Jump to content

Draconian or what?


Recommended Posts

We managed to get Centre Court tickets for the first Tuesday of the Wimbledon Championships this year. But I won't bother taking a camera having read this:

"Attendees in the Grounds acknowledge and agree that the AELTC is the sole legal and beneficial owner of any intellectual property rights (including copyright) in any images or material taken or recorded in the Grounds (including by the attendee) and hereby assign any rights they may have in respect of such images, material or recordings to the AELTC. Attendees waive all rights (including moral rights) in any such images, material or recordings."

Is that draconian or what? I wonder if all the TV companies, sponsors, etc. sign up to that, or is this another example of big corporations bullying the little guy or gal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the information was printed on the tickets somewhere. If that is the case just strike it through and show it to the attendee on the gate. If they still let you in then the AELTC have accepted that you disagree with their terms regarding photos taken. ;)

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you were. It's invalid.

Have a look at CDPA s.90 (3).

"An assignment of copyright is not effective unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor."

If the assignment was in the small print of the ticket application, it is probably an unfair contract term, and still invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I assume the information was printed on the tickets somewhere

Good question Alan, but no. There is an accompanying card that has part of the restriction namely "The use of photographic equipment must not inconvenience any other person in the Grounds. Still photographs, film, videotape or other audio-visual material recorded within the Grounds may not be sold, used or published commercially in any way whatsoever unless authorised by the AELTC and may be confiscated by the AELTC if such usage is suspected." but the IP claim is only visible on the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I assume the information was printed on the tickets somewhere

Good question Alan, but no. There is an accompanying card that has part of the restriction namely "The use of photographic equipment must not inconvenience any other person in the Grounds. Still photographs, film, videotape or other audio-visual material recorded within the Grounds may not be sold, used or published commercially in any way whatsoever unless authorised by the AELTC and may be confiscated by the AELTC if such usage is suspected." but the IP claim is only visible on the website.

 

 

 

If IP claim is only visible on the website then. as Mark says, it cannot be legally binding.

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"An assignment of copyright is not effective unless it is in writing signed by or on behalf of the assignor

 

Interesting, thanks Mark. What about the commercial publication bit & the threat of confiscation (of what I'm not sure). Any thoughts on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's above my pay grade, but unless you were told about it before you bought the ticket it's not part of the contract. I would follow the David Kilpatrick school of permission- if they let you in and don't stop you taking photographs, you can use them in any lawful way. A publisher might want a release though.

However I'm sure the LTC would lean on Alamy to take stuff down.

What's to confiscate is debatable- memory cards maybe, but if you refused to hand them over any attempt to take them would be an assault.

I am, of course, not a lawyer. But that's what I would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is, even if you manage to bring photographic equipment and capture some amazing images, will Alamy accept them? 

Note a previous post where someone says Alamy said they couldn't/wouldn't sell images unless you're credentialed.

 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/5920-billy-ocean-photos/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question, I might check with Alamy.

 

I'm concerned how more and more companies place no-photography restrictions on photographers. I think we need a movement calling for more rights for photographers. I might drop my MP a line on that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just checked Alamy and there are 6,289 images for centre court wimbledon.

 

Allan

 

But you need to account for images which have been taken by accredited photogs, a few taken from public places and that the terms and conditions of entry may have changed since some images were uploaded. Whatever, the intending photographer still needs to deal with the conditions Wimbledon (and seemingly increasing number of other venues) are imposing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are absurd conditions as illustrated by the following (improbable) scenario:

 

If I give you a print of an image to which I own the IP rights, and you take it to Wimbledon and photograph it at the event, then the AELTC are now claiming that you are assigning those rights (which you don't own) to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The screw tightens - Clause 4.14 is new in the revised Alamy contract just issued. It reads "4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The screw tightens - Clause 4.14 is new in the revised Alamy contract just issued. It reads "4.14 The Image was not taken in any place where photography for commercial gain is forbidden, e.g. some museums, art galleries and other public or private buildings or areas."

Indeed, and that new clause doesn't even allow images from accredited photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you're running a big event and you're paying out big money in prizes you'd try to maximise your returns. I understand that. It's their game and their rules. If you buy a ticket fine, so be it. What I don't agree with is when someone, let's say the Olympic committee :( , have my image removed because their logo was in it, although it was taken in a public place and of a street scene. In other words, they're very happy to dominate the skyline with it but not let me photograph it. That's just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2012 I had a fail because I attempted to upload images of the Mountain Bike race. If I recall I was told they would only accept images from accredited photographers.

Not quite the same but I feel the principle is the same and you would be lucky to get them past QC, let alone get them up for sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that in the past if you ticked "no property release" it would be up to the buyer to determine if they wanted to take a chance on an uncredentialed photographer in a sports forum or a visitor to a site.I have not heard of a court case here in the US or elsewhere as to whether such terms are binding in those situations. But I'm no expert, I expect Alamy to know what's up and not put that entire burden on us. 

 

When you start getting into the British Rail stuff and other buildings and logos in a skyline, I think that as one of the largest image libraries in the world, Alamy should be fighting for us to get access, not caving in to those who want to limit photographers' rights to take newsworthy photographs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had Alamy help me get credentialed for news events when I haven't had an assignment, and I'm willing to remove items I've shot from uncredentialed events, but I'm more concerned about large agencies like Alamy that have way more clout than we do as individual photographers, giving in to the desire of other types of venues open to the public to prevent photography - even for editorial use - and by Alamy's desire to put the onus on the photographer when they are in a better position to know which venues really are a problem, and to try to work out an understanding with those venues that benefits the venue with publicity and gives photographers a chance to make a living.

 

I've read the language of some photography policies which clearly state that licenses are required by crews or photographers with models when they will interrupt the free flow of people throughout the venue, but have called ahead and been told by the bureaucrats in charge that any photographer has to pay for an expensive license to shoot, because they don't even understand their own policies. I've been welcomed to shoot for publication in venues that have a "no commercial photography" policy and I know how to ask for credentials, but I still find Alamy's putting the onus on photographers troubling. 

 

If the AELTC is like the US Open, then to get credentialed you need to shoot all day every day, for starters, and it is a very complicated procedure. I'm not a sports photographer so I wouldn't presume to try to get a spot, and I'm in New York so I'm afraid a trip to Wimbledon isn't currently in the budget anyway. Nice thought though  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just deleted nearly 50 images based on the new contract terms, but I also have had conversations with the media folks from a couple of places I'm visiting later this week that have very restrictive photo policies and have gotten permission to shoot there. It's a bit more trouble than just showing up with my camera, but really not more involved than if I was showing up for an assignment. Just one more step in my photo trip planning. 

 

Hoping this trip will give me enough new work to replace the images I've deleted and get me closer to my goal of 1000 images here. Uploaded 18 last night and just keyword them now, so getting there slowly but surely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just checked Alamy and there are 6,289 images for centre court wimbledon.

 

Allan

 

But you need to account for images which have been taken by accredited photogs, a few taken from public places and that the terms and conditions of entry may have changed since some images were uploaded. Whatever, the intending photographer still needs to deal with the conditions Wimbledon (and seemingly increasing number of other venues) are imposing now.

 

 

Good point - I'm covering the tennis at Eastbourne this week. I will now add somewhere in the data that I had accreditation. Though I must say Eastbourne is all-round much more friendly than Wimbledon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.