Is this even legal?

asgr · 09-19-2012, 08:15 PM

I was tempted to enter a local photo competition in Perth, WA, but multiple people at my photo club have expressed outrage at the T&C:

Terms and Conditions

See "Copyright and permissions" 7 & 8. They basically appear to restrict usage of all photos (not just competition photos) taken of or from Kings Park- which is a large public park in Perth- on entry of the contest.

I've never seen competition rules like this before. Are there any Australian legal experts here who could comment on the legality of such terms? The whole thing seems like a trap.

Cheers,

Aaron

vonBaloney · 09-19-2012, 08:21 PM

Don't know about Australia, but in the US, it is pretty common for botanical gardens and zoos to restrict commercial photography (generally owned or affiliated with the city they are in). That is, anyone can go in and take pics, but you can't sell them without permission (and paying some sort of fee). Is this place a free, open park, or do you have to pay admission? Usually for places like that, commercial photography is part of their revenue stream as so many want to get pics, bring in models in front of pretty backdrops, etc, but they don't want to stop people taking snapshots.

My guess is that what they are telling is not that you are agreeing to additional restrictions by entering the contest, but that the same restrictions that are already in place (that you may not know about) still apply even though you are entering. In other words, you are already prohibited from commercial use of images from the park, contest or not.

calculator01 · 09-19-2012, 08:59 PM

Seems pretty legit, in Canada. Places want you to enjoy their gardens, museum, etc. but do not want their name attached to your image. They want to control their public-image and control profits driven from that public-image.

Some galleries and contests put further restrictions on the artist. Such as any animals must be wild, no domestic or zoo animals. No "frozen" bug macro shots. Releases from all models, even for street photos. All kinds of fun restrictions....

I guess this is why contests tell you to read all rules. I just enjoy the contests that state you will surrender all rights to the image after submitting...

**southlander** · 09-19-2012, 10:41 PM

NSW National Parks have tried to impose something like this. Basically if you are a Steve Parish type using national parks scenery to make a commercial buck from calendars, coffee table books etc, then they would like a cut for providing said scenery by charging a commercial photography licence fee. Public parks sometime impose conditions on photography so they can control and manage the demand for wedding photography (eg popular locations must be pre-booked).

AussieTrev · 09-19-2012, 10:48 PM

I would not enter the competition under any circumstances. You are giving away your rights to your work. They are doing this as a grab for free photographic work because they don't want to pay to have the work done by a professional. Boycot this competition. Section 9 says it all.

rawr · 09-19-2012, 11:09 PM

Reading sections 3 - 10, I wouldn't go near this contest with a barge pole.

They can f*k off with such restrictive, complex and one-sided T&C:

Quote:

You have the permission of anyone pictured in the image (or, where the image shows any persons under 18, the consent of their parent/guardian) for the usage rights required by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and will indemnify Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority against any claims made by any third parties in respect of such infringement;

You have not licensed or disposed of any rights in the image that would conflict with uses to be made by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority;

You have received any necessary permissions from the owner(s) of property included in submitted images for the usage rights required by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority;

You will be responsible for any claim by any third party in respect of your entry.

You agree not to use, or permit the use of, any images taken of or from Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites for any commercial or promotional purpose other than entering this competition or your own personal use.

You expressly agree not to use such images for commercial purposes such as sale or license to third parties.

On completion of this competition, all photographs received as entries will become the property of The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority has the right to use images for the promotion of Kings Park. The photographer will be appropriately credited if/when their image is used.

The winner agrees to grant the Promoter a perpetual and exclusive license to use the photographs in all media worldwide and the winner will not be entitled to any fee for such use. The winner agrees they will not, and will ensure that their companions do not, sell or otherwise provide their story and/or photographs to any media or other organisation who are not associated with this promotion.

So much for taxpayers getting some credit for community assets their taxes help fund.

Unsinkable II · 09-20-2012, 04:49 AM

Ignoring giving away the rights, which is worth ignoring the competition immediately...

PUBLIC land should be unencumbered. The name of a public garden or park isn't "their name" to protect. It is humankind's to enjoy.

Has this ever gone to court and gained precedent? Crazy.

Medium FormatPro · 09-20-2012, 05:14 AM

Still researching Australia legal issues further.

