cariephoto wrote:....
I am thinking about removing all of the pics, because it has become disheartening to have this whole situation happen... I am just an artist, can't I just do what I love?
Ciao all.
-Carie

First off Carie thank you for some insiteful info, which has spurred some potential options. We of the KGB want only to be able to protect the patrons, but at the same time not horribly interfere with the whole process of pictures. We ALL love em.
As to your pics unless individuals request pulling em down by all means please leave em up! You have some fantastic shots!

This may be an issue that will take a little time to sort out. But it is not being forgotten. Vader, Arkady & I are still discussing what all can be done.

I just hope that we can find something that will make all involved parties happy.

tat2jay wrote:remember when taking pictures at the club was fun?

i hope that camera website guy gets some bad karma out of this

Amen!

It still is over here (N-Vegas) where we don't do stupid things like attempt to profit at the expense of others.

Ok, so I've been watching this thread for a while and I'm just curious...

What if the people who bring cameras of any type have to sign a simple contract, before entering, that says they can take pics, but they cannot sell them, to gain personal profit.

That way if people want to bring cameras and take pics, they can. However if they choose to break the contract and sell the pics, then they will be prosecuted at their own expense.

As for posting pics on the forum, doesn't Vader and the rest of the admin have the ability to move or remove any posts made? If so, then people can go to them, if there's one that's offensive or the person in the pic doesn't want it posted.

This would cover the problem of who owns the pics. And it would take care of any problems w/ people publishing pics of folks that didn't want them seen. For people who end up in pics, and didn't know they were being photographed, have Vader or one of the admin remove it, or crop you out of it.

Just a thought!!!

amazongoddess wrote:Ok, so I've been watching this thread for a while and I'm just curious...

What if the people who bring cameras of any type have to sign a simple contract, before entering, that says they can take pics, but they cannot sell them, to gain personal profit.

That way if people want to bring cameras and take pics, they can. However if they choose to break the contract and sell the pics, then they will be prosecuted at their own expense.

As for posting pics on the forum, doesn't Vader and the rest of the admin have the ability to move or remove any posts made? If so, then people can go to them, if there's one that's offensive or the person in the pic doesn't want it posted.

This would cover the problem of who owns the pics. And it would take care of any problems w/ people publishing pics of folks that didn't want them seen. For people who end up in pics, and didn't know they were being photographed, have Vader or one of the admin remove it, or crop you out of it.

Just a thought!!!

It's a nice theory. But, from a legal point of view, it isn't good enough.

You see, if someone decides that they're going to sell a photo online from a KG event without getting the proper permission after having signed the contract, we can send a simple takedown notice to their ISP. Problem solved.

If there's a contract, there could be months of legal action before anything happens.

That's why we HAVE TO require that photographers sign over copyright for this to do any good.

Our only other alternative would be to ban cameras. We think this is an acceptable compromise that would let anybody come in, take pictures, and post them on the net (the contract SPECIFICALLY says that you can give them away.) It only restricts sales of photographs, and gives us a method to say to a photographer "hey, so-and-so didn't want her picture taken - take it down, please" and it will have teeth.

Perhaps this will help the pros here feel a bit better:

The requirements for obtaining a license to sell a photograph taken at a KnoxGothic.com event will most likely be:

1. Provide KnoxGothic.com with a full-resolution copy of the image, either on CD-ROM if it is digital, or a minimum 5x7 print and a copy of the negative if it was taken with film. We will not sell copies of this image.

2. Provide copies of the model releases for every identifiable person in the image that you wish to sell.

3. Provide full contact information for every identifiable person in the image that you wish to sell. KnoxGothic.com WILL contact these individuals to verify that they are in the image, and that they did agree to allow you to sell the image.

4. Provide a list of all places where the image will be sold/available for sale. The license will be issued specifically for these places, so please be accurate.

5. If these requirements are met, KnoxGothic.com will issue a license to the photographer at NO CHARGE for the purposes indicated in item 4.

Does that make you feel a bit better?

Most clubs in this subculture doesn't even allow cameras at their events.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I personally like seeing pictures from the events.

The clubs that prohibit cameras do it for the sake of their patrons. Some people that attend some of the nights in other cities don't want their private life made public. You've got people like lawyers dressing up in diapers going to the clubs....and to make them feel ok, and not like the world is going to find out what they are doing and ruin their career, the clubs just ban cameras. Heh.

abreeskye wrote:Most clubs in this subculture doesn't even allow cameras at their events.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I personally like seeing pictures from the events.

The clubs that prohibit cameras do it for the sake of their patrons. Some people that attend some of the nights in other cities don't want their private life made public. You've got people like lawyers dressing up in diapers going to the clubs....and to make them feel ok, and not like the world is going to find out what they are doing and ruin their career, the clubs just ban cameras. Heh.

And banning cameras is an option. I think most people here don't really want us to ban cameras, but we can do it if this policy doesn't work out. It is, in fact, the next step. The camera policy will not go back to what it was.

But we know how much most people enjoy seeing pictures from the events, and we think the current policy is a good compromise that will allow anyone who wants to take pictures at KG events. It just became obvious that the open policy we had was being abused entirely too much.

