Legal question on photography

[2n10]

for all intensive purposes

?

Perhaps "for all intents and purposes"?

I thought it was "for all in tents and porpoises" ;D

 

[Hillsilly]

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.

 

[mackguyver]

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.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

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.

 

[e17paul]

The irony is that they would let most small sensor super zoom cameras through.

 

[Lloyd]

This has been a very interesting thread. I never knew they had any laws in Australia.