June 23, 2018, 06:46:26 AM

Author Topic: Legal question on photography  (Read 29851 times)

AcutancePhotography

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2014, 08:00:32 AM »
for all intensive purposes

? :o

Perhaps "for all intents and purposes"?
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2014, 08:00:32 AM »

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1086
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2014, 09:04:47 AM »
You don't watch "The IT Crowd"? (although the show is often a damp squid).
« Last Edit: August 19, 2014, 09:09:03 AM by Hillsilly »
Camera Obscura

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2957
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2014, 09:07:51 AM »
I'm thinking of going to a cricket test match at Bellerive (Tasmania, Australia) a bit later in the year and was just checking Bellerive has the same 200mm lens limit as elsewhere, which it does. I noticed in the terms & conditions of entry that you can't publish photos anywhere and it specifically mentions Facebook, Twitter and the like. Anyone know if that is likely to be legally binding?

My understanding of Australian contract law was that conditions had to be pretty clearly set out in advance, not just on some web site I may or may not have read. I can't remember buying a ticket and have them run through the conditions, like they do when say getting a bank loan. It's a bit different to say taking your own beer where because it's private property they can deny entry / ask you to leave and it's trespass if you refuse.

Dear Peter.
Here are the Laws :

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

Enjoy.
Surapon

AcutancePhotography

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2014, 09:22:25 AM »
I would strongly suggest consulting with a legal authority experienced in this area in Australia instead of asking on an Internets Tubes forum.

Would you really trust any legal opinion you would get here?    Especially if you have personal liability involved?

Internet forums are an excellent way to exchange opinions, but when it comes to legal matters, go to a professional. 
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2014, 09:56:11 AM »
I would strongly suggest consulting with a legal authority experienced in this area in Australia instead of asking on an Internets Tubes forum.

Would you really trust any legal opinion you would get here?    Especially if you have personal liability involved?

Internet forums are an excellent way to exchange opinions, but when it comes to legal matters, go to a professional.
+1 and this situation is not unique.  Technically, night shots of the Eiffel tower are copyrighted, along with a lot of public sculptures, zoo exhibits, etc.  Only a lawyer can advise you of the law and your options, but just because something is printed on a piece of paper doesn't make it legal or enforceable.  In the United States in particular, a lot of organizations play on this fear of being sued to threaten people even if they are totally unenforceable.  That said, I would definitely speak with a lawyer before you do anything as the laws are very different from country to country and even locale to locale within a country.
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

2n10

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 631
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2014, 09:56:51 AM »
for all intensive purposes

? :o

Perhaps "for all intents and purposes"?

I thought it was "for all in tents and porpoises" ;D
Canon EOS 7D Mark II and EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 100 Macro, EF 50 1.4, EF 100-400L Mk II, Tamron 150-600

Hillsilly

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1086
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2014, 11:29:29 AM »
Only a lawyer can advise you of the law and your options, but just because something is printed on a piece of paper doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
Over here it generally does.  I know a bit about Australian law - certainly more than I do about cameras (I did a law degree a few years ago - I'm a bushranger by trade and a little bit of legal knowledge comes in handy.).  Over here, it's pretty settled that as long as the conditions are bought to your attention before you purchase the ticket then the terms are valid.  (Otherwise, what's the point of contracts?)

That being said, as you'd expected, a quick search suggests that Cricket Australia haven't gone around suing people for uploading cricket photos over the last couple of years.  The worst realistic problem is that they won't let you through the gate with a bigger lens.
Camera Obscura

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2014, 11:29:29 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2014, 12:00:28 PM »
Only a lawyer can advise you of the law and your options, but just because something is printed on a piece of paper doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
Over here it generally does.  I know a bit about Australian law - certainly more than I do about cameras (I did a law degree a few years ago - I'm a bushranger by trade and a little bit of legal knowledge comes in handy.).  Over here, it's pretty settled that as long as the conditions are bought to your attention before you purchase the ticket then the terms are valid.  (Otherwise, what's the point of contracts?)

That being said, as you'd expected, a quick search suggests that Cricket Australia haven't gone around suing people for uploading cricket photos over the last couple of years.  The worst realistic problem is that they won't let you through the gate with a bigger lens.
That's interesting and let me clarify things a bit here in the U.S. with an example:

Your valet parking ticket says "Not Responsible for Loss or Damage" but they bring back your car with no radio and a smashed windshield.  The words on ticket essentially mean nothing, especially if the person who parked your car was hired with a criminal record, etc.  All it takes is a half-decent lawyer who can prove that the company was negligible in some way and "Not Responsible" quickly becomes fully responsible.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I wanted to explain my earlier post.
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

AcutancePhotography

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1853
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2014, 01:17:44 PM »
Your valet parking ticket says "Not Responsible for Loss or Damage" but they bring back your car with no radio and a smashed windshield.

Absolutly.  Great example.  Here it is called a "bailment"  and just having a company "say" that doing business with them does not create a bailment does not make it so. 

There are few restrictions on what someone/some company can "say" they are liable or not liable for.  You can say pretty much anything.  The courts will decide.
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

e17paul

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Keen amateur, film & digital. Mac addict too.
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2014, 02:43:45 PM »
The irony is that they would let most small sensor super zoom cameras through.
100D/6D/5(film)x2/650(film)x2 & EF-S 18-55 STM, EF 15/2.8 fisheye, 24/2.8 IS, 50/2.5, 50L, 70-300L, Fotodiox Pro adapters; QL19
Pentax S1 & 55/2; Olympus OM-10 & Ensinor 28/2.8, Zuiko 24/2.8, 50/1.4 & 135/2.8; XA/2; Mju 410
Apple iPhone 6 & iPad Pro. I use all the above from time to time.

Lloyd

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • Photo Wilderness
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2014, 05:22:43 PM »
This has been a very interesting thread.  I never knew they had any laws in Australia.
5D mkIII, 60D, 20D; 24-70mm f/2.8L; 24-105mm F4L; 70-200mm f/2.8L IS;  TS-E 17mm f/4L; Canon FD 800mm 5.6L; Canon FD 55mm f/1.2;  10-22mm f/3.5-4.5; Canon extenders 1.4X II and 2X II; Canon  580EX and 430EX

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2014, 05:22:43 PM »