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.

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".

DarkVader:

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.
_________________


So, educate me in this particular subject so that I can understand why you need to have the copyright.

Making a pretentious one sentence response and then locking the thread does not help your case at all. Tell me where you think I am wrong. Hell, depending on how you answer, I might even agree with you that this is the best course of action.

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.

mafiaman wrote:mafiaman wrote:

DarkVader:

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.
_________________


So, educate me in this particular subject so that I can understand why you need to have the copyright.

Making a pretentious one sentence response and then locking the thread does not help your case at all. Tell me where you think I am wrong. Hell, depending on how you answer, I might even agree with you that this is the best course of action.

Also, when a topic is locked, that means end of discussion on that topic. Opening a discussion or entering another thread with a post from a locked topic is not acceptable. Please don't do it again.

DarkVader wrote: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.

There now, see how easy that was to do?

The only question that remains is this:
If KG is asking for the copyright to protect US from THEM, then WHAT or WHO is going to protect US from YOU? Copyright is some pretty powerful legal mojo. What guarantee do those who have signed over their copyright to KG have that the material will not be used in an inappropriate manner? For both the creator of that intellectual property and subject of it as well.

DarkVader wrote:Also, when a topic is locked, that means end of discussion on that topic. Opening a discussion or entering another thread with a post from a locked topic is not acceptable. Please don't do it again.

Well, I'm awefully sorry about that, but I've always been one to pay attention to the man behind the curtain - Great and Powerful Oz or not.

DarkVader wrote:Also, when a topic is locked, that means end of discussion on that topic. Opening a discussion or entering another thread with a post from a locked topic is not acceptable. Please don't do it again.

That's the kind of calm, level-headed approach I expect from somebody asking me to turn over copyright of my creative works!

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this - if you don't feel comfortable with signing this contract, you don't have to. It's not mandatory.

Just leave your camera at home.

On the other hand, if you're not intending to sell pictures taken at a KG event, it really doesn't affect you at all to sign it.

If you are intending to sell pictures taken at a KG event, it does affect you. But, you can still sell the pictures - you just have to jump through a few small hoops that if you didn't want to get sued by a pissed off subject, you would have already jumped through anyway.

Would it make everybody feel better if we add language to the contract to the effect that KG will not sell pictures you take?

Caustic wrote:That's the kind of calm, level-headed approach I expect from somebody asking me to turn over copyright of my creative works!

It's not like it affects you anyway. How long has it been since you've even come out to Sanctus?

DarkVader wrote:It's not like it affects you anyway. How long has it been since you've even come out to Sanctus?

Since about the last time there was a discernable chunk of new music. Coincidence? I think not.

Caustic wrote:

DarkVader wrote:It's not like it affects you anyway. How long has it been since you've even come out to Sanctus?

Since about the last time there was a discernable chunk of new music. Coincidence? I think not.

Just remember, new != good.

DarkVader wrote:Just remember, new != good.

The same could be said for any given camera policy, I suppose. But since we're discussing music, I'd like to note some songs...

Collide was played nine times during Sanctus or Sanctus related events between July and October. The Lunitics Have Taken Over the Asylum accounts for five of those plays, once each month. I can't seem to load the November playlist at the moment, but I believe Collide has four more plays on there. Four plays of a band in the course of a five hour evening? Shit damn. Who're they blowing?

Bigod 20's Like A Prayer was only trotted out three times, all within the past three nights.

Blue Monday's been doing its fair share of the work, with Orgy's rendition appearing four times in three events. That's right -- in one evening, it was played in back to back sets because nobody could think of anything better to play, I suppose.

With an impressive eleven cuts, three of which were Personal Jesus, Depeche Mode makes a very strong showing. Way to go, guys!

With a disappointing four plays, we find Covenant's Tears in the Rain. Slacking! They do, however, have six plays, bolstered by Dead Stars and some other track which doesn't have a title.

The big winner in all of this is Nine Inch Nails. The Big Come Down was played every evening. In total, Nine Inch Nails, throughout those five playlists, was played seventeen times. Honestly, now, isn't that a bit excessive?

Until the musical selection sees actual diversity (ha!), you won't see me attending Sanctus. But I'm still willing to argue on behalf of people less informed than I when it comes to giving up their copyrights to draconian policy.

DarkVader wrote:Would it make everybody feel better if we add language to the contract to the effect that KG will not sell pictures you take?

The fact that you have already stated your intent here is enough. I normally let those in charge of events have control of the photographs anyway, copyright or not, because its their event. They went through the planning for it etc.

That aside I have seen no real bad intention for the everyday photogrpher, just profiteers.

And, at the risk of pissing someone off, there was no need to hijack the thread to the music.

DarkVader wrote:Would it make everybody feel better if we add language to the contract to the effect that KG will not sell pictures you take?

Would it make your position seem stronger on this issue? Yes. Why? Because then part of the contract would state that KG could not use the copyrighted material for commercial or advertising purposes without legal penalties.

Would it makle everybody feel better? No. So far everything that has been presented about gaining people's copyright just screams, "Trust me! I'm the Lesser of two evils! KG just wants to be Evil's middleman in this!" 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.