Wow! I am impressed by what resonanse my concern and question has received.
I appreciate everybody's opinions and suggestions (on and off the list). While I think their legal statement may not withstand a court, I don't really want to deal with it and with the organizers. So, I decided to skip this event for now. If taking photos were plain prohibited, that wouldn't have touched me as much. I respect one's rules - it's their event, and their right to set rules. I would have politely expressed my suggestion to lift that ban to the organizers, as I did at one other event. However, since it is not prohibited in this case, people will be taking pictures (albeit even some everage quality snapshots), so I'd be regretting missing some interesting photo-opportunities... And I don't want to owe them my photos or have any obligation, even if otherwise I would've given them some photos for just a nominal compensation (e.g. free admission to their next event) or even for free, depending on what exactly they would need and for what purpose. So, they will miss out on seeing/getting quality photos (from me), and so will the participants. .. And that event won't get a vote from my wallet. Cheers, Igor PS. For those who is interested: a friend of mine pointed out that Bruning Man has somewhat similar rules. In that case, at least, they describe why they request copyright transfer, and it has some logic behind it (whether you like it or not). You can read Burning Man's response: http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599 to EFF's criticism: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa of BM's terms: http://tickets2.burningman.com/info.php?i=2386 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
