Bathurst Race Photos : Sorry but you cannot put them on AP [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

ricktas

09-10-2011, 5:58pm

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

09-10-2011, 7:49pm

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

09-10-2011, 8:24pm

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/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

arthurking83

09-10-2011, 8:37pm

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

09-10-2011, 8:38pm

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

09-10-2011, 8:43pm

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

09-10-2011, 9:09pm

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

09-10-2011, 9:21pm

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. :confused013

Ezookiel

09-10-2011, 9:41pm

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

09-10-2011, 9:43pm

@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 :D

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

09-10-2011, 10:06pm

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

09-10-2011, 10:10pm

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 :D

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

Ms Monny

09-10-2011, 10:19pm

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

10-10-2011, 1:13am

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

10-10-2011, 5:52am

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

10-10-2011, 6:32am

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

10-10-2011, 6:40am

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

10-10-2011, 6:56am

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

10-10-2011, 6:56am

ricktas

10-10-2011, 7:04am

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.

kiwi

10-10-2011, 7:08am

Im not sure it would be worth links Rick, they change quite often and often dont match the terms actually printed on the ticket

In addition another complexity is that accreditted photographers don't actually buy or agree to a ticket....

Ms Monny

10-10-2011, 8:36am

Nope - not going to bother doing it just for a handful of people looking at my images. Pity though, hey??

Kym

10-10-2011, 8:43am

In addition another complexity is that accredited photographers don't actually buy or agree to a ticket....

Accredited photographers are subject to the conditions of their accreditation.

Last year's Clipsal, I was on the roof of an office building adjoining the track a got some great night shots of the fireworks.
I guess I could have gone there during the race and used my 500mm with a 1.4TC :D

Chris Michel

10-10-2011, 10:01am

dont media acrred togs have rules and regs as well as what they can and cant do with their piccys ???

rellik666

10-10-2011, 10:14am

Whilst they may change regularly I am pretty sure the general gist of T&C's wouldn't change. It would be very useful and helpful to see these.

For the AFL as it currently stands, I always thought it was a venue rather than event condition, as Skilled Stadium has different rule to the MCG, but just found these that appear to blanket all.

1. not to bring into the Venue any photographic, video or audio recording equipment for any purpose other than private non-commercial purposes, which may include, without limitation, video and/or audio recorders, camera tripods, monopods or lenses with a totalfocal strength of greater than 200mm and commercial digital video equipment;

2. not to (i) make any recording or take any photograph for anything other than private noncommercial purposes or (ii) make any recording or take any photograph of any person without the authorisation of that person or (iii) sell, license or otherwise publish, disseminate or reproduce (or permit such), whether in whole or in part, any recordings taken or made inside the Venue (including, without limitation, photographs, video recordings, data recordings or sound recordings) without the prior written consent of the Australian Football League;

3. not to broadcast or narrowcast by any means whatsoever (including, without limitation, by way of mobile telephone, modem or other wireless device) any images, sounds, data, results or commentary of or concerning any of the matches or other activities at the Venue without the prior written consent of the Australian Football League;

http://www.afl.com.au/fixture/aflvenues/conditionsofentry/tabid/13642/default.aspx

jeffde

10-10-2011, 3:25pm

Came across this thread cause my images were deleted....LOL

Accredited togs still have to abide by T&C but they are different. Last
year when i worked my job was to take images - for the web...

jeffde

10-10-2011, 3:26pm

Just a question ?
"series of still pictures "

If i say post 1 image in a competition then that should be OK ???

I @ M

10-10-2011, 3:33pm

If i say post 1 image in a competition then that should be OK ???

Sorry but no. Read the T&C paragraph in its entirety and note the very first words --- Any imagery.

