"He will survive who knows when to post and when not to post." - Sun Tzu (almost but not really)
Let me ask this up front: Did Ms. Kitty get prints of the photos taken of her Halloween night for her portfolio?
One of my favorite things in the week following any Sanctus is setting a web spider to crawl thru any and all pages where people have posted pictures. The spider downloads a copy of every picture on the site to my PC with a single click. I hope each time that I have been caught in some of the images, so I can share them with friends, family and new internet contacts. It's a great thing when pictures are taken at Sanctus and posted free of charge for all to share when A) permission was obtained before the picture was taken and/or B) the picture is removed from the internet as soon as anyone appearing in a photo requests that it be removed. If everyone followed this general policy, we wouldn't need an official policy.
I recall earlier this year when an "upskirt" photo was posted and then removed when the subject asked that it be taken down. That photo had already been downloaded, so a copy was on my computer. The ethical thing to do was: delete it. The difference this past Halloween is at once simple and important: images were posted "for sale" with a watermark, copyright notice and a copy-protection scheme, all with no permission being obtained or even sought by the photographer. If he had requested that I sign a release, I would have signed it! It was
only the
presumption which was offensive. This was exacerbated when I right-clicked on an image of myself and was prevented from simply saving it. (see the IE message in the pic, below.)
As with most copy-protection schemes, it was easily thwarted. (In the end, knowledge is the only power because of the mental nature of everything perceived.)
Yes, I'm purposely saying "in your face" to Mr. Chambers on these two images because one is of me and as for the other, I had a hand in the costume design, being the creator of the headdress.
I emailed the photographer and after a reasonable time, he did remove my image from his site. Easier to apologize than to ask permission, I suppose, though no apology or reply of any other kind ever arrived. The matter was closed to my satisfaction. Personally, I'd love to see
everyone bring a camera to Sanctus, ask permission before each picture taken, post them up copyright free for all to share and remove immediately any which the subject(s) object(s) to. I would also fully support the sale of prints to benefit charity or make possible some special event or even for a private profit, provided that
written permission was obtained in advance from every person imaged. Also, the KnoxGothic photo calendar is a great idea and should happen, with the money going to the models, photographers, makeup artists and some to charity as well.
The issue of cameras at Sanctus has been simmering for a long time and the latest incident brought it to a boil. I never wanted this to be a crusade to end cameras at Sanctus. In retrospect, I should have quietly sent a request to Mr. Chambers to remove the picture and only posted on KG if he failed to do so. No one else's pictures have been removed from his site, so I assume that no one else from KG cares if he is charging $3 for a .JPG (not a print)
which will still have the photographer's copyright in the corner. It's a funny world where you can buy something which was yours to begin with and still not own it. Ironically, my makeup that night represented crying tears of blood for the state of humanity, at odds with itself. Maybe the aborigines were right when they objected to their photos being taken because it would "steal their souls." The issue certainly seems to have robbed a lot of people of time and energy and detracted from what we are all at Sanctus to do in the first place: dance, drink, socialize, relax and enjoy the culture. If I never have to talk to or about a photographer at Sanctus except to say "Sure! Take my picture all you want as long as you never charge for it without getting a signed release" I'll be a happier man.
<Libertarian Soapbox> When people fail to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their peers as well, authoritarian systems arise to, essentially, protect the people from themselves. This control always incites some percentage of the population to rebel against the rules as being too harsh. A cycle begins which perpetuates discontentment, prompting the governing body to take even more control and responsibility from the governed. If you were all the anarchists you claim to be, every single last one would take a disposable camera to Sanctus, fully committed to asking permission before every shot and sharing all images freely, subject to veto from the imaged. It wouldn't be long before the people at the door, who are responding to a need to the best of their ability, decided that it wasn't worth the time, long slow lines and the sheer number of printed release forms which would soon run out. This only works when everyone participates, all of which would be about the same amount of effort as if everyone had participated in taking responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their peers in the first place. </Libertarian Soapbox>
* opinions in the Libertarian Soapbox were channeled from government assassinated revolutionaries and may or may not reflect the opinions of the channeller
