Exclusive rights - in public place events (cycling, running etc.) - limitations or restrictions

[essaytee]

I'd like to open up for discussion a scenario surrounding 'exclusive rights' and what that term actually means when related to or involved with events taking place within public places.

Okay, here we go. An event is organised, say a cycling or running event, which takes place predominately on the streets. On the day in question I assume the event organisers have gained all the necessary permits and have sections of the road cordoned off, not allowing access to the general public, only entrants and officials of the event. There are no admission fees to watch the event, that is, the general public can and do watch from any vantage point, usually on the other side of the cordon (a public foot path).

The event organisers contract a photography company and contracts are signed whereby the photography company has 'exclusive rights' to the event. I'm assuming the photography company pays a fee for these rights and subsequently will profit when selling photos. The event organisers promote the fact that the photography company are the official photographers and further I assume the event organisers provide all the registration details of the entrants to the 'official photographers' for obvious reasons.

I'm curious as to the validity of the term 'exclusive rights' and how it can actually be enforced or further how anyone can be in breach of that agreement if they were not a party to that agreement in the first place.

Does it mean that entrants are denied purchasing or obtaining photographs from some organisation other than the 'official photographers'? I assume the event organisers would be prevented from promoting another source of photographs. Does it prevent other organisations or individuals from taking photographs? Does it prevent another organisation or individual from somehow promoting the fact that photographs of the event are available whether for fee or free?

ps. Yes, it's a given, for proper advice seek out a lawyer, but it's still a good topic for discussion.

[kiwi]

I would say that if you are shooting from a public place then you can do what you want, including selling photos to the competitors.

Now, it may usuaally be apublic place, but if leased for an event and there are terms & conditions attached to entry then that's another matter - but that does not appear to be the sceanario of which you speak

[jbee]

I remember at the first Adelaide GP in 1995, it was announced that someone had Exclusive rights to all moving and still pictures of the event, and so cameras would not be allowed in. Everyone just ignored it and security could do stuff all with 10 of 1000's of ticket holders pouring in with their camera's. I'll bet a few of the shots taken were sold as not all the pro photographers could get accreditation for the event.
This kind of greedy sowing up of every last cent is symptomatic of sport these days, it's no longer about the sport or the athletes or the crowd having a good time and taking some shots to remember it by, it' s simply about the money.

[ricktas]

Take Cycling here. Some of the cyclists have high profiles, so I would be wary of selling photos without a model release, cause you could find they (the exclusive rights photographers, or the athletes themselves) come at you from a legal aspect using that as the main drive for the action they decide to persue. I agree that in public space they cannot stop you taking the photos, but i feel selling them might be a legal minefield if shots of sports 'stars' are involved. My thoughts only here.

Interesting discussion

[Kym]

If you did not buy a ticket (i.e. enter into a contracts and be subject to T&Cs) and you shot from a public place then you have the full copy. That is clear in the copy act.

As for model release, as I understand the copy act you only need a release for commercial use, which is well defined. I.e. using that image to infer (say) endorsement for a product.

If I were to include that image in a calendar for sale I don't see why a model release is needed.
But IANAL !

[wmphoto]

Take Cycling here. Some of the cyclists have high profiles, so I would be wary of selling photos without a model release, cause you could find they (the exclusive rights photographers, or the athletes themselves) come at you from a legal aspect using that as the main drive for the action they decide to persue. I agree that in public space they cannot stop you taking the photos, but i feel selling them might be a legal minefield if shots of sports 'stars' are involved. My thoughts only here.

Interesting discussion
I've tried looking for the case, but can't find it, but I seem to remember a case a couple of years ago where a photographer was sued by a high profile athlete for selling photos of them on the basis that their "image" was their "brand". I can't remember the outcome but will keep looking.

[kiwi]

As said it depends on what the image is used for....eg editorial is ok, selling a few prints from your website or in an art gallery is ok....selling 10000 calendars is probably going to be deemed commercial

I'd like to be a copyright lawyer (not)

[maccaroneski]

essaytee, one work: Ed Zackery!

