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

[neilcreek]

I'm going to be attending an anime convention here in Melbourne, Australia next month, and I just registered. On their registration page ( http://www.eventoffice.com.au/forms/...p?eventid=1661 ) they mention their "Terms of Conduct" (which they don't actually reference or link to - so I don't think it's legally enforcable for that reason anyway). A friend found the link to the terms here: http://www.manifest.org.au/policies/...0of%20Sale.pdf

The fourth point of their terms states as follows:

4. Cameras, audio and video recorders are permitted, however Manifest claims all rights pertaining to commercial use of all audio and video recordings, as well as photography.

I'm not an expert on Australian copyright and intellectual property law, but I didn't think it was legal to sign away "all rights" to creative works in such a way. I think they're setting themselves up for a lot of legal trouble.

Point 23 states:

23. By attending a Manifest event, you agree to possibly being filmed or photographed and that resulting footage to be used in future promotional activities related to Manifest.

This point does not ask for permission for commercial use of images of attendees, and as such isn't a model release. That puts points 4 and 23 in conflict with each other.

The main reason I ask is that I am a long-time attendee of this convention, and I have taken photos there every year. I have a reputation as one of the best, and most trusted convention photographers there. This year I want to negotiate a press pass of some kind in order to get access to the best vantage points in order to cover the convention - in particular, the always filled to capacity costume contest. I intended to offer the free use of my photos for the promotion of the convention only, as I have done in all years previous.

However, if they claim all rights for the use of my (and everyone else's) photos, then I have nothing to offer. Also, I am very reluctant to shoot anything at all, when their terms seem to allow them to effectively steal my work. This condition is a new addition to their terms.

The convention is in just one month, and my request for a press pass must be submitted within two days, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts and opinion as soon as possible. My apologies for asking for help on such short notice, but the rgistration, and thus terms, were only very recently made available online.

Thank you in advance!

Update: Another friend, who is on the convention committee says: "the keyword in the clause is 'commercial'. Provided you don't sell or make any profit from the photos, it should be classed as 'personnal' use and that is not covered in the clasues"

That doesn't seem much better to me, I would like to sell prints of these photos to the people in them. But for everyone else, I still think the term can be read as "we can sell your photos". And I think if it can be interpreted that way it COULD be interpreted that way.

[Nicole]

Doesn't look to me like you're signing away all rights, only the right to sell your images. E.g. sounds like you could display them, do pretty much whatever, but for selling them. I've seen this at a few events before. And here's a thread elsewhere on a similar (though not quite the same topic since it's an "after the fact" matter and I'm not sure whether there were pre-printed prohibitions regarding the sale.)

[kristarella]

From what I've seen of Terms and Conditions (their main purpose being to cover backsides), it doesn't seem like you forfeit your right to sell the photos, but it means that they also have the right to sell your photos. I.e., just because they have "all rights" doesn't mean that you have no rights, you just don't have the right to deny them commercial use.

Even this isn't a lot better; it's only better because if you sell photos you're not violating something, but they can still yank the rug out from under you.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by neilcreek

Update: Another friend, who is on the convention committee says: "the keyword in the clause is 'commercial'. Provided you don't sell or make any profit from the photos, it should be classed as 'personnal' use and that is not covered in the clasues"

That doesn't seem much better to me, I would like to sell prints of these photos to the people in them. But for everyone else, I still think the term can be read as "we can sell your photos". And I think if it can be interpreted that way it COULD be interpreted that way.

I don't know about in Australia, but in the US 'commercial use' is a narrowly defined term that applies to marketing and advertising. Simply selling or making a profit is not considered commercial use. It sounds to me like what they're saying in the first clause is that only they can use images from the convention for marketing. And in the second, they're saying by attending the convention, you may have your picture taken and used for marketing future conventions. These stipulations seem reasonable to me.

[HockeyFan]

Sometimes just because someone posts something like this, doesn't always mean it's binding in court. My feeling is that they posted it this way so that people couldn't photograph and then post to a magazine or something without the organizers having some sort of claim to partial rights on the material.
If you're really concerned about it, you could always get with the organizers to work out your own individual deal regarding photographs.

[neilwood]

Im no lawyer so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

I would guess that a press pass would not have these restrictions. If it did it would be absolutely worthless.

They cant sell your images unless they have them. What they seem to be trying to stop is the commercial sale of images you produce. Could be on a quality issue or maybe they just want exclusivity.

I would try to speak to the management and see if they will relax it .

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by neilwood

Im no lawyer so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.

I would guess that a press pass would not have these restrictions. If it did it would be absolutely worthless.

They cant sell your images unless they have them. What they seem to be trying to stop is the commercial sale of images you produce. Could be on a quality issue or maybe they just want exclusivity.

I would try to speak to the management and see if they will relax it .

If they tried to do this to a newspaper or television photographer they'd find themselves in court faster than they can blink.

[DanaLane]

They way I interpret these 2 points are as follows;

1) They're allowing you into their area, and allowing you full access to content you wouldn't normally have access to. So, they're claiming that due to that fact, you can not use images taken by you there for gain. This isn't out of the ordinary, actually. Its like going into someone's house and photographing their stuff.

2) They're informing you that by purchasing a ticket, you are automatically granting them the right to use your likeness in whatever way they see fit (within reason of course). Again, this is pretty typical of an event like this.

Then again, that's just one person's opinion. If you're really curious, I'd run this past an attorney, but I'd assume these aren't out of the ordinary.

[Cuchulainn]

It is not an uncommon practice for event photography. They are allowing you into the area, and allowing you to have access to photograph for personal use.

What they are restricting you from is commercial use of your photos. The Professional Bull Riders Association in Colorado Springs uses similar wording in their own contracts...

3. Holder agrees that ALL photographs, film, videotape footage and other recordings taken or captured by or for Holder, including but not limited to ALL COPYRIGHTS and other intellectual property rights thereto IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF AND OWNED SOLELY BY PBR. Holder is hereby authorized to photograph, film or videotape only and must deliver all pictures, footage and recordings to PBR after the event and prior to release. ALL USE of any pictures, footage and recordings MUST BE APPROVED BY PBR PRIOR TO USE, display, publication or release, except that Holder may display such photographs, film or videotape solely in conjunction with non-commercial news reporting purposes pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 107. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, HOLDER SHALL NOT DISTRIBUTE AND OR SELL photographs, film, video footage, and or other recordings taken or captured by or for Holder TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC including RIDERS, STOCK CONTRACTORS, and or family/relatives of the same, FOR ANY PURPOSE OR USE whether personal, commercial or otherwise WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF PBR.


As you said in your "Update" the key word is commercial. You can take them for your own personal display.

[jdepould]

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