Speedway

10-10-2011, 8:51pm

This came up at a discussion between some leagle friends of mine and it was said there that the T&C on the back of a ticket was not worth the paper it is written on. To enforce it they would have to explain the T&C to each individual and have them sign a form to say they understood the terms before they could enforce them. I would love to have the money to be able to test this.
Keith.

ricktas

10-10-2011, 8:57pm

Ezookiel

10-10-2011, 9:16pm

Go on. I'm sure if you win you'll be awarded costs, and get it all back - :lol:

arthurking83

10-10-2011, 9:22pm

I'd really love to see someone with lots of time and money take these organisations to task on the this topic too. But the ultimate reality is that they can enforce a certain amount of pressure on the general public(and on the pro's too, of course) not to profit from the event.
I think that your legal friends may be right in that unless there is a written agreement signed by both parties, they have left themselves open to a loophole in the process.
Ultimately if someone with the money chooses to take these organisations on and, hypothetically speaking, they win the cause .... the real problems will then start.
The inevitable outcome would simply be that the organisers of major events would simply ban all cameras brought into the event venue!!

In the end, it's a lost cause, that is unless the general public is willing to boycott the events.
It takes a lot of will power and discipline from Joe Average to do so, and the way it's looking, most (major)events are usually oversubscribed with spectators as it is already!

Summary: even if you win the battle, you still end up losing the war.

CAP

10-10-2011, 9:30pm

Is there any time limit for these image bans?
Say for instance you have, what you consider a few decent images from one of these "premier events" that are 2-3-4 years old.
Is one ever permitted to post these images to show fellow members?

kiwi

10-10-2011, 9:42pm

No, unless you like 10,000 others do a status update using Facebook, google+ or twitter ( they obviously dont count) and put pics via that

tmd77

10-10-2011, 11:56pm

Hi All,

Am thinking about going to the GC 600 in a couple of weeks and if i decide to go, i'd like to try out my new canon 60d! I've been trying to find information on whether DSLR's are allowed trackside, or whether the rules are like footy games. Unfortunately I can't find any information anywhere pertaining to photography/videography.

If anyone has insight into this, please let me know!

Cheers,
Trent

I @ M

11-10-2011, 4:44am

I've been trying to find information on whether DSLR's are allowed trackside, or whether the rules are like footy games. Unfortunately I can't find any information anywhere pertaining to photography/videography.

Trent, I have merged your thread with this one for several reasons.

Just as it took a fair bit of searching for me to find the terms and conditions regarding photography at Bathurst the other day I can't find any info about the subject relating to the God Coast event.

The big problem seems to be that if you ( or I or any normal person ) start searching for specific race events you end up on sites like this (http://www.goldcoast600.com.au/) and there is no information available. It seems that the individual races end up with their own web site and just like the Bathurst site last week they don't contain links to info about photography.
There seems to be a complete screw up with their web pages, all the V8 supercar events seem to be under the banner of V8 supercars (http://www.v8supercars.com.au/) and still on that site there is no information re photography.
If one searches for "V8 supercars terms and conditions" you may get lucky as I did and find yourself on a totally different web site that does spell out the terms for Bathurst (http://user.v8supercarevents.com.au/pages/?PageID=3) and that appears to be the site of the official promoter / owner of the series but even their home page doesn't function (http://www.v8supercarevents.com.au/).
I would assume that seeing as they refuse to allow images from one event that they own to be placed on the web that they would have the same policy for all other events that they own.

It really is a very poor way of doing things as far as I can see but what would one expect from an organisation connected with mock up car brands and dodgy telephone suppliers. :D

kiwi

11-10-2011, 6:57am

You'd be allowed in with a dslr and up to 200mm at every event I've been aware of so I think you'd be right Trent.

tmd77

11-10-2011, 7:48am

thanks for merging it Andrew, searched for Gold Coast 600 threads but didnt think to search for other V8 events:oops:

Interesting read of a thread. Makes you wonder where common sense disappeared to.

Thanks kiwi, looks like the 17-50 will be staying on the camera all day...

macmich

11-10-2011, 9:19am

i have just got a vision of a couple of blokes on top of the mount after a hundred and ten cans spinning around in circles trying to read the terms and conditions
cheers macca

TonySlattery

25-10-2011, 8:53am

Who would have thought the relatively harmless hobby of photography would be frought with such danger? Is it a testament to the power of the image or a sign of a loss of innocence?

It comes back to the dollar in most cases, and how would you feel as a professional photographer to be usurped by thousands of talented amatuers?

Thanks for the warnng about putting images like this on AP.