It is a bit of a minefield though, and several different issues arise.

1. Everyone above has it spot on regarding the actual taking of the images: in the absence of buying a ticket to a cordoned off area, snap away without fear.

Everything else, though, becomes a little more complex, as the law in this area is constantly evolving, and there have been a couple of high-ish profile cases which never proceeded to trial, and there was speculation as to what might have happened if they did. Although editorial use, as pointed out above, generally flies free.

2. Take a photo of a stranger in the street who is not in any way famous and without a model release: stick it in a calendar, sell it on a postcard, and even (probably) stick it on a billboard endorsing a product. All currently OK in Australia. Only maybe a problem in the US where there is a reasonably wide definition of "commercial use" that causes a problem.

3. Take a shot of a famous person walking down the street in "plain" clothes (i.e. not in some sort of sporting uniform). Stick it in a calendar, sell it on a postcard, sell 1000 - still no problem (kiwi seems to be representing the US position as what constitutes commercial use). Stick it on a billboard endorsing a product - now that is where you have a problem. Kym has it pretty right but as the law currently stands in Australia only a well known endorser of products can complain if you use their image without authorisation. But as I have said before, I wouldn't want to be the test case, and a model release would be (more than) prudent in any case where you want to use an image for advertising/product endorsement purposes.

4. There is an unsettled issue as to what happens if there is a trademark in the shot. Some say that if it appears "incidentally", then it's OK, irrespective of what you do with the image. Again, here you would err on the side of caution. In the Ricky Ponting unauthorised biography article I linked to above, Cricket Australia also got involved on the basis that the shot in question featured Ricky Ponting in an Aussie uniform, trademarked by CA. This was however on of those cases which did not go to trial, so there were no real answers, only more questions.

Here is a really good article setting out some issues regarding sportspeople: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sportsfactor/stories/2007/2011128.htm

Soooo perhaps the organisers are attempting to push poo uphill in enforcing this exclusivity. Perhaps they are simply getting in front of whatever law might be around the corner. Perhaps they might be talking about reproducing shots with the organiser's trademarks in them.

insert disclaimer here about this not being specific advice, blah, not to be relied on, blah...

[farmer_rob]

I remember the sportsfactor item - interesting area.

Sadly it seems to me that the people with the deep pockets (e.g. the promotors) are the ones who do not want the case law defined, and the people with the shallow pockets (e.g. the amateur photographers) are the ones who will fold at the hint of a letter on legal letterhead, well before there is a chance of case law clarifying the situation.

[kiwi]

Tony, no, my advice on that came from an Australian qc

[essaytee]

Thanks for the replies so far.

In relation to the Grand Prix example, I agree with the posters sentiment but that is really the same as entering a closed arena, where tickets are purchased which have terms and conditions attached. I was stopped at AAMI Park Stadium (soccer) upon a bag search, the security guard would not allow me entry with a 70-300mm zoom lens and quoted terms and conditions a number of times as I was trying to appeal to his reasonable side, "I'm not a professional". I had to leave my camera at an office. I was peeved though understood they were within their rights. As an aside, I was told that they will allow zooms up to 200mm.

When initially posting the question I was not thinking along the lines of elite athletes in the photos but is clearly a factor and could arise either incidentally or by design. The types of events I was referring to are of the local type, not likely to attract the elites.

[kiwi]

Problem #1, AAMI Park Stasium is not a public place, problem #2, T&C's for the soccer (taht you agree to by purchasing tickets) probably state a couple of things,no professional ewquiipment, no lenses over 200mm and furthermore probably that any photo you take even with your mobile phone cant be published or used commercially.

So really, you dont have a leg to stand on in this scenario

[maccaroneski]

Tony, no, my advice on that came from an Australian qc

He was probably giving an opinion as to what might happen now if a case went to trial as opposed to what has actually happened to date - that's what you pay them the big bucks for, I guess. Where there is a "new" area the courts will look to the reasonings from US/UK/Canada to help them along in making a decision, and I suspect that being in his position he would be keeping up with that stuff too.