But here in america... Any public park (**noting NOT conservancy, private park, zoo, etc...**) in america would have free usage rights, but under certain restrictions. For instance in Washington DC in some parks they actually do enforce the use against tripods; especially near embassies. Bt if you can get the shot; it's yours to use at your discretion.

But then there are also shots with people in them. In america it's always best never to use pics that contain any minor - even one which may have accidently stumbled into the pic.

**southlander** · 09-20-2012, 05:20 AM

My prior comment was concerned with commercial use of park images. On seeing some of the additional conditions since posted, particularly the indemnities you are required to give, I'd walk as well! No way Hoesay

bdparker · 09-20-2012, 05:40 AM

These T&C are strictly for the submitted photos only.

Meaning any photo you submit, you sign over the copyright to them any you can no longer use it ANYWHERE else, even if you win.

and I guess overall the festival would have copyright clauses on it.

I looked at the T's&C's of the garden and there is nothing stopping you from taking photo in this public space, they do charge wedding photographers (fee not shown).

personally, I think it's just a free promo photo shoot for them at your expense.

Na Horuk · 09-20-2012, 05:51 AM

I think most contests need you to write off some degree of copyright, because they want to use the photos themselves. I don't think they can copyright photos you don't submit, that would be pretty insane. But that is why people often don't submit their best work for smaller competitions, but reserve them for contests where they can either win a lot, or they use the photos in some other way

Rupert · 09-22-2012, 12:51 AM

If there is any way a person can be screwed, another person will figure out a way to do it. Governments are usually the most talented at this, but it can be Giant Corporations, or even Charities. I've even caught Mrs Rupert in my wallet, but didn't get screwed....there are many ways to get screwed, even by not getting screwed!
Regards!

Docrwm · 09-22-2012, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by bdparker

These T&C are strictly for the submitted photos only.

Meaning any photo you submit, you sign over the copyright to them any you can no longer use it ANYWHERE else, even if you win.

and I guess overall the festival would have copyright clauses on it.

I looked at the T's&C's of the garden and there is nothing stopping you from taking photo in this public space, they do charge wedding photographers (fee not shown).

personally, I think it's just a free promo photo shoot for them at your expense.

Nail on the head. Good for you reading the fine print, people like those count on people a) not reading and b) not caring.

asgr · 09-25-2012, 06:44 AM

Thanks for all of your thoughts. A member of my photo club contacted Kings Park and got this response"

"We're certainly not expecting to claim rights on every photo taken of Kings Park! That fill up the filing cabinet rather quickly!! However, we do put some limitations on people profiting from photos or video taken in the park as a general policy. With regard to the comp, we hope to use some of the images entered to help promote our beautiful Kings Park, and therefore seek ownership of the photos entered to do this. Hope this clears up any issues."

We asked a local IP expert about this, and his view confirmed opinions expressed above: requirement of ownership is totally unnecessary and over the top, and a generous licence agreement would be much more appropriate.

A

Docrwm · 09-25-2012, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by asgr

Thanks for all of your thoughts. A member of my photo club contacted Kings Park and got this response"

"We're certainly not expecting to claim rights on every photo taken of Kings Park! That fill up the filing cabinet rather quickly!! However, we do put some limitations on people profiting from photos or video taken in the park as a general policy. With regard to the comp, we hope to use some of the images entered to help promote our beautiful Kings Park, and therefore seek ownership of the photos entered to do this. Hope this clears up any issues."

We asked a local IP expert about this, and his view confirmed opinions expressed above: requirement of ownership is totally unnecessary and over the top, and a generous licence agreement would be much more appropriate.

A

Seems to me that you have run into the self-righteous officiousness that often goes with folks that run things "in the public interest". They frequently believe themselves to be right simply because their motives are pure.

Perhaps a meeting with them and a discussion of the alternative, and much more appropriate, use of that limited license agreement that your local IP expert mentioned would be helpful?

