October 25, 2014, 08:31:57 PM

Author Topic: Legal question on photography  (Read 8559 times)

PeterJ

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Legal question on photography
« on: October 20, 2012, 03:11:25 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Legal question on photography
« on: October 20, 2012, 03:11:25 AM »

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2012, 06:55:32 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.

I'm not going to comment on the legalities, but, if you were to post the photos on Facebook, and assuming you restrict the visibility of your photos to your friends, as long as you don't have any friends from the cricket board, who would know?
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

PeterJ

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2012, 07:56:45 AM »
I'm not going to comment on the legalities, but, if you were to post the photos on Facebook, and assuming you restrict the visibility of your photos to your friends, as long as you don't have any friends from the cricket board, who would know?
Good point, although I didn't mention it while it would be non-commercial I was also thinking of other places that would be public. For example maybe posting here like in a recent cricket thread and something I'd like to start doing is contribute a bit back to Wikipedia considering I use it so much and my article edits to date are pretty trivial.

Without disrepect to the photographer for example if you take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Michael Hussey I'd fancy my chances of getting something a little better, not him in particular just a lot are the same and I know from the past you can get pretty close to most players as they come on and off the field.

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2012, 08:30:18 AM »
I'm not going to comment on the legalities, but, if you were to post the photos on Facebook, and assuming you restrict the visibility of your photos to your friends, as long as you don't have any friends from the cricket board, who would know?
Good point, although I didn't mention it while it would be non-commercial I was also thinking of other places that would be public. For example maybe posting here like in a recent cricket thread and something I'd like to start doing is contribute a bit back to Wikipedia considering I use it so much and my article edits to date are pretty trivial.

Without disrepect to the photographer for example if you take a look at the Wikipedia entry for Michael Hussey I'd fancy my chances of getting something a little better, not him in particular just a lot are the same and I know from the past you can get pretty close to most players as they come on and off the field.

There's also an interesting parallel to the unreasonable contracts that music photographers (professionals) are being asked to sign: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2187922/photographers-protest-stone-roses-concert-rules?WT.rss_f=All+the+latest+articles+from+BJP&WT.rss_a=Photographers+protest+Stone+Roses+concert+rules

Another thought: if you were to post one photo of one cricketer, without much context, anyone might have an interesting time attempting to prove when/where it was shot - assuming you remove the EXIF data.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

scottkinfw

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2012, 10:22:32 AM »
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like a contract and if you use the ticket you agree to the terms of that contract.  The question is: what are the potential remedies if you get caught breaching the contract?
sek Cameras: 5D III, 5D II, EOS M  Lenses:  24-70 2.8 II IS, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14 mm 2.8 Flashes: 580 EX II600EX-RT X 2, ST-E3-RT
Plus lots of stuff that just didn't work for me

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2012, 03:23:01 AM »
Scott above has it right.  Its a legally binding contract.  If you breach the contract, Cricket Australia, would be entitled to damages.  The damages would relate to the level of income they might have lost by you posting on facebook to damages for defamation if you post an image that has a negative impact on a players reputation or standing.

By making the photos publicly available, there is always a risk that someone else might take your pictures and use them in some profit making venture - eg a Calendar in India, cricket bat ads in South Africa.  If they can trace the photo back to you, then you would be in a very awkward spot as far as damages go. 

However, I'd suspect the chances of this would be very low and for all intensive purposes, Cricket Australia would not suffer any damage from you posting photos on facebook etc, therefore they wouldn't receive any damages (maybe $1) and therefore they're not going to commence expensive legal action against you.  And if they were concerned about anything you're doing, I'd suspect CA's first action would be to write a letter reminding you of the ticket conditions and ask that you remove the photos.

PeterJ, I think you're confusing a series of court cases from the 80's and 90's.  Typically, they'd involve a business like a carpark.  You would drive in off the street, go through a boomgate and get a ticket, and only then see the rates or conditions.  Because you had no opportunity to see the conditions before entering the carpark, they weren't valid (and is why you now see them outside of the carpark as you enter).  Banks and other financial companies are also subject to a number of credit and lending regulations and they also have a higher standard of equitable conduct to meet.  Many of these came into place after banks thought it was a good idea to sign 80 and 90 year old's up as guarantors for grandkids' loans, lend money to people from overseas who couldn't speak English and didn't really know what they were doing etc etc.  Therefore to avoid possible accusations of unconscionable conduct, they go through all of the conditions, make guarantors seek independent legal advice and now even have to ensure that borrowers can comfortably repay a loan. 

As Ticketmaster make their conditions available before buying the ticket, they are valid.  And I assume if you buy them at the grounds, they'd have the conditions listed in the ticket office for reading before purchasing.  Anyway, I'm off to the Gabba in a few weeks - where did I put my vuvuzela?
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2012, 04:28:30 AM »
Anyway, I'm off to the Gabba in a few weeks - where did I put my vuvuzela?

