Yeah, the revolution will be televised- if you signed the release.

What happened to our queer revolution? You remember our revolution- it was before the internet.
I had a conversation and E-mail exhange with Rex Wockner today regarding a photo he took at and AIDS drug protest on Oct. 11, 1988 the day ACT UP took over the FDA. The producer of the documentary would like to use a photo release with an indemnity clause that holds photographers accountable should someone pictured in the photo decide to sue the LOGO Network, which is owned and controlled by Viacom, for all legal fees and damages caused to the network. The photo release clearly states that the photographer as the "sole" owner of the material has in fact obtained releases from everyone in the photo.

Darlings I know it may have been awhile since you have ventured out into the streets to support a cause, but surely you can remeber the late '80's when we were all throwing "blood" onto the white marble steps of our government. I myself was big into WHAM- remember them? If you ever took pictures or video footage at any of these protests then you may recall that you would never have been asking for a release from the thousands around you. I mean it was clear then as it is clear now, if you are involved in a public protest you are apart of a news and later, an historical event.

I think it is silly to try to make photographers lie about having releases for news events, even if these lawsuit hardly ever occur. However, if someone did want to make a case about appearing in a photo taken at an AIDS rally in 1988, say now they are an "ex-gay" it would mean the small freelance photographer or filmmaker is responsible for all legal costs and damages - not the corporate giant.

I have seen some historical / political documentaries on LOGO -but if these documentaries were acquired after they were originally produced and distributed it is likely that LOGO acquired the rights from its makers. Did these filmmakers sign indemnity clauses that therefore hold them responsible for capturing an historical event such as a protest or demonstration? It just doesn't seem fair to me.

I do know that LOGO edits films for broadcast, they told me that when I was interviewing to work for them, it was going to be one of my responsibilities.
LOGO airs news segments produced for the network by CBS, why then aren't documentaries produced for LOGO held to the standards of reporting news?

So this the revolution Viacom has delivered.

How are we meant to write and share new history? Why is Viacom attempting to shrink the public sphere?