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

[ricktas]

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.

[Ezookiel]

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.

[Kym]

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/

[arthurking83]

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.

[Xenedis]

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.

[Ezookiel]

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.

[Kym]

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.

[Mark L]

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.

[Ezookiel]

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.

[Kym]

@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.

[Xenedis]

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?

[Kym]

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.

[Ms Monny]

Ah, so the photos from Clipsal that I couldn't show here, could be put in a thread containing a link to, say, Flickr?

[melmo78]

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

[kiwi]

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

[ricktas]

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.

[ricktas]

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.

[kiwi]

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

[Analog6]

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!

[ricktas]

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.