Caustic wrote:

Sir Diddimus wrote:Any further posts will be

***Ignored***

You're not going to answer why your Tennessee code doesn't seem applicable? What a tease.

If you would learn to read the ENTIRE law, not just the parts you want to quote.... I posted the entire Chapters, you only read one part.


Hence

***IGNORED***

mafiaman wrote:Still haven't seen any part of the contract that camera carrying attendees of Sanctus are supposed to sign that would state that KG could not use the copyrighted material for commercial or advertising purposes without legal penalties.

Copyright is Federal Law. Federal Law trumps State Law. Flawless Victory = Federal Law.

Also it looks the majority of the State Laws on this are designed to protect people against "peeping toms" and it can be successfully argued that Sanctus is a public place which would not provide a "reasonable degree of privacy" as is necessary for the State Law to be effective.

man
you kids can be melodramatic sometimes

my, my... just love it when a thread becomes a beast unto itself... actually, i think that jeff's idea is a good one.. add a part to the contract stating that kg will not use the images for commercial/financial purposes without a written release from the photographer and just get on with it... it won't do kg any harm to add that, and it might make some people feel more comfortable... as for the points about law, well, if you've got a good lawyer, there's always a loophole *shrug* it's just the way law is, that's the reason for lawyers in the first place, no? personally, i couldn't care less about having to sign or not sign the contract.. i mainly come out to enjoy time with my friends and fuck the rest (wait, that didn't sound right, did it??? ) well, hopefully, you know what i mean

After reading this thread I find it funny and in some ways sad that the people who are bitching the most aren't even Sanctus patrons (See Jeff and Adam). The fact of the matter is that the community bitched about the sales of pics taken at Sanctus and Drew, Jonathan, and I reluctantly responded with a policy that we thought would be the best bet to counter the issue. Can you say "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't?"

For those of you who have been constructive, I thank you.

Arkady wrote:After reading this thread I find it funny and in some ways sad that the people who are bitching the most aren't even Sanctus patrons (See Jeff and Adam).

At one time in the past I was a Sanctus patron. At one time in the past Adam was a Sanctus DJ. I cannot speak for Adam, but I can speak for myself why I am no longer a Sanctus patron and why I find it necessary to warn people about giving up their copyright.

I do not attend Sanctus because the event is no longer a place to go and enjoy the company of friends while listening to some good music. Sanctus is no longer the unifying event that it was, it has become only a marketable commodity whose patrons are considered sheep to be fleeced of their money in exchange for the same music that has been played to death. I will not throw away my money on an event that assures me nothing but blandness and banality.

KG has repeatedly espoused the slogan of "Support the scene", but how has that support been demonstrated? Last year I received no help from KG on organizing and running a food drive at Sanctus, I did get a load of bullshit from its loudest moderator though - but that just goes to show you that no good deed goes unpunished. Scene support from KG has been best demonstrated by the doctored flyer for The End, claiming that it was cancelled - support in the way of ensuring that any threat of competition be silenced (the forum of the private forum which may not be named still cannot be typed into this board on posts because of the penis envy another goth board in Knoxville generates in the co-founders on this board).

Now, on bitching about stealing someone's copyright. I am a writer. Many of the things that I write about are for role-playing games. The currently most prominent game system is the d20 System and it uses an Open Game License to become that prominent. Depending on which game universe the d20 System is operating in and that I am writing for determines what copyright and licensing agreements must be followed in order to not violate the law in regards to a persons intellectual property rights. The most fundamental of these intellectual property rights is the copyright. Once a copyright is surrendered, whether compensated or not, the original creator is no longer the owner of that intellectual property in the eyes of the law. THAT is a very powerful thing to possess, that copyright. I do not believe it should be surrendered lightly, especially without any kind of assurances in the contract causing the copyright to be surrendered that it will not be used for commercial or advertising purposes.

I would not allow my copyright to be taken without compensation and reasonable assurances of its proper use and neither should anyone else.

Does that answer the ad hominem question sufficiently, (see Jason) KG?

Did you even read the other sentences in that post , Jeff? At all? You know I still adore you, but damn. I feel like you're blinded by this anti-KG obsession, and just latching on to the bits that feed it. Tell me if I'm wrong.....

karlaBOO wrote:Did you even read the other sentences in that post , Jeff? At all? You know I still adore you, but damn. I feel like you're blinded by this anti-KG obsession, and just latching on to the bits that feed it. Tell me if I'm wrong.....

After seeing what has happened, particularly the recent banning of caustic for protesting mistreatment given him by one of KGs co-founders, its hard not to be anti-KG.

You know how to get in touch with me, you want to talk - we'll talk.

