Bill, that is not a meeting of the minds, you should really read a
textbook on tort law. The privileged they grant has to have some value
/real/ /value/;. Their agreement extracts all real value and gives it
to them. It would never get to court. Their lawyer, once they hired
one, wouldn't allow it get to court. The answer to your question is
yes, I will readily agree to a "contract" that restricts my rights if I
know it's not a contract. This is not simply poorly written. It is a
violation of the concept of a contract. Yes I agree, they can make any
rules they wish. I also know which rules are not enforceable. If they
prohibited all photography, unless I had a compelling reason, say I was
a news photographer on assignment, I would not photograph there. However
the means of enforcement of that prohibition is strictly limited, and
beside the point, since they would be speaking to my employer about
that. Even then every work for hire agreement I've had has allowed me
to retain fair use rights. Allowing photography but trying to steal my
Copywrite, and my fair use rights, to my own works, without just
compensation is reprehensible and not enforceable, I would feel no
compunction in violating such a non agreement.
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Ugly event terms for photographers - What do you think?
Simple tort law William, a valid contract requires a meeting of the
mind's. There can be no meeting of the minds here. I wasn't
advocating taking them to court. Their "contract" cannot stand up.
I was expecting them to threaten court action when I ignored their
"contract" at which time I'd have a real lawyer explain the
difficulty to them. I doubt after they consulted their own lawyer it
would get that far.
The meeting of the minds is when you willingly click the link that
says you agree to abide by their rules. The "valuable consideration"
is the privledge of photographing their event.
Is it a fair agreement? I don't especially think so. Would it stand up
in court? It would depend on who had the most money to throw at it and
whether the judge thought that an agreement is an agreement, rather
than a point to start after the fact negotiations.
Do I think it fair to agree to something with the intention, after the
fact, to arbitrarily break an agreement simply because it wasn't as
well written as it could have been and because you figure you can get
away with it?
I'm one of the people who thinks this is mostly what is wrong with the
world.
If events are private and are being held on private property, the
event owner pretty much gets to make his own rules as he sees fit, and
the general public has the right to either agree with said rules and
abide by them, disagree with said rules and abide by them, or diagree
with the rules and stay away.
At least that's how it works in my world, your world seems to be in a
different galaxy from mine.
William Robb
--
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.
--
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or
drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn
fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a
free man any more than a dog.
--G. K. Chesterton
--
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.
