User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  10
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Bathurst Race Photos : Sorry but you cannot put them on AP

  1. #1
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,605
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Bathurst Race Photos : Sorry but you cannot put them on AP

    We have had to remove a couple of threads already. Unfortunately, the T&C for the Bathurst car racing state:

    Any imagery or sound recordings taken of the Event must only be for private or domestic purposes, that is, you cannot sell, license, broadcast, publish or otherwise commercially exploit them. In particular, you may not make available any moving footage, sound recordings or series of still pictures taken at the Event on the internet.

    Please refrain from posting any photos from the event. Apologies that this has to be done, but AP has to abide by the wishes of the organisers or the site could be served a take-down notice.

    http://user.v8supercarevents.com.au/pages/?PageID=3
    Number 13 in the entry T&C.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wow! Seriously? That's incredible.

    I've never attended the race and so won't be publishing any pictures on the internet, and certainly none here, but what an interesting legal question!
    I wouldn't mind betting that people probably "agree" to those terms when they purchase their tickets - whether they know it or not (who would read the fine print to that level when buying a ticket). But isn't this a public road it's held on?

    There used to be private land in the middle of the course, and even if that's long since been bought out, there's probably land in the area that would still have a view of the course, and it would be interesting to see if they have any legal power over someone taking a photo from their own land. Suppose they were just taking pictures on their own land of ... I don't know ... a new born cow or something, and happened to end up with a V8 in the background doing practice laps?

    I once had a copy of the laws relating to photographers on my computer. I might have to go see if I can find them. I know I once attended a baptism of a friend's daughter that was held in a public swimming pool, and the Minister stated (and I don't know if he was correct or not) that if we were to take photos we had to be careful to ensure that the only person in the photo was the one we had permission to photograph, otherwise we'd technically need the permission of anyone else who was in the background. How do Paparazzi get away with publishing photos of people in public places?

    I guess these are all questions for someone doing a Doctorate of Law to do a Thesis on or something, but it kind of raises the question of where and what you can legally photograph, or more to the point, what you can legally publish.
    Canon EOS 60D ..... EFS 18-200mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS - 430 EXII Speedlite - "eBay special" Remote Control Unit - Manfrotto 190XPROB w 804RC2 head.

  3. #3
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    AFL, NRL, Tennis Australia, Cricket Australia etc. all have similar T&Cs.
    Mainly as the photography is tied up in contracts with pro sports photography businesses.

    No... you don't need permission from people when you take pics in public places.
    See: http://122.201.92.45/info-sheets/inf...aphers-rights/
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  4. #4
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,164
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It does raise an interesting topic, as the race is run across privately owned land. As a general admission spectator tho, in purchasing the tickets to enter into the complex, you automatically abide by the organiser's T&C, so they could chase you down and prosecute.
    For the private land owners this should be different, as they haven't entered into the organisers ground complex, unless there is a specific agreement between the land owners and the organising body.
    That is, a land owner should be freely allowed to take whatever footage and recordings they like, as they do so from their own private property.

    With 99% of all other sports events tho, as you enter 'their premises' you've automatically abided by their rules not to display any recordings.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezookiel View Post
    I guess these are all questions for someone doing a Doctorate of Law to do a Thesis on or something, but it kind of raises the question of where and what you can legally photograph, or more to the point, what you can legally publish.
    The majority of 'bans' on photography are not a matter of law, but the management of privately-owned establishments and/or events simply making a declaration along the lines of "my party, my rules".

    More often than not, it comes down to dollars. As Kym said, there are contracts and whatnot in place, and parties to both are keen to protect their interests by prohibiting photography in case photography by amateurs eats into their respective bottom lines.

    There is no law specifically against photography, and the real issues some photographers face, as far as the law is concerned, relate to matters such as privacy, trespass, harassment, etc., which are governed by existing laws that are not photography-centric.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yep. That's the one I had as a pdf on my computer. Have grabbed another copy just in case I can't find it. It would appear from that list, that the Minister was correct so far as the public swimming pool was concerned where the baptism took place, which would kind of make sense, I'd also be pretty concerned at a stranger taking pics of my kids etc at a public pool.
    Would have to re-read it a couple of times to find out how it would apply to a privately funded event like Bathurst, being filmed from private land nearby.

  7. #7
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezookiel View Post
    Would have to re-read it a couple of times to find out how it would apply to a privately funded event like Bathurst, being filmed from private land nearby.
    Tricky. IANAL but in that case I don't think you would be subject to the event T&Cs as there is no contract (i.e. no ticket purchase); and they could not really claim a right to privacy in that case.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,553
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While I understand the reasoning for their T&C, sometimes blanket "bans" lose the point.
    So some APers go the this race (or any event) and want to post a couple of wow photo's. That can potentially encourage me to go to that event and try and take my own wow photos.
    Anyone who wants to commercially benefit is unlikely to post here for CC.
    Or maybe I'm missing a few real world factors.
    "Enjoy what you can do rather than being frustrated at what you can't." bobt
    Canon 80D, 60D, Canon 28-105, Sigma 150-600S, a speedlite, a tripod, a monopod, a remote release and a padded bag to carry things in.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Sep 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,218
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Of course, any private land nearby that the organisers didn't already have signed up in some deal, would probably be unlikely to be positioned where you'd get photos good enough to compete with the "professional' ones that the organisers will have their "authorised" photographers taking. So I guess they're pretty safe.
    Bathurst now goes international and so they'd have some seriously huge monies tied up in film rights and contracts. I can well understand why they'd want to jump on any hint of photos or videos appearing outside of those contractual arrangements. And frankly, even if I had photos taken from private land, and even if I had a server on the net that I wanted to put them up on, would I want to take on someone with pockets as deep as theirs to defend my position? Some fights just aren't worth having.

