sosgemini said:

I'll say!
Have you ever taken out a loan? Purchased a house, or rented an apartment? Hired a contractor?
Despite my posting info on contracts (Wikipedia) you still believe they aren't binding and enforceable? If they're against the law, sure. This situation isn't in that category.

xplnyrslf said:

you don't need to get all condescending with me. yes, i've taken out loans...yes i have purchased a hosue, rented an apartment and in fact i was responsible for auditing escrow instructions... so please...refrain from the 'tude.

now, back to the subject. yes, your right---a contract is binding...but in this instance, the repercussion of violating the contract would be to be removed from the premises and forfeit all right to witness the concert. (anxiety mentioned that above).

the confusion is, who owns the rights to the images taken at public events if the images were taken against the venues policy...i am not sure that right has been tested in courts...

anyone know?

sosgemini said:

Doesn't every citizen in western democracies basically own the rights to his or her picture? (Hence the agreement in Ticketmaters terms and conditions that your photo might be taken.) I think the only exceptions are if your picture being taken is in public interest, so if you are a public persona (= celebrity, politician etc) and/or in a public place. The O2 is not a public place, it is someone's property and Prince rented it, so I think if he doesn't want his pictures taken there, he can take action to have his unwantedly taken pictures removed later on. I think it's not even a copyright issue.

The Ticketmaster terms and conditions are probably not to enable Prince to have pictures taken down from the internet after the shows, but to simply enable him to remove offenders from the venue, and nothing else.

xplnyrslf said:

you don't need to get all condescending with me. yes, i've taken out loans...yes i have purchased a hosue, rented an apartment and in fact i was responsible for auditing escrow instructions... so please...refrain from the 'tude.

now, back to the subject. yes, your right---a contract is binding...but in this instance, the repercussion of violating the contract would be to be removed from the premises and forfeit all right to witness the concert. (anxiety mentioned that above).

the confusion is, who owns the rights to the images taken at public events if the images were taken against the venues policy...i am not sure that right has been tested in courts...

anyone know?

sosgemini said:

My point in mentioning loans, purchase house/rent etc. is to give an example of how contracts are binding.

What's a hosue?

sosgemini said:

Doesn't every citizen in western democracies basically own the rights to his or her picture? (Hence the agreement in Ticketmaters terms and conditions that your photo might be taken.) I think the only exceptions are if your picture being taken is in public interest, so if you are a public persona (= celebrity, politician etc) and/or in a public place. The O2 is not a public place, it is someone's property and Prince rented it, so I think if he doesn't want his pictures taken there, he can take action to have his unwantedly taken pictures removed later on. I think it's not even a copyright issue.

The Ticketmaster terms and conditions are probably not to enable Prince to have pictures taken down from the internet after the shows, but to simply enable him to remove offenders from the venue, and nothing else.

xplnyrslf said:

alright, so lets take work through your analogy...if one does not make the mortgage payments they lose their home...if one breaks a renters policy they have to leave the home...if you take pictures at a concert, you get kicked out but that still doesn't address ownership of the pictures taken. your arguing a totally irrelevant point...read EmancipationLover's post for the gist of what we are confused about.

we are not debating about bootlegs made from concerts...we are only addressing pictures taken at concerts.

can somebody else please step in and explain this thread to xplnyrslf...i just can't anymore.

sosgemini said:

It's all bundled in the same category....

From Ticketmaster:
Recording, Transmission and Exhibition
You agree not to record or transmit, or aid in recording or transmitting, any description, account, picture, or reproduction of the event. You grant permission to utilize your image, likeness, actions and statements in any live or recorded audio, video, or photographic display or other transmission, exhibition, publication or reproduction made of, or at, the event (regardless of whether before, during or after play or performance) in any medium or context without further authorization or compensation.

Taking photos, videotaping, recording, etc ....are banned, and the ticket holder has agreed to the terms. Action can be taken against such activities.
In this case, not the photographer, but the website posting the photo.

The culprit(s) is not going to be rewarded, by using the material for commercial
purposes.
[Edited 10/3/07 22:15pm]

can somebody else please step in and explain this thread to xplnyrslf...i just can't anymore.

sosgemini said:

With pleasure.

Firstly, just for the record NONE of the HQ moderators are attorneys, lawyers, solicitors, or even work in the legal profession.

With regards to concert photos, you are mixing the "civil law" with "illegal acts".