Now there's an idea - a 400mm f/2.8 disguised as a vuvuzela!  At least you might be able to get it into a soccer match... ;-)  Just don't let anyone try to blow it!  They might spit all over your rear element.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2012, 04:28:30 AM »

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2012, 05:55:20 AM »
With South Africa playing, you'd think they'd let them in to make them feel at home and welcome.  But sadly there's also a ban on musical instruments.  Its a pity - when the pommies come out, some of their fans are actually pretty good musicians.  (At least it compensated for their very ordinary cricketers.)  And the windies have some good drummers and musicians too.  I don't know about Sri Lanka, but I'm sure they've got some talent too.  All of these bans take some of the colour and fun away.
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

PeterJ

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2012, 03:55:22 AM »
By making the photos publicly available, there is always a risk that someone else might take your pictures and use them in some profit making venture - eg a Calendar in India, cricket bat ads in South Africa.  If they can trace the photo back to you, then you would be in a very awkward spot as far as damages go.
That's a point I'd never thought of, I'd thought previously how could a relatively decent photo on Wikipedia ever cause a financial loss of any sort. Anyway might play it safe and just share amongst friends and take them for personal enjoyment.

Thanks everyone for your feedback ;D. If I'm in the mood I might also try turning up early and try a few shots from a public street at Bellerive on a different day. From memory you can get really close to the practice nets and where the tour bus stops from a public area so might scout that out better as well, I only live 10 mins drive away so might see how a few wide open shots go through the fence that you can walk right up to.

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1400
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2012, 05:01:35 AM »
Interesting ideas in here, I don't go to the cricket much but I do take photos at local pubs sometimes (although, can there be conditions of entry if there's no ticket because it's free entry?).
And the faster the lens you can take the better. If the background's a creamy blur then they can't accuse you if they can't figure out where you took the shot...

Meanwhile, I live in Adelaide, methinks finding a 1200/5.6L, a 2x T/C, and sitting up on Montefiore Hill would get some nice headshots of bowlers and batters at the River end...
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

gmrza

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 11:59:41 PM »
Interesting ideas in here, I don't go to the cricket much but I do take photos at local pubs sometimes (although, can there be conditions of entry if there's no ticket because it's free entry?).
And the faster the lens you can take the better. If the background's a creamy blur then they can't accuse you if they can't figure out where you took the shot...

Meanwhile, I live in Adelaide, methinks finding a 1200/5.6L, a 2x T/C, and sitting up on Montefiore Hill would get some nice headshots of bowlers and batters at the River end...

As far as pubs and clubs are concerned, you are on private property, and the owner is entitled to place restrictions on photography.  I think, in reality, however a lot of pubs and clubs are happy for photos to get out on facebook etc., as that is free advertising.

If you are taking photos from public land, I don't think anyone can do anything to stop you, as the cricketers would have no expectation of privacy.  I'll add a caveat that I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the situation.
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

robbymack

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2012, 12:38:14 AM »
Purchase of the Ticket implies your compliance. While I think the likelihood of you having a problem is low you may as well respect their wishes. Obviously if you took the time to post to an Internet forum you probably already know what you should do and are just looking for reassurance.

PeterJ

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2012, 12:53:19 AM »
If you are taking photos from public land, I don't think anyone can do anything to stop you, as the cricketers would have no expectation of privacy.  I'll add a caveat that I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the situation.
That's my understanding too, you'd be able to sell prints and post anywhere but the main restriction is on commercial use for advertising plus I think there can be some personality rights, so selling in conjunction with a product like coffee mugs would be dodgy.

I was reading a site (although it was a US one) that's the reason paparazzi shots often aren't on the front cover of magazines and newspapers, that can be construed as advertising so they just stick with "Jane Famous nude pics on page 3!" in big print on the cover. Edit - haven't finished reading it yet but found the following page specific to Australia:

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:00:28 AM by PeterJ »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2012, 12:53:19 AM »

StephenC

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2014, 10:19:42 AM »

Meanwhile, I live in Adelaide, methinks finding a 1200/5.6L, a 2x T/C, and sitting up on Montefiore Hill would get some nice headshots of bowlers and batters at the River end...

If you can afford that lens, I suspect you have better things to be doing...
Canon EOS 5D mkIII
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L II USM, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM, Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT + ST-E3-RT, Canon GP-E2, Eye-Fi Card

IMG_0001

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Amateur photon abductor
    • View Profile
Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2014, 09:38:05 PM »
Not in Australia, not a lawyer but I think you'd be bound to the terms. And about Facebook and such, the thing is that by posting images there, you cede all your rights on the image to the site hosting it and you don't own these in the first place. I think you could then be held responsible if the host decided they like the image enough and use it for advertisement or other commercial purpoise.

What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Legal question on photography
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2014, 09:38:05 PM »