Hence my talking about "you wouldn't want to be the test case" etc.

[essaytee]

Problem #1, AAMI Park Stasium is not a public place, problem #2, T&C's for the soccer (taht you agree to by purchasing tickets) probably state a couple of things,no professional ewquiipment, no lenses over 200mm and furthermore probably that any photo you take even with your mobile phone cant be published or used commercially.

So really, you dont have a leg to stand on in this scenario

Yes, I agree.

[RaoulIsidro]

A resident in a high rise apartment, from the balcony, took some video of the Sydney Fireworks in the Australian Idol finale over the Opera House and loaded this on YouTube.
It was pulled down by YouTube because the Australian Idol management complained of "copyright infringement".

http://www.youtube.com/user/kensington25#p/search/4/BtKE11K3EtU

[maccaroneski]

I think that might be a matter where youtube pulls down video because someone complains about copyright infringement, irrespective of whether there has actually been a copyright infringement.

[TonySlattery]

Take Cycling here. Some of the cyclists have high profiles, so I would be wary of selling photos without a model release, cause you could find they (the exclusive rights photographers, or the athletes themselves) come at you from a legal aspect using that as the main drive for the action they decide to persue. I agree that in public space they cannot stop you taking the photos, but i feel selling them might be a legal minefield if shots of sports 'stars' are involved. My thoughts only here.

Interesting discussion

Are cyclists any different to movie stars? Taking paparatzi style pictures of the cyclists and selling them for hundereds of thousands of dollars, now wouldn't that be a dream job.

[ricktas]

Are cyclists any different to movie stars? Taking paparatzi style pictures of the cyclists and selling them for hundereds of thousands of dollars, now wouldn't that be a dream job.

Fair enough if the cyclist was out on the town, same as a movie star, AFL player etc. Try taking a photo of an AFL player on the oval, or an Australian Cricketer on the paddock, you are quite restricted about what you can do with those, certainly if you started trying to sell them, the governing bodies of those sports and most likely the player's lawyer would be contacting you.If a cyclist wished to, I am sure he/she could find a lawyer willing to take that perspective and drag you into court basing it on the track being the cyclists 'work place'. We live in a very litigious society, so asking before doing so here, would be a wise decision.

[kiwi]

I dunno, my workplace is a public place then I can't see how there is any possible way you stopping me taking pics and exploiting them by selling prints etc. Commercial use is more problematic but I think say if you didn't include a specific endorsement from the athlete it would be an interesting court case

[Darey]

The "Cole Classic" (spelling) is an annual swimming event from Sydney's Shelley Beach to Manly Beach and I think it is on next weekend.
The organisers of the event issue "exclusive rights for photography" and there is hearsay they have been heavy on some amateur togs attempting to shoot the event in previous years.
A friend of mine owns an apartment which overlooks the swim course and I intend shooting the event from his balcony. I wonder if I could sell the Manly Daley some shots? ;)
Just stirring. :D

[farmer_rob]

Fair enough if the cyclist was out on the town, same as a movie star, AFL player etc. Try taking a photo of an AFL player on the oval, or an Australian Cricketer on the paddock, you are quite restricted about what you can do with those, certainly if you started trying to sell them, the governing bodies of those sports and most likely the player's lawyer would be contacting you.If a cyclist wished to, I am sure he/she could find a lawyer willing to take that perspective and drag you into court basing it on the track being the cyclists 'work place'. We live in a very litigious society, so asking before doing so here, would be a wise decision.

I wouldn't post here - no sense in upsetting the equilibrium :D - however, if I was able to take the photo whilst I was on public land and they were not in a place where they could expect privacy, I'd sell it to whoever I wanted, and fight for my rights. There are different issues if I wanted to use it commercially (and selling the photo is not using it commercially), because then I'd need a model release.

