vegasbabe, if I'm not mistaken all of the vegas clubs have a posted 'no photographs policy' sign at the club entrance ... which provides some semblance of a 'legal defense' when bouncers resort to smashing customer cameras ?





vegasbabe, if I'm not mistaken all of the vegas clubs have a posted 'no photographs policy' sign at the club entrance ... which provides some semblance of a 'legal defense' when bouncers resort to smashing customer cameras ?
Melonie!
Thank you for you opinion. I guess that's how law would be interpertated in the end.(sigh)
it's really frustrating to think it might happen again.




I agree with Melonie that it's doubtful a dancer has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when performing in a public venue. Think about it. You have no expectation of privacy; you're performing with the express purpose of being watched by an audience. That law is primarily designed to protect your privacy from perverts who like to shoot in private places like bathrooms, locker rooms, doctor's offices, etc. However, perhaps if the club posts "no photo" signs, a sympathetic judge would rule that a dancer had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to being photographed. Who can afford to litigate the point?
Here in the U.S., there's a legal concept called "the right of publicity," which can vary by state. It's the concept Lilith addressed in her post. It means you have a right to control the commercial use of your image. (And as Melonie noted, your club contract may transfer that right to them.) If a movie star made a public appearance, a news photographer can snap a picture and publish it alongside a news item about the appearance. That use for news reporting is permitted under the First Amendment right of free speech. However, that same photographer cannot place the same image of the celebrity on a coffee mug and sell it as a souvenir. That's a commercial use. Only the celebrity has a right to do that.
Under this concept, one could possibly argue that taking an image of you performing and putting it on a website without your consent, even if the photographer posts it on a personal site that has free access and makes no money from it, violates your right of publicity because it may make other marketing of your image less valuable. It hurts your money because no one needs to buy your photos or visit your website or come see your performance. That's the argument. But that's not a criminal violation enforceable by the police; it's a civil case, and you see how difficult it would be to litigate successfully.
Again I agree with Melonie about the need for signs and the potential for negative fallout from taking a customer's picture as a measure to encourage cooperation. There's no magic bullet here, but hey, it was pleasant contemplating snapping the custy's pic as a solution for a moment. Perhaps if the act were discreetly threatened during the initial request to delete the photos, it would encourage cooperation. If they're not going to "bust some lenses" the old fashioned way, I definitely think clubs need to have someone respond who is armed with information about these laws and can use that as leverage to encourage cooperation. Perhaps demand the guy's personal info and say our lawyer will be contacting you. Perhaps, like concerts, admission tickets with a bit of fine print on them are part of the answer. It's such a pain when people don't simply regulate their own behavior.
-Ev
Once I worked a day shift and it was really slow and boring and out of NOWHERE in walks the band Fuel. So they take their seats right by the stage (gyno row) and I notice that one guy has a dunkin donuts bag stratigically aimed at the stage. WTF? So it's my set and I get on the stage and see that the bag has a little red light inside it. I rared back and gave that bag a punt across the club and broke the camera into 2 pieces. Sorry about the camera but this is the price for bringing it into a strip club. I really don't give a shit who you are or how cool you think your band is.
True story.
The government?Originally Posted by funtasticFerra
It's the fucking corporations these days. Piss tests, credit checks, hell there is even one place that makes their people go to the gym. Survellience, reading and storing you email (use encryption folks), worker rip-offs (pensions etc.) - the government is tame compared to what the corporations are getting away with these days.
DO NOT use the software industry's licensing bullshit as a model for the rest of the world! (It is so bad that people invented open source!)Originally Posted by Pan Dah
What other industry tries to tell ya you agreed to a license in the box by simply opening the box before you could read the license because it was in the box but by opening the box you agreed to the license which was in the box.... (that's called a run-away racing condition!)





Most clubs will stretch this to the point of 'leaning' on the offending customer to 'voluntarily' delete the stage pictures. Even though this is technically questionable, the odds of a customer bringing suit/charges against a club with a posted 'no photographs' policy are extremely low simply due to the publicity and hassle factor involved in doing so.As I understand it, at least in New York, the remedies available to the club even if a sign is posted are still limited to ejecting the offending customer, which obviously does no good if he's taking the pictures with him.
Melonie! Thank you for your advice. I always value your opinion very much.
I was thinking about this matter over and over.
My club has no picture policy. If there is sign in the club saying no picutre and no cellular phone use in the club does that provide us reasonable level of privacy?
I am in public place perfroming nude but law does not say it has to be pirivate place to be protected. As long as if we have resonable level of pricacy(no picutre policy) can I covered by law?
My wishful thinking drive me crazy or what?





