blumlaut
blumlaut@hounds.online
another day, another time seeing people be shit towards photographers.
āits not a big deal if a con tos tells you that you that you dont own any of the photos you takeā
āoh, if we did it with drawn artwork? well now youāre exaggerating!ā
6
1
1
gaslighting is only cool if convention staff does it btw
0
0
1
@blumlaut still baffling how that rule exists
0
0
1
@blumlaut It's the same answers you get when trying to bring up other nonsensical rules (like the no-poodling stuff). Everyone's like, "but it's not an ACTUAL rule, nobody is going to enforce this" - then why the heck is it listed there in the first place?
1
0
1
@blumlaut
Another case of the "trust me bro"s
0
0
1
@Maki almost all of them, this specifically is EF
0
0
0
ā
@varbin @kianga yes!! i had this argument with someone else as well, if we have rules that arent enforced then why bother at all? how do i know whats enforced and what isnt? should i ask for clarification on each one? itās ridicilous, why not steal from stores?? i havent been caught yet so it must be fine!!
arghhh
0
0
0
@blumlaut There is a major diffrence between drawings and photographs in law. You don't have to grant any rights on drawings even if you create them on private property.
That's also the reason why you are allowed to draw in court but not to take photos.
In this case it's crap but legal.
BUT, when you take the photos from outside on public ground. Then they can't do anything against that and you can use your photos however you want.
1
0
0
@Drayventhal it may be legal (even that is arguable, but iām not an expert in it), but itās still treating photographers like crap and shows how disrespected photographers in the fandom really are, doesnāt help that theres this general āi got mineā attitude in the fandom when some photographers get explicit permissions through private channels, whereas the ārest of usā have to just sit around and hope for improvement to the terms.
it fucking sucks, man.
2
0
0
Paul von Drayventhal
Drayventhal@mastodon.social@blumlaut Granting a free right for use for self-promotion on social media (with attribution), without cutting your copy-rights AND AFTER being asked would be fair I guess.
But It should always feel like an award to be asked if the photos can be used.
1
0
0
@Drayventhal honestly iād be perfectly fine with a non-exclusive right to use the photos, something like CC BY-NC-SA (& maybe even another clause for āwe reserve the right to ask you to take down any photos you upload of the eventā?)
1
0
0
Charlotte š¦ 
charlotte
@blumlaut @Drayventhal yeah, Iād understand if you arenāt allowed to do that with the events but recording attendees should just be treated the same as if you did it in public
the terms of service you agree to make no such distinction however
1
0
0
Charlotte š¦
charlotte
@blumlaut @Drayventhal and most of what i found anout this topic is about recording hosted events where itās understandable why and how organizers limit 3rd party recordings
fur cons are mostly about being a dedicated temporary social space however
0
0
0
@blumlaut @Drayventhal
From their FAQ:
Your recordings belong to you, but if you publish them, you automatically grant Eurofurence e.V. an unlimited license to use them, similar to a CC-BY-NC license.
2
0
0
@Eichi @Drayventhal their ROC is conflicting with their FAQ. none of that is in the ROC.
0
0
0
@Eichi
They silently added a lot of bs to their ToS and FAQs just now and are acting really smug about it
@blumlaut @Drayventhal
0
0
0