[Longshots]

ah well Rob - while you might be in your rights to shoot on public land (of course checking that it is just that), then while you might be well within your rights to shoot. What you may then run into (as this is the wonderful basis of most event restrictions) where "they" catch you is the Intellectual Property of the Logos involved in both of the event and the sponsors. Which then restricts your ability to sell the image for commercial use. Again there is of course provision for the exception of news use.

[farmer_rob]

Yes, but I excluded commercial use - that is a whole different can of worms. However, I believe "incidental" use of trademarks etc is not actionable, especially if I am not trying to use the image commercially in a field where those trademarks apply. Also, trademark law (which covers logos etc.) is an entirely separate issue to copyright - lumping the two together as "intellectual property" can lead to confusion.

[ricktas]

I agree that strictly speaking, you can photograph them, and possibly use the photos by selling them. However I would be asking permission from the organisers, in writing, before the event, cause the last thing anyone needs/wants is to pay legal costs associated with any action taken. Why not just get it in writing from the organisers..first!

[kiwi]

maybe because if you ask and then they say no they have effectively denied you permission and you have not much else to stand on apart from indignation ?

[Scotty72]

Selling a photo to a newspaper is not commercial use.

If you're on public land, and the photo is legal (not indecent etc), I say snap away - the press, paparazzi etc certainly do.

[Longshots]

Think you'll find that I did say that news was excluded from being described as commercial use.

And yes the logo issue is certainly confusing, but I can assure you that big organisation against small individual - muscling the point is what "they" depend on doing.

So sure snap away, just dont take too many risks in trying to make some money out of it. Wasnt that the point of the original question. Commercial often does mean making a profit from the sale of the images - not necessarily in the end use - a point often missed by many.

[farmer_rob]

William, I know you are offering sensible and experienced advice, and caution is the sensible step here. However, when we all take the cautious approach, we lose our rights.


... Commercial often does mean making a profit from the sale of the images - not necessarily in the end use - a point often missed by many.

I beg to differ - I think you will find that legally "commercial usage" does not include sale of the image itself - profitably or otherwise - in the context of copyright and photography. (See 4020's view here (http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#commuse). 4020 also note that Australia's trademark laws are not as rigid as the US laws, and a lot of cases that get up there would not work here. Remember also the "Streisand Effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) - muscling an individual to protect corporate rights may bring unwanted bad PR.)

[Longshots]

William, I know you are offering sensible and experienced advice, and caution is the sensible step here. However, when we all take the cautious approach, we lose our rights.



I beg to differ - I think you will find that legally "commercial usage" does not include sale of the image itself - profitably or otherwise - in the context of copyright and photography. (See 4020's view here (http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#commuse). 4020 also note that Australia's trademark laws are not as rigid as the US laws, and a lot of cases that get up there would not work here. Remember also the "Streisand Effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) - muscling an individual to protect corporate rights may bring unwanted bad PR.)

hey Rob I dont think I've ever said that I've ever taken the cautious approach :)

Look I see your point, but as you've pointed out, my experience is that these type of organised events rely on using their considerable might to ensure that they protect what they see as theirs - which is what I've been saring. Doesnt mean to say that its my personal belief, because it isnt :)

Law is as I'm quite sure you know (as you seem very very versed in this area) is not black and white, but becomes a case by case interpretation (boy, I sound repetitive on this description). So in many ways there is little point in referring to 4020's website, because as I pointed out quite recently, Andrew spent a mere 6 months as a practising lawyer, so while its a great interest, great passion and great commitment on his part, its not a situation that his advice is always black and white. People like these publicly accessible events use their might and use a great deal of bluff to try and assert their " rights ". They may be right and they may be wrong - but they also have the financial clout to pursue their case. And I wouldnt want to advise someone to go for it, when I personally have been stopped on the basis of shooting places/people with logos - I'm not a lawyer, and nor do I want to be on the end of an expensive legal case (even if I'm sure that the law could be on my side).

