Ray+Wendy wrote:And, at the risk of pissing someone off, there was no need to hijack the thread to the music.
Yes, how dare I question me as to why I don't attend Sanctus. I am a bad, bad man. Shame on me.
mafiaman wrote:DarkVader wrote: Why not just offer free legal assistance to those members of KG or those attending Sanctus who have been wronged by the previous camera policy without resorting to taking their copyright without compensation?
Providing free legal assitance for problems which arise on KG or during a KG related event would definitely be more in line with "Supporting the scene" then taking someones copyright without due compensation.
Ray+Wendy wrote:I wanted to quote the former post from mafiaman, but it was a bit too long.
If KG wants to use my stuff for advertising, then good. If it were some billion dollar corporation, it would be different. As far as I know no one here has thousands of dollars to throw around every time an event comes up.
What it boils down to is the scene. Everyone looks out for everyone else. The people at Sanctus are trying to prevent asshats from taking advantage of those who come out for a good time. Now the feeling on this thread is that they (Sanctus) are the asshats, which is not the case. If you want to hug your camera, jump up and down and yell "mine" repeatedly, go for it. I think they have at least gotten a good start on fixing the problem. Until something better comes along, I would sign the paper.
But the minute Bone or Vader wins the lottery, I want a cut!
Bone wrote: Well if you or others in the community want to donate a few thousand dollars to a legal defense fund that "might" be a possibility.
Bone wrote:
That means sometimes having to do some things that are unpopular with some members of the community.
Bone wrote:
But we try to do what's best for the community at large, not the few individuals.
Bone wrote:
People come because they want to, and we try to make an environment they want to keep coming back to.
Bone wrote:
We have said time and time again why we are doing what we are doing with camera policy. I will not go over it again. Copyright ownership issue is not going to change at this point. IF you have a problem with it don't bring a camera.
Ray+Wendy wrote: I wanted to quote the former post from mafiaman, but it was a bit too long.
Ray+Wendy wrote:If KG wants to use my stuff for advertising, then good. If it were some billion dollar corporation, it would be different.
Ray+Wendy wrote:
What it boils down to is the scene. Everyone looks out for everyone else.
Ray+Wendy wrote:
Now the feeling on this thread is that they (Sanctus) are the asshats, which is not the case.
Ray+Wendy wrote:
If you want to hug your camera, jump up and down and yell "mine" repeatedly, go for it.
mafiaman wrote:Ray+Wendy wrote: I wanted to quote the former post from mafiaman, but it was a bit too long.
Damn, sorry about that. Next time I'll make sure to include cliff's notes for you people.Ray+Wendy wrote:If KG wants to use my stuff for advertising, then good. If it were some billion dollar corporation, it would be different.
If KG wants to use my stuff for advertising without giving me some compensation for my stuff (stuff = intellectual property), then bad. If it were some billion dollar corporation, it would be different in that the billion dollar corporation would at least offer to pay for the copyright being taken and have verbage in the contract saying how that copyright would be used.Ray+Wendy wrote:
What it boils down to is the scene. Everyone looks out for everyone else.
Which is why I am posting here on this thread, because giving up your copyright without adequite legal protection in regards to how that copyright is used could end you up in a world of crap.Ray+Wendy wrote:
Now the feeling on this thread is that they (Sanctus) are the asshats, which is not the case.
In Your Humble Opinion.
The jury is still out on this one for those of us who live here.Ray+Wendy wrote:
If you want to hug your camera, jump up and down and yell "mine" repeatedly, go for it.
Well, not exactly. I want to hug my COPYRIGHT , jump up and down and yell "mine" repeatedly.
Now, as promised, the cliff's notes for this post:
Giving away copyright = bad!
Especially for a club night.
Mother Mo wrote:Conspiracy theories & hurt feelings... makes for interesting reading for a while, but then it just gets old. The options have been made abundantly clear. Maybe along with that free legal fund fantasy, we should work on one for therapy sessions for some of these folks.
Wake me the windmill jousting is over.
Ray+Wendy wrote:DJ Bone has guested several times out here and I have enjoyed his work, so I am not entirely unfamiliar with your scene.
Oh, and make sure to hold on to that ring as you fall in the lava, Mr Gollum.
Sir Diddimus wrote:Apparently nobody pays any attention, but the camera operators can sign over their copyrights all day. It still does not trump the rights of the individual. That is the Tennessee Law!
DarkVader wrote:mafiaman wrote:mafiaman wrote:
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.
Your statement is inaccurate. There is absolutely no legal basis for this statement.
First, the legal precent is that a photographer holds the copyright on a photograph. The subjects of the photograph do not receive copyright unless the photographer assigns it to them. We require that in order to receive a camera permit for a KG event, the photographer must sign his or her copyright over to KnoxGothic.com. We provide in exchange a camera permit for KG events, and a license to reproduce the photographs taken for personal use and free distribution. We also will provide at no charge a license to reproduce the photographs for commercial use, providing that certain requirements are met.
Second, Sanctus IS NOT a public event. It is a private event, on private property, and only open to people over 18 who pay a charge to enter. People who cause problems may be ejected. So, you may only enter with permission, and may be excluded at any time for any reason. This is of course true not only for Sanctus, but for any night at any nightclub in Knoxville (and most of the world).
In the case of KG events, people carrying cameras will be excluded from the event unless they are willing to sign the camera contract.
In our case, we have chosen this course because it gives us the best options for requiring that photographs that the individuals being photographed do not want published be removed. If a photograph from a KG event is published and we get a complaint from the person in the photograph, we will ask the publisher nicely to remove it. If they don't comply, we will send an official takedown notice, as we own the copyright. If someone decides to sell a photograph from a KG event without getting our permission (which we will give for free if everyone in the photograph agrees to it) we will send an official takedown notice.
It's being done not so KnoxGothic.com can profit from photographs, but so photographers have a harder time exploiting photographs from KG events without the permission of the people being photographed. KG isn't going to make any money from this.
Thor wrote:I say lets put the camera issue to a vote?