Let's take it a step at a time. When you purchase a ticket, you are effectively taking out a contract that you agree to the terms and conditions of sale. If one of those conditions is that you do not take photos and you do, then you are in breach of contract and the venue reserves the right to remove you as there's no contract in place. Technically you are trespassing - again not an illegal act but covered under civil law.

Now those photos taken were taken under a breach of contract, however the ticket seller would have to sue the photographer again under civil law. At all times though, the photographer owns copyright of the photos.

Now in HQ's position, it allowed members to post links to photos held on 3rd party sites on a non-exclusive basis. It did not incite it's members to take photos (in fact it was mentioned very early on that it does not condone the taking of photos in any way) and in no way insisted it was the only site to carry such links.

Now exactly what law do you believe that Housequake transgressed in not censoring members' posts which carried links to off-site photos?

Also a key point here is that you're assuming that all legal complications and arguments with Web Sheriff on behalf of Paisley Park Enterprises are as a consequence of the concert photo issue. This has been strenuously denied by WS at all times.

Thanks for shedding some light on the subject.

Just a quick question: isn't allowing to post links to sites carrying photos and allowing to post them on your own site technically more or less the same?

But it seems obvious that there is more to the story than just photos...

EmancipationLover said:

Good question. Effectively it's the same in that there's no liability on the part of the hoster. However in this case it shows that Housequake were merely a conduit to the hosted photos and in no way could be construed as involved in inciting trespass.

Gav said:

I'm not sure about that. In Germany, a court decided a couple of years ago that owners of websites take responsibility for the content of linked websites unless they explicitly state the opposite. That's why you can find a statement ruling out such a responsibility on many German websites. I don't know about the situation in other countries, though.

And is the show (including visuals) copyright protected or not? The audio surely is, hence the bootleg situation, but then again, what about stage lights, costumes and so on?

DevotedPuppy said:

i agree - the org probably will comply with legal demands, at least to the extent to which the purpose of this site is not unreasonably compromised. i think the org's special "angle" in the fan community is primarily that of a social outlet - hence the tag "online fan COMMUNITY" under the logo - and while HQ may have been a more reliable source to talk shop, watch videos, check out the latest pics, etc., i think the org's most notable resource has been to serve as a virtual meetingplace to simply get to know other people who are fans of prince's work...and not necessarily within strict confines of ONLY talking about prince's work. i think when prince's camp tries to break up THAT functionability of the org, then it'll be challenged. until then, i don't feel that the org has ever had a special investment in the kind of material prince is trying to put the kibbosh on, and as such, if someone posts a no-no on here, it's really not a huge issue for us to comply with his wishes.

and i'm not speaking on behalf of the org or the other mods - i'm just rambling on from my own personal rickety brainbox.

The show is not copyright protected, the audio is due to the compositions being copyrighted.

You may have noticed the many disclaimers on HQ stating liability with regards to content and links for exactly the reasons you pointed out. However again it's worth mentioning that the concert photos copyright ownership has never been in doubt - it's with the photographer who has granted permission to HQ.

The show is protected by contract (the terms and conditions you agree to by using a ticket to gain entry) and therefore all photographers who take photographs are breaking contract. The contract entered into is pretty standard and Prince's explicit enforcement of it may be news in the web world but is not news in the wider theatrical world where specific permission has to be sought by publications wishing to send in photographers to a play, a concert or an opera.

The historical background to this contract takes in past periods where you would have competing theatres running the same kind of show and wanting to copy up the more successful shows' costumes and lighting set-ups.

In effect, the ban on photography and recording devices has been a way of practically 'copyrighting' the 'theatrical space' or 'performance' which can't otherwise be copyrighted in the usual way.

Again, Prince's position is not original or unusual once one steps out of the 'concert' model and into the 'theatrical' model or even into situations of public events where photography has been banned for reasons of security or privacy.

The attempt to get around this based upon a 'We didn't break contract ourselves but just posted links to work which does' defence which, as with 'We didn't steal these ourselves officer we just know where they're stored', is stretching the issue in a way unlikely to arouse sympathy and one which is has been tried and covered by numerous and varied precedents.
Whether or not the exact situation has occurred before (web linkage to items breaking contract), the general scenario is the same as it ever was and it has already been pointed out that the fact that a loophole hasn't yet been court-closed in one country won't stop a would-be loopholer being prosecuted in a country where it has.