Now if you just humour me for a moment and go back to what the OP actually asked which was - to explain what were exclusive rights meant in a public place - they were from what I understood asking what the information was on these type of claims. Which has been answered. So to contest whether we should all take risks or not, wasnt I thought ever part of the equation.

If I hadnt taken risks, I would not have the experience I do :) And I've never been one for letting go and rolling over when it comes to giving up my rights. Almost 20 years of lobbying and becoming a total pain in the arse to some organisations, proves I've never been cautious. Please dont misinterpret my advice on information and knowledge I have at hand, with my approach to life:th3:

[Scotty72]

It is simple. You, or a paparazzi, standing in a public place, snap a picture of anyone walking, running in a race etc. are quite entitled to sell it, burn it etc.

If what you are saying were even remotely true, the lawsuits would be flying daily from anyone of a thousand celebs who have a camera stuck in their face everyday.

This, the the purpose we are talking about, is not commercial. Commercial is, for eg, when you take a picture of Rick and use that commercially (eg. Rick's photo on a pack of smokes). Do that and you'll get sued (as Ian Thorpe did to Telstra). However, when Warnie was photographed from a public place having a smoke despite being sponsored by Quit Victoria, he soon found out that he had no legal recourse despite the fact that a magazine made the photographer much richer.

It really is so simple.

If I see you doing something really embarrassing in public, out comes my camera and if the mags wanna give me $10,000, I get a holiday to Disneyland while you get to please yourself. :)

[Longshots]

It is simple. You, or a paparazzi, standing in a public place, snap a picture of anyone walking, running in a race etc. are quite entitled to sell it, burn it etc.

If what you are saying were even remotely true, the lawsuits would be flying daily from anyone of a thousand celebs who have a camera stuck in their face everyday.

This, the the purpose we are talking about, is not commercial. Commercial is, for eg, when you take a picture of Rick and use that commercially (eg. Rick's photo on a pack of smokes). Do that and you'll get sued (as Ian Thorpe did to Telstra). However, when Warnie was photographed from a public place having a smoke despite being sponsored by Quit Victoria, he soon found out that he had no legal recourse despite the fact that a magazine made the photographer much richer.

It really is so simple.

If I see you doing something really embarrassing in public, out comes my camera and if the mags wanna give me $10,000, I get a holiday to Disneyland while you get to please yourself. :)

Well I make my full time living out of what I'm talking about Scotty. Now I dont mind having a difference of opinion, but I do take exception to you saying words "if what you're saying is remotely true" etc etc.

The detail of the question is there at the beginning, its a scenario that's increasingly common - that was what I'm referring to, not some simplistic scenario that you are suggesting (which btw you're probably quite correct in believing to be true - unfortunately zero relation to the topic and what I'd said) I'd suggest you reread it and then perhaps that would put the answers in context for you.

[Scotty72]

If you say so...

[Kym]

Chill guys!! This is on the edge of personal attack. STOP

[farmer_rob]

Sorry William if I offended, I was just trying to say I thought your advice sensible. I still think there is an argument that says fighting for rights at times overrides sensible even if it costs a lot (I've been watching too much of the Gandhi documentary on the ABC:D).

As I understand it, a lot of the law surrounding use of images of sportsmen and women has not been strongly tested. The ABC law report had an issue on it about 18 months ago, but I don't have a link to the transcript. There are a couple of key cases including the use of an image of a cricketer (Ricky Ponting from memory) on the cover of a book.

I must say I side with Scotty (in a non-confrontational sense :)) - if I had the right image, taken from public land, I'd take the money and if necessary test the law.

I don't see (as per the question originally posed) how an exclusive agreement that does not involve the person taking the picture can be enforced against him/her as long as it is not a) commercial use and b) is taken from land not controlled by the parties to the agreement.

[MarkChap]

I really think that the OP was asking about the ability to sell the images to the competitors.