Obviously, the actual laws in your area (or the lack of laws) supersede any club policy. However, a posted club policy at least provides a basic framework that customers snapping clandestine pictures inside a club are 'in the wrong' ... which in turn makes customers less likely to bitch when a dancer/bouncer requests that clandestine pictures they just shot get deleted. However, a posted club policy is not going to protect a dancer/bouncer from facing a civil suit brought by the customer should the dancer/bouncer decide to smash a customer's camera !My club has no picture policy. If there is sign in the club saying no picutre and no cellular phone use in the club does that provide us reasonable level of privacy?
Herein lies the major point of confusion. The 'video voyeur' laws are solely intended to protect private individuals from being clandestinely photographed while doing 'private' things in the nude ... like a doctor's office exam, showering at a health club, having sex in their own bedroom. Performing nude on stage in a business establishment which is open to the public in exchange for money is, arguably, a very different circumstance.I am in public place perfroming nude but law does not say it has to be pirivate place to be protected. As long as if we have resonable level of pricacy(no picutre policy) can I covered by law?
Nude stage performances clearly fall much more directly under 'entertainment' law than under 'video voyeur' law. 'Entertainment' law clearly prohibits clandestine photographs of stage performances to be reused for profit, along similar lines to copyright violations. However 'entertainment' law is much LESS clear in regard to the mere snapping of 'fan' pictures which are not reused for any profitable purpose by a third party. There is also a legal doctrine called 'fair use' which clearly allows snapping of pictures of 'public figures' - and arguably a dancer performing on stage could fall under the 'fair use' doctrine. The 'fair use' doctrine is based on the presumption that a person who chooses to perform publicly sacrifices some rights to privacy in the process.
I'm definitely no legal expert here, but I am sure that attempting to make 'video voyeur' law apply to a club customer who had just photographed a 'stripper' performing on stage in a club would be a huge 'reach' that most DA's would never attempt to press.
Apparently so. Bottom line is that you can't expect to have it both ways. 'Video voyeur' laws would clearly protect a girl doing a nude dance for her boyfriend in her own bedroom, who was clandestinely photographed through the bedroom window. 'Video voyeur' laws were arguably not intended to apply to paying customers who clandestinely photograph girls who are willingly performing nude on the stage of a public business establishment, in front of that very same paying customer, in exchange for money.My wishful thinking drive me crazy or what?
Thank you melonie!
I am not interested in charging customers under this law. All I want to is that I want to have a right, so they can not walk away with my picture.
If same thing happen again ( customer refuse to show his cameara) then I have to call police to deal this issue.(since club can not force to cease personal possesion)
Do you think at least police will help me to look at his cameara and delete my picture if he took it?





At my club,they will confiscate the camera and charge the customer a $10 process/developing fee and go through the pictures and make sure they don't have any ones of us before returning them to the customer.
One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.
一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.
中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大





Without a stated club policy against photographs being posted, probably not. With a stated club policy against photographs being posted, maybe. Again, the problem is that because you are voluntarily performing nude on stage in a public business in front of a paying customer, the 'fair use' legal doctrine arguably allows that paying customer to legally snap 'fan' pictures of you for his own non-profit private use. Attempting to get local police to help enforce the club's policy against photographs would have a slightly stronger legal leg to stand on (disturbing the peace or something similar).If same thing happen again ( customer refuse to show his cameara) then I have to call police to deal this issue.(since club can not force to cease personal possesion)
Do you think at least police will help me to look at his cameara and delete my picture if he took it?
However, if that club customer followed you home, and shot clandestine pictures of you in the nude through your own bedroom window, then local cops would definitely bust the guy. Hopefully the distinction between the two circumstances is starting to become clearer.
I realize this is what you want, but legally speaking this is a right that you and all other paid performers in an establishment open to the public arguably do not actually have. If a willing performer accepts money for a public performance, they arguably give up some measure of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' in exchange for being paid, 'privacy' laws do not apply, and 'entertainment' laws do apply instead.All I want to is that I want to have a right, so they can not walk away with my picture.





Again, I'm assuming that your club has a stated no cameras no photographs policy clearly posted. If not then the club has absolutely no justifiable legal basis to confiscate the camera in the first place, and would be open to a lawsuit should an irate customer choose to bring one.At my club,they will confiscate the camera and charge the customer a $10 process/developing fee and go through the pictures and make sure they don't have any ones of us before returning them to the customer.





We do have a "no camera" policy posted in the lobby.Thank God.
One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.
一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.
中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大
If you are rich, white, male and own property, you have lots of rights.
Do you have the right to keep your cake and right to eat it as well? No.





Only's club sounds like they are doing the right thing, & bein' cool, as Only herself is.
That does suck tho, those damn cameras! I heard some pigs use 'em for ''upskirt' photos
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt





Awwww,thanks W.You're cool too.
One of woman's cardinal rule: Body parts can be fake,everything else has to be real.
一个女人的枢机规则:肢体可以伪造,一切必须真实.
中国大CHINESE BIG BOOBS!!!中国大