Directly from the contract as posted:

"KnoxGothic.com reserves all other rights to any other use of images or recordings, including but not limited to sale of the images or recordings for profit or charity. "

What more really needs to be said?

i personally think this whole thing is rather retarded and people just being fussy for the sake of being fussy. get over it.

on the first note, i think it is immoral for KG to retain the copywriter of a photographers work and i do not think it is KGs responsibility to regulate photography at their events. if a person does not want their picture taken it is between the individual and the photographer. unless KG has an issue with photography at their event, and if that is the case, then they should just ban cameras all together.

on the second note, so what if an artist makes some money from taking your picture? thats how they make their living and their is nothing wrong with it.

as an alternative, if KG really feels like they should be involved in peoples personal matters, it could be said that by a photographer attending that all pictures that would be used potentially for profit at any time be displayed online in a grace period so that any individual who would have a qualm with such issue would be able to take it up with the photographer before any issue would arise with it.

but i reiterate, i do not think that this is something that KG should be concerned about. I mean, for one, it isn't even your property. any legitimate legal issues with photography would be the owner of the venues problem. not yours.

karmakaze wrote:i personally think this whole thing is rather retarded and people just being fussy for the sake of being fussy. get over it.

on the first note, i think it is immoral for KG to retain the copywriter of a photographers work and i do not think it is KGs responsibility to regulate photography at their events. if a person does not want their picture taken it is between the individual and the photographer. unless KG has an issue with photography at their event, and if that is the case, then they should just ban cameras all together.

on the second note, so what if an artist makes some money from taking your picture? thats how they make their living and their is nothing wrong with it.

as an alternative, if KG really feels like they should be involved in peoples personal matters, it could be said that by a photographer attending that all pictures that would be used potentially for profit at any time be displayed online in a grace period so that any individual who would have a qualm with such issue would be able to take it up with the photographer before any issue would arise with it.

but i reiterate, i do not think that this is something that KG should be concerned about. I mean, for one, it isn't even your property. any legitimate legal issues with photography would be the owner of the venues problem. not yours.

Nicely said, Ben.

Well, here's the deal:

We are going to have a camera policy. Quite a few people are tired of having their picture taken without permission, and some of us (me included) don't like having our picture taken at all.

The current policy allows anyone to bring a camera.

The alternative is a no cameras policy.

Now, do you really want to spoil it for everybody?

Oh, and on the copyright thing:

I don't like copyrights. I consider them to be an evil, one which the world would be better off without.

But, the copyright laws exist. The DMCA (which is even more evil than copyright alone) exists.

So, we have found a way to use them to allow us to create a camera policy that allows anyone coming to Sanctus to bring it in, take pictures, and have them for their personal use - and yet make it possible to prevent people who don't want their picture taken from having to go to court to protect their privacy.

So, I don't like the policy either - but it's the best option we've got.

Oh, and I know I've not said anything until now about this, but I'm tired of the blame all coming at me.

If you want to know why we decided this policy was necessary, take a look at knoxpics.org.

I don't think it's a bad policy, I don't think it's a good policy. I personally wouldn't want to hand over my copyright, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. I don't take pics at Sanctus, but I also don't really like pics taken of me either.


But I wonder if there will be much picture taking at Sancus anymore...

DarkVader wrote:If you want to know why we decided this policy was necessary, take a look at knoxpics.org.

Luckily I did.
Those pig-faced asswipes are selling a picture of my 7 year old w/o my knowledge or permission.

*slow evil smile*

JaNell wrote:

DarkVader wrote:If you want to know why we decided this policy was necessary, take a look at knoxpics.org.

Luckily I did.
Those pig-faced asswipes are selling a picture of my 7 year old w/o my knowledge or permission.

*slow evil smile*

Wow, you don't even post pics of your own 7 year old.

Those bastards are gonna pay one of these days, huh?

I think anyone seeing any of these photographers out and about should accidently trip and fall and spill their drink on their equipment or knock it onto the asphalt. Once only celebrities had to worry about their image being taken and sold, now anyone off the street in Ktown can have their picture taken and sold without having knowlingly given up their privacy by becoming famous.

Fucked up shit I tell ya.

DarkVader wrote:Oh, and I know I've not said anything until now about this, but I'm tired of the blame all coming at me.

Don't lie.
Sometimes I come over to see Thrall and I hear you cackling from the server room about having found new insidious ways of torturing KG members....

"I've got it, a camera policy, that'll teach 'em, muhahahahahaha!"

Buttercup wrote:

DarkVader wrote:Oh, and I know I've not said anything until now about this, but I'm tired of the blame all coming at me.

Don't lie.
Sometimes I come over to see Thrall and I hear you cackling from the server room about having found new insidious ways of torturing KG members....

"I've got it, a camera policy, that'll teach 'em, muhahahahahaha!"

On that note, I have one thing to say. rock.

div wrote:On that note, I have one thing to say. rock.

LOL

beat?

Still can't say that one either. *giggle*