Does it mean that entrants are denied purchasing or obtaining photographs from some organisation other than the 'official photographers'? I assume the event organisers would be prevented from promoting another source of photographs. Does it prevent other organisations or individuals from taking photographs? Does it prevent another organisation or individual from somehow promoting the fact that photographs of the event are available whether for fee or free?

[Longshots]

NO its all OK seriously I wasnt offended by anyone :)

I thought this was about a point of discussion about shooting an event which is in a public place - and my responses were all about that. I'm not disputing wether you can shoot in a public place or not.

But its all good Kym, I havent taken any of this personally other than to stipulate that the question has been posed for discussion and there is a big difference between what we'd all like to happen and what happens in practice - and thats what I'm trying to communicate - all of which is being done with a good sense of humour - no problems from my side :)

I'm simply saying that in practice what Rob thinks should not be able to happen - actually does. I dont agree with it. Just passing on what, and trying to explain why. Ask anyone that shoots motorsports F1, etc just how tight those organisations have managed to grab a strangle hold on imagary, and how they use (rightly or wrongly Rob) the control based on using and reproducing corporate logos. Basically dont shoot the messenger - just telling what happens - surely Kiwi wants to say something, because he will I'm sure back the motorsport "control" .

Its ok to disagree though, just bear in mind that I'm personally offering advice on what happens within my experience and not giving a personal opinion. :)

[Scotty72]

That is different. If you are trying to sell shots of F1 (or whatever) and try to pass it off as being endorsed by the organisation or use their logos in promoting it, of course they can go after you.

But, if you don't try to do that; if you just say, hey here is a picture that just happens to be of X and don't try to 'pass off' = no probs.

[farmer_rob]

Wiiliam - understood. And experience often trumps theory :eek:. (I am sure what you suggest happens. What worries me is that they get away with it, possibly because they have deeper pockets rather than legal validity.)

Taking Mark's comment into perspective WRT the OP, I think that the competitors would be breaking the terms of their participation to buy from an unauthorised third party. I don't see how this can affect the third party seller, but it may not be good for business.

[Longshots]

That is different. If you are trying to sell shots of F1 (or whatever) and try to pass it off as being endorsed by the organisation or use their logos in promoting it, of course they can go after you.

But, if you don't try to do that; if you just say, hey here is a picture that just happens to be of X and don't try to 'pass off' = no probs.

Well actually I'm sorry but thats what I'm trying to tell the forum; thats not true. And they (from what I've been told directly by colleagues involved) F1, do chase it up. Like I keep saying, in this situation, its one thing to take the shots, its another to sell them.

[Scotty72]

Well actually I'm sorry but thats what I'm trying to tell the forum; thats not true. And they (from what I've been told directly by colleagues involved) F1, do chase it up. Like I keep saying, in this situation, its one thing to take the shots, its another to sell them.

I would like you to point me to even 1 case where the F1 has done this (that didn't involve theft of intellectual property eg. improper use of logo in a commercial sense)

[farmer_rob]

I suspect it never makes it to the public record Scotty - and so it is an impossible argument to have. I also suspect that those on the receiving end take a photo from within the "controlled" area, and so are under the obligation of their entry conditions and then receive a legal nastygram which scares them into submission.

[Longshots]

I would like you to point me to even 1 case where the F1 has done this (that didn't involve theft of intellectual property eg. improper use of logo in a commercial sense)

I cant - I'm not a lawyer Scotty. Most of these organisations restrict and control those who are "accredited". And if you're not "accredited" then you have no rights to sell them - thats sort of how it appears to work.

All you need to do is to read the T&C of entry to these type of events, and if you dont buy a ticket, then you're in the grey area of the public place and then it comes down to their "legal muscle". Then as I've said you are in their sights and perhaps its sheer bluff, but I can assure you that they do take action. I'm quite sure that very little ever reaches a court situation, but to gain the type of control they have, then you should be aware that they do follow it up.

