From: "P. J. Alling"
John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Igor Roshchin
>> I just looked at a registration form of one of the swing-dance events,
>> and was shocked by the rules they establish about taking photographs
>> at the event:
>>
>> Photographs:
>> By clicking the Submit button and registering for EBC, you agree
>> that in return for allowing you to photograph during EBC, that you
>> will abide by the following rules: If you post images, they CANNOT
>> have watermarks. If you post images, EBC retains the right to use
>> them in any way. You CANNOT sell photographs taken at EBC. If EBC
>> requests copies, you must provide them without watermarks in
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> high-quality digital format if they originated in digital format,
>> otherwise prints will suffice. EBC reserves the right to determine
>> acceptable usage of photographs taken at EBC. EBC retains ownership
>> of any and all photographs, digital, film or print,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> taken at EBC. These rules apply to ALL photos taken at EBC, past,
>> present and future.
>>
>> http://www.ibalboa.com/registration.aspx
>>
>>
>> I can understand events where photography is fully prohibited (although
>> it is somewhat strange for community-oriented events like most
>> swing-dance
>> events are).
>> I understand that people who wrote this statement
>> may not be professional event organizers... but they are greedy!
>> They hire photographers-volunteers without any compensation
>> and with exclusive rights to photographs...
>>
>> Am I too emotional about this?
>> What do you think?
>
> I think I would not agree to the terms of use and would not photograph
> their event.
>
> There is a wildlife preservation organization here in NC that requires
> the same kind of terms of photographers visiting their facility. I've
> never photographed there, and never will as long as their policy
> demands that I give them my work product with no compensation.
>
> I can accept "work for hire" rules, but I got to be paid.
>
> If there's no payment, they can take their restrictive terms of use
> and put 'em where the sun don't shine.
>
I think I'd take pictures post them and if they complain have my lawyer
send them a letter explaining the facts of life. Maybe they'd come up
with a reasonable policy, naa, that's just dreaming....
I agree with your attitude, but it still seems like I'd be the one doing
work at my own expense to try and straighten out their stupidity,
without a reasonable guarantee I wouldn't get screwed in the end.
Plus, I'm the one who has to pay "my lawyer". Why go looking to get
involved in litigation that's going to take time I'd rather spend behind
a camera. At the minimum.
There's other dances, and there's other places to photograph wildlife
preservation efforts where I don't have to worry whether some idiot
judge is going to take my work away from me.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