09-19-2012, 08:15 PM	#1
asgr Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 48	Is this even legal? I was tempted to enter a local photo competition in Perth, WA, but multiple people at my photo club have expressed outrage at the T&C: Terms and Conditions See "Copyright and permissions" 7 & 8. They basically appear to restrict usage of all photos (not just competition photos) taken of or from Kings Park- which is a large public park in Perth- on entry of the contest. I've never seen competition rules like this before. Are there any Australian legal experts here who could comment on the legality of such terms? The whole thing seems like a trap. Cheers, Aaron

09-20-2012, 05:40 AM	#10
bdparker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 307	Your not reading it correctly These T&C are strictly for the submitted photos only. Meaning any photo you submit, you sign over the copyright to them any you can no longer use it ANYWHERE else, even if you win. and I guess overall the festival would have copyright clauses on it. I looked at the T's&C's of the garden and there is nothing stopping you from taking photo in this public space, they do charge wedding photographers (fee not shown). personally, I think it's just a free promo photo shoot for them at your expense.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Legal Advice	trevorgrout	Photographic Industry and Professionals	16	01-26-2012 01:30 PM
Photographing-Recording Police: LEGAL IN USA!!	RioRico	Photographic Industry and Professionals	31	09-20-2011 06:49 AM
Is this legal?	Pepe Guitarra	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	08-30-2011 08:05 AM
Machinery MEP Street Legal Drags	Gaelen	Post Your Photos!	4	04-24-2011 06:19 PM
Falling out: Legal Advice	WerTicus	Photographic Technique	22	03-18-2011 04:18 AM

09-19-2012, 08:21 PM	#2
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Don't know about Australia, but in the US, it is pretty common for botanical gardens and zoos to restrict commercial photography (generally owned or affiliated with the city they are in). That is, anyone can go in and take pics, but you can't sell them without permission (and paying some sort of fee). Is this place a free, open park, or do you have to pay admission? Usually for places like that, commercial photography is part of their revenue stream as so many want to get pics, bring in models in front of pretty backdrops, etc, but they don't want to stop people taking snapshots. My guess is that what they are telling is not that you are agreeing to additional restrictions by entering the contest, but that the same restrictions that are already in place (that you may not know about) still apply even though you are entering. In other words, you are already prohibited from commercial use of images from the park, contest or not.

09-19-2012, 08:59 PM	#3
calculator01 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Edmonton, Alberta Photos: Albums Posts: 817	Seems pretty legit, in Canada. Places want you to enjoy their gardens, museum, etc. but do not want their name attached to your image. They want to control their public-image and control profits driven from that public-image. Some galleries and contests put further restrictions on the artist. Such as any animals must be wild, no domestic or zoo animals. No "frozen" bug macro shots. Releases from all models, even for street photos. All kinds of fun restrictions.... I guess this is why contests tell you to read all rules. I just enjoy the contests that state you will surrender all rights to the image after submitting...

09-19-2012, 10:41 PM	#4
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	NSW National Parks have tried to impose something like this. Basically if you are a Steve Parish type using national parks scenery to make a commercial buck from calendars, coffee table books etc, then they would like a cut for providing said scenery by charging a commercial photography licence fee. Public parks sometime impose conditions on photography so they can control and manage the demand for wedding photography (eg popular locations must be pre-booked).

09-19-2012, 10:48 PM	#5
AussieTrev Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,590	I would not enter the competition under any circumstances. You are giving away your rights to your work. They are doing this as a grab for free photographic work because they don't want to pay to have the work done by a professional. Boycot this competition. Section 9 says it all.

09-19-2012, 11:09 PM	#6
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Reading sections 3 - 10, I wouldn't go near this contest with a barge pole. They can fk off with such restrictive, complex and one-sided T&C: Quote: You have the permission of anyone pictured in the image (or, where the image shows any persons under 18, the consent of their parent/guardian) for the usage rights required by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and will indemnify Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority against any claims made by any third parties in respect of such infringement; You have not licensed or disposed of any rights in the image that would conflict with uses to be made by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority;* You have received any necessary permissions from the owner(s) of property included in submitted images for the usage rights required by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority; You will be responsible for any claim by any third party in respect of your entry. You agree not to use, or permit the use of, any images taken of or from Kings Park and Botanic Garden sites for any commercial or promotional purpose other than entering this competition or your own personal use. You expressly agree not to use such images for commercial purposes such as sale or license to third parties. On completion of this competition, all photographs received as entries will become the property of The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority has the right to use images for the promotion of Kings Park. The photographer will be appropriately credited if/when their image is used. The winner agrees to grant the Promoter a perpetual and exclusive license to use the photographs in all media worldwide and the winner will not be entitled to any fee for such use. The winner agrees they will not, and will ensure that their companions do not, sell or otherwise provide their story and/or photographs to any media or other organisation who are not associated with this promotion. So much for taxpayers getting some credit for community assets their taxes help fund.

