law/rule at an event - please help

L

LKavaney

Messages
434
Name
Lisa
Edit My Images
Yes
“Filming and Photography may only be undertaken at the Bradford Excel Small Animal Show if a permit has been issued by the Show Director. There are also certain restrictions on the use of cameras/mobile phones for still photography and private video films. Full details of these and filming permits may be obtained from the Show Director. All photographs/filming are copyright of the Bradford Small Livestock Society.”

Is this legal? That they can demand copyright of the images taken? thanks.
 
Yes because it's a condition of entry onto private property, they ca make you agree to anything they want while you're in there.
 
Is this legal? That they can demand copyright of the images taken? thanks.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered about these - is it reasonable. There could be a clause in the rules of entry to say

"Any money you walk into the show with automatically belongs to the show director"

or

"If asked by the Show director to strip naked"

etc etc.

The two above ones are totally rediculous but why should the show director owns the copyright to your photographs be any less rediculous or more legal?
 
artona said:
I have always wondered about these - is it reasonable. There could be a clause in the rules of entry to say

"Any money you walk into the show with automatically belongs to the show director"

or

"If asked by the Show director to strip naked"

etc etc.

The two above ones are totally rediculous but why should the show director owns the copyright to your photographs be any less rediculous or more legal?
Click to expand...

Rediculous maybe, but if they were on the terms of entery you'd still have to abide by them or they could ask you to leave or not allow access.
 
Out of interest what are you basing your argument on. You can put a sign on your garden gate saying that visitors/trespassers may get bitten by your alsation dog but if your dog does bite someone just because you have put up a sign you, as the owner could still be held liable.

If you entered a show, took photographs and then refused to hand over the shots the show organiser would have to take you to court, would he win?
 
I'm willing to bet loads of people were taking shots on mobile phones, but the only people who would get stopped are people with "real" cameras.
Wether thats legal-ish or not would depend on who owns the property, if it's private property thay can say what they like as an entry condiditon. If it's public property, a park or something like that it's more difficult to call, we have parks here that have been donated to the people of an area, who actually owns that?, the local council look after it. but that doesn't mean they actually own it on paper. Wayne
 
artona said:
You can put a sign on your garden gate saying that visitors/trespassers may get bitten by your alsation dog but if your dog does bite someone just because you have put up a sign you, as the owner could still be held liable.
Click to expand...

I doubt the dog would bite someone just because you put a sign up :naughty:
 
The show is held in the Harrogate exhibition centre, so they are entitled to enforce this rule as terms of entry? I'm 99% sure I can get press-pass as I will be shooting on behalf of a club show however I do not like the idea of the show organisers claiming rights over my images. Thanks.
 
LKavaney said:
The show is held in the Harrogate exhibition centre, so they are entitled to enforce this rule as terms of entry? I'm 99% sure I can get press-pass as I will be shooting on behalf of a club show however I do not like the idea of the show organisers claiming rights over my images. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I think the wording of the rules is a bit misleading, it looks to me like something designed to dissuade people from taking personal pics, rather than a claim to copyright of those images taken by the media.

It would be worth contacting the organisers for written clarification though, just to be on the safe side ;)
 
I would certainly see clarification oft his with the organisers. I can understand if they say "No commercial photography", but to claim copyright is just plain wrong. If you are taking photographs purely for personal use, I doubt they would be able to demand that you hand those photos over. If that were the case, I would not bother taking a camera in, especially if I were paying an admission fee. It's bad enough having to give away your photos without having to pay for the privelidge!
 
It is quite often the case that events have their own sydicated togs and they don't want anything that they have not approved or does not meet their own quality requirements getting out.

The MEN in Manchester will actually search people and refuse entry if they have anything bigger than a camera phone on them.

As a privately run venue they are legally entitled to restrict entry and I'm betting the copyright claim is there to put people off even trying.

The best way round it it to try to talk to them, if you draw a blank, walk away because it is never going to be worth it.
 
And that the organisers will probably have either booked or an event company has paid to do the photography and protecting their business interest!

I think the clauses are to stop photographers entering the site, taking photos and selling them! Rather than Uncle Bob taking photos! Harsh but fair!

The Festival of Speed at Chomdomerley (sp) Castle last year had the same restrictions!

Carl.
 
I'm not convinced the copyright grab would hold up in court as it could well be considered an unfair term. The "fair" version would be to simply not allow photography at all without a permit. By allowing photography but placing a rights grab restriction on it the organisers are effectively using their customers as unpaid staff.

Of course it would be up to a court to decide (unless there's case law) but I think the event organisers could have some problems if it came to that.
 
artona said:
Out of interest what are you basing your argument on. You can put a sign on your garden gate saying that visitors/trespassers may get bitten by your alsation dog but if your dog does bite someone just because you have put up a sign you, as the owner could still be held liable.

If you entered a show, took photographs and then refused to hand over the shots the show organiser would have to take you to court, would he win?
Click to expand...

I am basing it on real life. If I decided to have a rule, that ay photos taken within my own house, are my copyright, and I tell everyone on entry that this is a condition of coming into my house, they have accepted that as a condition of entry. As such they are bound by it.

Their house, their rules. You've agreed to it.
 
icecavern said:
I am basing it on real life. If I decided to have a rule, that ay photos taken within my own house, are my copyright, and I tell everyone on entry that this is a condition of coming into my house, they have accepted that as a condition of entry. As such they are bound by it.

Their house, their rules. You've agreed to it.
Click to expand...

If you were charging for entry to your house then you'd have a contract, at which point you might also have an unfair term:

if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer
Click to expand...

Grabing copyright could be considered a significant imbalance. Much simpler to just ban photography instead.
 
I'm with pxl8 on this. The organisers are allowed to stipluate certain conditions as part of the contract which you enter into when you buy a ticket. But those conditions must be reasonable. Banning photography would be reasonable. Claiming copyright would probably not be, but testing that could be difficult.

If I were you and I wanted to take photos for non-commercial use, I would ask the Show Director for a permit, and I would faux-naively ask what they really mean by the bit about copyright. After all, it surely can't mean precisely what it appears to say because that would be an unfair condition of contract; so that gives the Show Director the opportunity to "clarify" what you can and can't do with the images.
 
icecavern said:
I am basing it on real life. If I decided to have a rule, that ay photos taken within my own house, are my copyright, and I tell everyone on entry that this is a condition of coming into my house, they have accepted that as a condition of entry. As such they are bound by it.

Their house, their rules. You've agreed to it.
Click to expand...

Well your real life is unreal. The saying an Englishman's home is his castle is a fairytale. You cannot hand someone a piece of paper and declare they must respect your laws if they enter. If you decide to have a house in England then you must abide by its laws and rules, not ones that you feel are right.

You can, as its private property refuse to allow a photographer to take photographs if he/she is actually standing on your property but as far as I am aware there is nothing in law to grant you copyright to any photographs, you could only prosecute for trespass if he ignores you.

If the photographer is standing on the public highway you cannot stop him/her taking photographs of your house or you unless you are a policeman for example and then there are exception laws. However if the said photographer took photographs through your bedroom window you could report him for being a peeping tom.

and so it goes on ..........but you cannot write your own laws and if you did you would have to get your local MP to put them forward to the Commons and then the Lords for approval
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top