The other defence of 'We and the photographers are just 'fans' who don't make any money from any breaking of contract' has yet to be laughed INTO court never mind out of it. If it were conceivable that the law would somehow distinguish two instances of unauthorised publication on the grounds that one of them is 'just fans sharing pics', I'm sure the professionals would soon seek to get a loophole working for themselves via that exceptional instance. Which is why anybody attempting to make headway in this direction is likely to find themselves covered in their own urine.

It's a windy city.

'It's over. Find something else to do'


...in my opinion...

Gav said:

[Edited 10/4/07 8:57am]

The show is protected by contract (the terms and conditions you agree to by using a ticket to gain entry) and therefore all photographers who take photographs are breaking contract. The contract entered into is pretty standard and Prince's explicit enforcement of it may be news in the web world but is not news in the wider theatrical world where specific permission has to be sought by publications wishing to send in photographers to a play, a concert or an opera.

The historical background to this contract takes in past periods where you would have competing theatres running the same kind of show and wanting to copy up the more successful shows' costumes and lighting set-ups.

In effect, the ban on photography and recording devices has been a way of practically 'copyrighting' the 'theatrical space' or 'performance' which can't otherwise be copyrighted in the usual way.

Again, Prince's position is not original or unusual once one steps out of the 'concert' model and into the 'theatrical' model or even into situations of public events where photography has been banned for reasons of security or privacy.

The attempt to get around this based upon a 'We didn't break contract ourselves but just posted links to work which does' defence which, as with 'We didn't steal these ourselves officer we just know where they're stored', is stretching the issue in a way unlikely to arouse sympathy and one which is has been tried and covered by numerous and varied precedents.
Whether or not the exact situation has occurred before (web linkage to items breaking contract), the general scenario is the same as it ever was and it has already been pointed out that the fact that a loophole hasn't yet been court-closed in one country won't stop a would-be loopholer being prosecuted in a country where it has.

The other defence of 'We and the photographers are just 'fans' who don't make any money from any breaking of contract' has yet to be laughed INTO court never mind out of it. If it were conceivable that the law would somehow distinguish two instances of unauthorised publication on the grounds that one of them is 'just fans sharing pics', I'm sure the professionals would soon seek to get a loophole working for themselves via that exceptional instance. Which is why anybody attempting to make headway in this direction is likely to find themselves covered in their own urine.

It's a windy city.

'It's over. Find something else to do'


...in my opinion...

Gav said:

Personality rights are generally considered to consist of two types of rights: the right to publicity, or to keep one's image and likeness from being commercially exploited without permission or contractual compensation, which is similar to the use of a trademark; and the right to privacy, or the right to be left alone and not represent one's personality publicly without permission. In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off. United States jurisprudence has substantially extended this right.

some interesting stuff to digest:


taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ity_rights

everything i am finding references "commercial use"...if this goes to court it would be an interesting test of personality rights...thats for sure.

sosgemini said:

With pleasure.

Firstly, just for the record NONE of the HQ moderators are attorneys, lawyers, solicitors, or even work in the legal profession.

With regards to concert photos, you are mixing the "civil law" with "illegal acts".

Let's take it a step at a time. When you purchase a ticket, you are effectively taking out a contract that you agree to the terms and conditions of sale. If one of those conditions is that you do not take photos and you do, then you are in breach of contract and the venue reserves the right to remove you as there's no contract in place. Technically you are trespassing - again not an illegal act but covered under civil law.

Now those photos taken were taken under a breach of contract, however the ticket seller would have to sue the photographer again under civil law. At all times though, the photographer owns copyright of the photos.Now in HQ's position, it allowed members to post links to photos held on 3rd party sites on a non-exclusive basis. It did not incite it's members to take photos (in fact it was mentioned very early on that it does not condone the taking of photos in any way) and in no way insisted it was the only site to carry such links.

Now exactly what [b]law do you believe that Housequake transgressed in not censoring members' posts which carried links to off-site photos?[/b]
Also a key point here is that you're assuming that all legal complications and arguments with Web Sheriff on behalf of Paisley Park Enterprises are as a consequence of the concert photo issue. This has been strenuously denied by WS at all times.

EmancipationLover said:

The show is not copyright protected, the audio is due to the compositions being copyrighted.

You may have noticed the many disclaimers on HQ stating liability with regards to content and links for exactly the reasons you pointed out. However again it's worth mentioning that the concert photos copyright ownership has never been in doubt - it's with the photographer who has granted permission to HQ.

Bad behavior is being rewarded.