09-20-2012, 04:49 AM	#7
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Ignoring giving away the rights, which is worth ignoring the competition immediately... PUBLIC land should be unencumbered. The name of a public garden or park isn't "their name" to protect. It is humankind's to enjoy. Has this ever gone to court and gained precedent? Crazy.

09-20-2012, 05:14 AM	#8
Medium FormatPro Banned Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh Photos: Albums Posts: 1,668	Still researching Australia legal issues further. But here in america... Any public park (noting NOT conservancy, private park, zoo, etc...) in america would have free usage rights, but under certain restrictions. For instance in Washington DC in some parks they actually do enforce the use against tripods; especially near embassies. Bt if you can get the shot; it's yours to use at your discretion. But then there are also shots with people in them. In america it's always best never to use pics that contain any minor - even one which may have accidently stumbled into the pic.

09-20-2012, 05:20 AM	#9
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	My prior comment was concerned with commercial use of park images. On seeing some of the additional conditions since posted, particularly the indemnities you are required to give, I'd walk as well! No way Hoesay

09-20-2012, 05:51 AM	#11
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	I think most contests need you to write off some degree of copyright, because they want to use the photos themselves. I don't think they can copyright photos you don't submit, that would be pretty insane. But that is why people often don't submit their best work for smaller competitions, but reserve them for contests where they can either win a lot, or they use the photos in some other way

09-22-2012, 12:51 AM	#12
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	If there is any way a person can be screwed, another person will figure out a way to do it. Governments are usually the most talented at this, but it can be Giant Corporations, or even Charities. I've even caught Mrs Rupert in my wallet, but didn't get screwed....there are many ways to get screwed, even by not getting screwed! Regards!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2012, 08:06 AM	#13
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by bdparker These T&C are strictly for the submitted photos only. Meaning any photo you submit, you sign over the copyright to them any you can no longer use it ANYWHERE else, even if you win. and I guess overall the festival would have copyright clauses on it. I looked at the T's&C's of the garden and there is nothing stopping you from taking photo in this public space, they do charge wedding photographers (fee not shown). personally, I think it's just a free promo photo shoot for them at your expense. Nail on the head. Good for you reading the fine print, people like those count on people a) not reading and b) not caring.

09-25-2012, 06:44 AM	#14
asgr Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 48 Original Poster	Thanks for all of your thoughts. A member of my photo club contacted Kings Park and got this response" "We're certainly not expecting to claim rights on every photo taken of Kings Park! That fill up the filing cabinet rather quickly!! However, we do put some limitations on people profiting from photos or video taken in the park as a general policy. With regard to the comp, we hope to use some of the images entered to help promote our beautiful Kings Park, and therefore seek ownership of the photos entered to do this. Hope this clears up any issues." We asked a local IP expert about this, and his view confirmed opinions expressed above: requirement of ownership is totally unnecessary and over the top, and a generous licence agreement would be much more appropriate. A

09-25-2012, 07:08 AM	#15
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by asgr Thanks for all of your thoughts. A member of my photo club contacted Kings Park and got this response" "We're certainly not expecting to claim rights on every photo taken of Kings Park! That fill up the filing cabinet rather quickly!! However, we do put some limitations on people profiting from photos or video taken in the park as a general policy. With regard to the comp, we hope to use some of the images entered to help promote our beautiful Kings Park, and therefore seek ownership of the photos entered to do this. Hope this clears up any issues." We asked a local IP expert about this, and his view confirmed opinions expressed above: requirement of ownership is totally unnecessary and over the top, and a generous licence agreement would be much more appropriate. A Seems to me that you have run into the self-righteous officiousness that often goes with folks that run things "in the public interest". They frequently believe themselves to be right simply because their motives are pure. Perhaps a meeting with them and a discussion of the alternative, and much more appropriate, use of that limited license agreement that your local IP expert mentioned would be helpful?