Luvs ya, Babes^
I'm sure the cell phone co.'s didn't realize what a "can of worms" they opened up w/this!
I guess they can't put those worms back in the can.
MANY MEN WANTED TO LAY ME DOWN, BUT FEW WANTED TO LIFT ME UP
-Eartha Kitt
Quick post from an interested party…
I’m an attorney doing research on First Amendment rights with respect to nudity in dance, which is another topic for another time, but explains what the hell I’m doing here...
I have a bit of experience in intellectual property, so I thought that I could help out a bit:
1. With regard to “fair use”, this is a doctrine used for either de minimis uses of an already copyrighted work, or uses of copyrighted work as applied to educational settings and the like. It’s why you can get away with showing a film to an audience of 9th graders in History class without paying to broadcast it. Really, Fair Use is probably well beyond the scope of the situations talked about here—unless the photographer was snapping pictures for an encyclopedia, in which case you’d lose as well--so it’s not worth much kicking around.
2. You don’t have a copyright in your dance performances to begin with--none--so Fair Use wouldn’t apply anyway. A copyright only applies to things that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression, like a document, or computer disk, or an image in film. One doesn’t have to actually claim a copyright to have a copyright, but the key is that it’s “fixed”—ie written down, or something similar. Merely performing, without a simultaneous live recording (which is how professional sports copyright their games even though they’re live), is 100% not copyrightable because it’s not fixed onto anything; it’s given up to the air like words in a conversation. There simply is no copyright inherent in your performance (unless you do some legally technical things that I’m sure you not doing/going to do). Thus, you as a performer have no “right” to the person’s photos, even if they are indeed of your likeness. In fact, the photographer has a copyright in his picture of you—you do not; he, not you, has “fixed” your image onto film, thereby creating a piece of property that belongs to him. In so doing, he has only “taken” what you have put into the public view anyway. Your only recourse is that this photo was an invasion of your privacy, but because you held yourself out to public view in the first place, that argument is a loser through and through. This photographer can snap away as freely as he could snap Trump tower, a picture of me with Madonna in the grocery store, subject (more or less) only to the reasonable camera policies in of business, or a contract of some kind. You’re out of luck as a performer of this type, I’m afraid. All you can do is try to catch cameras before they get into your club, and kick such photographers out after they start. Once that picture is taken, it almost certainly belongs to the photographer.
3. With respect to the sign posting in your club, as a general rule, signage is just a paper tiger to keep people who don’t know better from doing things that the sign-poster doesn’t like. Nonetheless, you can probably frighten the photographer into coughing up his images, but just because you posted a sign probably doesn’t really mean anything, or give you any rights over his photographs.
4. With respect to “taking” or “wrecking” a camera, or taking his images for that matter, you almost certainly do not have a right to take his copyrighted materials without his consent any more than you have the right to take a larger tip directly from his wallet. That would be theft. Recall that he has a right to his intellectual property, and you, and the club, or the performer, do not. Tickets weren’t sold to your performance, so there really is no contract that the customers are bound by. The signage might scare this photographer into letting you delete his photos with his consent, but by taking your picture in the first place, the photographer has created intellectual property just as though one has created intellectual property in a story that she has written. One can no more take and destroy this photograph than I, as the owner of a restaurant, could walk up to an author and rip up her story because her story was set at one of my tables. Likewise, the notion that your bouncer can just destroy someone else’s camera merely because it was used, legally, regardless of what a sign says, is a very, very bad idea. You’ll definitely get sued over that one for destroying his property, and certainly lose—as well you should. You can’t key someone’s car because they were parked in your spot, for example, no matter how satisfying that might feel.
5. That voyeur law is way off topic, too, as it applies to a performance in public view—no grey area whatsoever.
I’m sorry to break this all to you, but I’d hate to have readers here think that there is some kind of legal recourse when really there is very, very little, based on the facts presented. Legal myths are quite problematic, especially for me as an attorney, and double-especially for clients of mine who come into my office and insist that they have “rights” that don’t exist. Then I have to spend all morning re-educating them on what the law actually says (at $250 per hour, ahem), and unfortunately, the rules of professional conduct forbid me from taking lap dances as compensation, which, of course, I would enthusiastically agree to, was I legally allowed…





thanks limber for providing some professional insight to clarify our 'anecdotal' based comments.
The only points I would add #1 that signage of stated club policies does potentially carry a bit more 'horespower' thay you give it credit for - because that signage can arguably be tied to a customer having paid a 'cover charge' to come into the club thus entering into an implied contract regarding acceptance of stated club policies. While still 'gray', the cover charge does add a bit more implied contract credibility versus someone giving a free stage performance in Central Park !
#2 involves the illegality under 'entertainment' law of club customers attempting to use clandestinely shot pictures during live dancer performances for third party profit purposes without first obtaining a 'model release'. To reuse your example, clandestine shots taken of Madonna at a live concert cannot be used for purposes of generating profit for the clandestine photographer absent a signed 'model release' from Madonna ! This is what I was alluding to in regard to the 'fair use' doctrine as it waives any 'model release' requirement in regard to pictures shot for news media publication and other ostensibly non-profit uses.
But I'm in 100% agreement that, absent a clear third party profit motive coming into the equation, dancers would appear to have essentially zero rights / control over clandestine pictures of themselves being shot in the club for the purposes of 'private' use by a customer. From my own anecdotal experiences, despite a persistent legal 'grayness', clearly posted 'no cameras no photographs' signage directly adjacent to a club's 'cover charge' cash register appears to be the best available option.
~
Last edited by Melonie; 11-05-2005 at 11:30 AM.
Bookmarks