getting any compensation for signing away those rights. The owner of the copyright could do anything with them. It'd be like saying, "Yes, I'd love an enema with a thermite bomb Marquis de Sade".

I'm not even going to bother going into this in detail - but legally speaking, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.