But OK lets use V8 Supercars instead as an example - which many of their races are in the public domain - on the Homebush tickets is states:
"Images and sound recordings of an event must not be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes; that is, you cannot sell, license, broadcast, publish or commercially exploit them, including in any case by Internet."

And that is just a summary of the overall terms and conditions - which are far more in depth than that.

Here is a link to a motor sports photographer who clearly aknowledges the restrictions V8 put on his photography and subsequent sales of images:

http://www.chrisnoyes.com.au/

Again, I'm simply passing on what I know about restrictions placed by event organisers. I dont necessarily agree with them but do know of people "chased" by various event organisors.

[kiwi]

Yip, if you have to get in then you abide by ticket or media conditions.

The more interesting/grey area is where you are on public land (eg maybe on an apartment overlooking the circuit) and take photos and then sell them or in particular use them commercially

With the logo's they are all trademarked, but I think as mentioned before unless they are prominent in the image its not a breach of trademark to have them in a commercial image, but there will be no definitive answer as its case (or case by case) law - but i dare say iif you say took a pic of a v8 supercar, airbrushed all the logos, but then used it to sell toothpaste, they will come after you.

Ive also heard, to support William, that FIA are particularly aggressive with trademark protection

Civil Lawyers make good money eh.

[farmer_rob]

...
But OK lets use V8 Supercars instead as an example - which many of their races are in the public domain - on the Homebush tickets is states:
"Images and sound recordings of an event must not be used for any purpose other than for private and domestic purposes; that is, you cannot sell, license, broadcast, publish or commercially exploit them, including in any case by Internet."...

I think we're at cross purposes here - V8's at homebush may well be taking place on public land, but since there is controlled entry and tickets, there is clearly an agreement to lease (or similar) the "public area" and it is hence no longer public within the controlled area from the perspective of a photographer. As soon as you take that ticket (or the credentials), you've lost the opportunity to work outside their rules, and the legal nastygram has some weight.

However, I'm arguing about the situation where you are NOT on land with entry restricted and controlled by the organiser and do not have credentials or an entry ticket - so do not have an agreement with them. You may well argue that it is close to impossible to get a decent, saleable F1 or V8 picture in those circumstances - why do you think they have the screens and barriers? - but in the case of the OP's scenario, or the Manly swim raised by Darey, the photos will not be taken by people inside areas controlled by the organisers, and there is no breach of contract.

[Scotty72]

I thought this whole thread was about public land... ie the Cole Classic is in a public ocean and on a public beach.

[farmer_rob]

...
Civil Lawyers make good money eh.

"I've just bought a library of law books - and am planning to start a career in law. I thought I'd specialise in civil law. How much do you think I should charge?"

[farmer_rob]

I thought this whole thread was about public land... ie the Cole Classic is in a public ocean and on a public beach.

How public is the public land though? The government can legally lease the beach out to the organisers for the day, and the organisers can then restrict entry and impose conditions. (Morally wrong IMO, but then I'm not in government.) So, you can't stand on the (formerly) public land and taken the photo. But you can stand on land that is not controlled by the government/organiser, which was Darey's scenario above.

(BTW, I reread page one of this discussion - the RN link and Ponting case are clearly discussed by Maccaronski. The perils of old threads being resurrected :lol:)

[Longshots]

OK I took the V8 and F1 on the basis of their street circuits. Hence the public land and public accessibility.

So not really at cross purposes. You're absolutely right that y buying a ticket you agree to the T&C, but the grey area is well how do the organisers stop you shooting their event when you're on public land - which takes me back to my answer (which they could be wrong - but they have more dough) that they specifically state that the logos are "protected".

And Coles Classic ? Seriously I'm not trying to wind anyone up here, but the Manly beach probably has restrictions on it already for photography, and is managed by Manly Council, which while "public", has terms and conditions of entry. Annoying to many photographers - Arts Freedom Australia recently highlighted the restrictions by many councils to photographers shooting on beaches.



And again - I'm relaying information -For everyone's info, I resent these type of restrictions to photography.