    But on those rights above, I was interested to see the laws related to a number of National Parks. One of my favourite forms of photography is to take pictures of scenery while I'm out 4wding, and that's often in National Parks. It will be interesting when I come to do some of the really big trips like Kakadu etc, to see they have laws related to some of those that could actually restrict what I can do with the pictures.

  10. #10
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @Mark I agree that they are over the top. But we have had people join AP (several time) who are part of pro sports tog companies.
    These people actually have tried to 'trap' certain of our members re: their sports photos.
    You would think these people would be less insecure than to chase down not for profit low-res postings

    The real problem to AP is the threat of a take down notice - which we obviously need to avoid.
    Rick has been threatened in the past - yes it sux.

  11. #11
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kym View Post
    The real problem to AP is the threat of a take down notice - which we obviously need to avoid.
    Rick has been threatened in the past - yes it sux.
    Out of curiosity, how does the situation apply in cases when someone posts an image in an AP thread, but links the image from some other hosting site?

  12. #12
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    Out of curiosity, how does the situation apply in cases when someone posts an image in an AP thread, but links the image from some other hosting site?
    URL link is not a problem as AP is not displaying the image - strange but true

    That is why we insist that images members don't own © over can only be linked.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    22 Jan 2011
    Location
    Goolwa
    Posts
    3,777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, so the photos from Clipsal that I couldn't show here, could be put in a thread containing a link to, say, Flickr?
    Monika
    Equipment: Canon 60D, Nikon FE, Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens, Fancier FT-662A tripod, 18-55mm kit lens, 55-250mm kit lens, 30mm 1.4 Sigma lens, LR4, PS Elements
    Check out my Flickr photos ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/missmonny/
    ... and then you can like me on www.facebook.com/PhotoByMB or see my shop on http://www.redbubble.com/people/msmonny



  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Jan 2010
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    glad that i came across this thread as i took many a picture over the last few days and was going to post some for CC.

    thanks for posting this Rick wouldnt want to get the site into any trouble
    Mel

    Olympus E300,E30,35mm macro,14-45mm,14-54mm,40-150mm,70-30mm.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess it's true that a few photos posted here harms no one, but, what if you took 3000 pro quality photos and put them all up on flickr (owned by Getty ?) all for free

    There's just no way to draw the line, and yes, it sux as I'd love to share more of my photos but I know what would happen
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  16. #16
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,605
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post
    Ah, so the photos from Clipsal that I couldn't show here, could be put in a thread containing a link to, say, Flickr?
    yes, but you can only post the link, so members have to click it, and head over to Flickr to see the photos. Thus if the Clipsal people get agitated by your photos, they will go to Flickr to get them removed and get your contact details to send you a 'nice legal letter'. As Kiwi says, put them on Flickr at your own risk, and if you do end up in court, then you were warned..here in this thread.
    Last edited by ricktas; 10-10-2011 at 6:33am.

  17. #17
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,605
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    Out of curiosity, how does the situation apply in cases when someone posts an image in an AP thread, but links the image from some other hosting site?
    As Kym says, post the link (not inside IMG tags) so that people have to click the link and go to the site where the photo is hosted to view it, and AP is fine.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I also though think that one could argue that since the members photos area on AP is not available to the public that posting photos here is not by legal definition "publishing"

    Would be an interesting viewpoint to explore in my opinion

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    20 Mar 2008
    Location
    Glenorchy
    Posts
    4,040
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does this really apply to forums like this too? The posters are not doing it for any type of commercial exploitation, and the ban seems to be concerned with the commercial aspect. Just how I would read it - if anyone can elucidate I'd be most interested.

    Still, it is probably better for Rick to be safe than sorry!
    Odille

    “Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky”

    My Blog | Canon 1DsMkII | 60D | Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AF AT-X PRO | EF50mm f/1.8| Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM | Fujifilm X-T1 & X-M1 | Fujinon XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XC 50-230mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS | tripods, flashes, filters etc ||

  20. #20
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,605
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Analog6 View Post
    Does this really apply to forums like this too? The posters are not doing it for any type of commercial exploitation, and the ban seems to be concerned with the commercial aspect. Just how I would read it - if anyone can elucidate I'd be most interested.

    Still, it is probably better for Rick to be safe than sorry!
    It does, I have had several requests over the years to remove photos..or else, related to Australian Open Tennis, The Formula 1, AFL, Baseball in Sydney, and more

    The mods and I are discussing creation of a thread that has links to the entry T&C for all these major events, in relation to photography. If we do it, it will take some time to compile as much as we can, and get the thread up and running.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •