Convention claiming "all rights" to all photography and media recorded. Is this legal

[rediguana]

That sounds perfectly reasonable. The company is organising an event and is paying money to create it - e.g. they may be flying people in that may not otherwise be there. It is not reasonable to expect that you can go in, take photos, and them sell them - unless you purchase additional rights from the company to make money from their commercial activity.

I think commercial can be viewed quite liberally - any transaction involving money for the images would probably be considered commercial e.g. you've made a pecuniary gain.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by jdepould

The PBR thing is different, there they're trying to say they own your photos.

Yeah, that one is a little over the top for me.

Originally Posted by rediguana

I think commercial can be viewed quite liberally - any transaction involving money for the images would probably be considered commercial e.g. you've made a pecuniary gain.

According to PhotoAttorney.com, that is one of the common misconceptions about the law and photography.

4. If you make money from a print, it is a commercial use.
...
If you believe that any of the above are true, then you can learn more about how to protect your photographic rights and your work.

The law may be different in your country though.

[kristarella]

Originally Posted by jdepould

The PBR thing is different, there they're trying to say they own your photos.

I agree. Comparing those two, I think you could justify that the Manifest terms are not claiming exclusive rights, therefore you still have rights, but so do Manifest if they choose to exercise them (it's quite likely that they won't try to either, but you do run that risk).

Had a brief look around and couldn't find any evidence that "commercial" means marketing in Australia. I would be surprised if it didn't mean any financial venture.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by kristarella

I agree. Comparing those two, I think you could justify that the Manifest terms are not claiming exclusive rights, therefore you still have rights, but so do Manifest if they choose to exercise them (it's quite likely that they won't try to either, but you do run that risk).

Had a brief look around and couldn't find any evidence that "commercial" means marketing in Australia. I would be surprised if it didn't mean any financial venture.

I would be surprised if "commercial" meant something different in Australia, we're all using the same basic British-derived judiciary system and we speak English.

[kristarella]

Originally Posted by jdepould

I would be surprised if "commercial" meant something different in Australia, we're all using the same basic British-derived judiciary system and we speak English.

From where I sit, American and Australian law is quite different (no Bill of Rights, or equivalent here for starters) and we use terms in surprisingly different ways.

Despite that, I was wrong and commercial use does mean for the endorsement of a product. So Neil you'd be totally within your rights to sell those photographs, but possibly not to use them on your website to promote your services (if you see the distinction).

This site is pretty thorough and looks reasonably reliable. See their definition of commercial.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by jdepould

I would be surprised if "commercial" meant something different in Australia, we're all using the same basic British-derived judiciary system and we speak English.

Heh - I wouldn't quite be so sure about that

Perhaps some of the fundamentals are the same, but the implementation over the years, and different laws, had probably lead led to quite divergent legal systems. For starters, Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK probably have some not-so-subtle differences to the US legal system. But, IANAL.

Originally Posted by kristarella

Despite that, I was wrong and commercial use does mean for the endorsement of a product.

Me too - you learn something every day. And thanks for the links with some good info.

I found this comment interesting though...

you cannot make commercial use of any person's likeness without their consent

So, the original poster would be OK if they only sold images to the people in the images, but could run afoul if they tried to sell images to people that were not in the image - which would be commercial use of a person's likeness without their consent - e.g. a model release would be required.

However, it does come back to another issue that may stymie photographic activities of the original poster.

If it is on private property then you basically have very few rights.

From http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php#pland

Private Land

Every time you enter private land, you do so with the understanding you consent to any requirements the property's owner may impose upon you. So if a property's owner (or their agent) tells you to cease taking photographs, for whatever reason and even if the area is freely accessible to the public, there is nothing you can do about it. The owner has full power of veto — put the camera away.

... Which means they can prohibit almost anything they like (including photography) on their land and there is nothing you can do about it. Their turf, their rules.

So, if the event is being held on private property, then you have to agree to their conditions, and you would have to check what their definition of 'commercial' is, since they are making the rules for their event.

Note that the other link above for 'commercial' seemed to be referring to the Australian Commonwealth Trade Practices Act - this is probably why the definition of commercial use is focused on marketing e.g. using a likeness to sell products or services.

This might be quite different from the definition of 'commercial' in a private property owners terms and conditions.

It would probably pay to...

1. Contact the organisers and find out what their definition of commercial is if the event is on private property.
2. If the current terms and conditions don't allow you to do what you want, ask if you can negotiate your own terms.

This is of course based on the assumption that the event is on private property and they have full control over setting the terms and conditions, in which case other rights probably don't come into play.

[rediguana]

Just re-read the update on the original post, and given that someone on the committee has clarified that 'commercial' in this sense means "Provided you don't sell or make any profit from the photos".

So, given it is on private property; they get to set their own terms, conditions and definitions; and someone from the committee has clarified commercial as selling or making profit from the photos, then I don't think the OP can undertake the sale of photos to individuals in them in this circumstance.

At least not without working something out with the organising committee. Sorry, but I reckon it will need some negotiation and discussion with them to work out suitable arrangements.

[kristarella]

Originally Posted by rediguana

So, the original poster would be OK if they only sold images to the people in the images, but could run afoul if they tried to sell images to people that were not in the image - which would be commercial use of a person's likeness without their consent - e.g. a model release would be required.

I don't think so. It's only if you're using the image of the person to endorse a product. Just selling it as an image is not endorsing another product.

Originally Posted by rediguana

Just re-read the update on the original post, and given that someone on the committee has clarified that 'commercial' in this sense means "Provided you don't sell or make any profit from the photos".

Hmm, I wonder if that's just their mis-conception of the word "commercial", as I (and obviously many others) have thought the wrong thing about it.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by kristarella

Hmm, I wonder if that's just their mis-conception of the word "commercial", as I (and obviously many others) have thought the wrong thing about it.

I would have thought it is on private property, then they can define commercial to suit them - they create the terms and conditions to suit them?

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by kristarella

Hmm, I wonder if that's just their mis-conception of the word "commercial", as I (and obviously many others) have thought the wrong thing about it.

That would be my assumption, too. Unless the terms of conduct clearly spell out what they mean by 'commercial', like the PBR contract Cuchulainn cited, then the courts will use the accepted legal definition of the term.