Are these conditions reasonable?

jerry12953

jerry12953

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12,421
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
I've just got permission to visit a wildlife site on a large industrial complex owned by a multi-national corporation. It's a good opportunity but the terms and conditions are as follows -


With regards to the use of the images, all we ask for is your agreement to the following conditional terms:

  • [..................} reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit, and the context in which the images are used before publication.
  • [...................] and [the local bird ringing group] may use any images of the colony and site taken during the visit, free of charge.
They are obviously keen to get some pictures for their own use, which is reasonable, but these t&c's seem so broad and all-encompassing that I'm considering pulling out.

Any thoughts?
 
Can't see a problem. They own the land. They could refuse you permission to enter. They could charge you a fee if they wished. Instead they are letting you in for free.
They won't want any pictures published that reflect badly on their stewardship of the site, which is not unreasonable from their point of view. The bird ringing group will want to show the good work they are doing and are unlikely to be able to get images as good as yours.

I'd accept that.
 
The first condition would seem to relate to any images being used in a way that cast the company in a negative light, as in environmental politics. Which from their point of view seems reasonable, so it's up to you whether you want to play.

The ringing group will be not for profit, so why mightn't you share your images with them? You'll still own the copyright and should be credited if any are used.
 
Yes, I see that, but it's the extent of the approval and rights to use that I'm unhappy about.

There's also the fact that I will be shooting RAWs and only processing the best of them. They will need software to open up the RAWs. What's the point of them having them?
 
droj said:
The first condition would seem to relate to any images being used in a way that cast the company in a negative light, as in environmental politics. Which from their point of view seems reasonable, so it's up to you whether you want to play.

The ringing group will be not for profit, so why mightn't you share your images with them? You'll still own the copyright and should be credited if any are used.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both points. I just don't see why they need to approve and have the right to use everything. It's overkill.
 
I think they'd only be interested in the finished shots, not the raws.
 
Think the word "all" primarily refers to images considered for publication. Who says they won't accept jpegs?
As Tallulah Bankhead was wont to say " There is less in this than meets the eye"
 
mickledore said:
Think the word "all" primarily refers to images considered for publication. Who says they won't accept jpegs?
As Tallulah Bankhead was wont to say " There is less in this than meets the eye"
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will accept jpegs but I'm only going to produce jpegs of the best images. They seem to want to approve and have the use of everything. As I said above, I think its overkill.
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm sure they will accept jpegs but I'm only going to produce jpegs of the best images. They seem to want to approve and have the use of everything. As I said above, I think its overkill.
Click to expand...
Doesn't read like that to me, or anyone else who has posted. Think you are being over sensitive. If it really worries you so much why don't you go back to them and seek clarification? They won't be interested in your "test" shots will they?
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm sure they will accept jpegs but I'm only going to produce jpegs of the best images. They seem to want to approve and have the use of everything. As I said above, I think its overkill.
Click to expand...

I think you're reading too much between the lines. Just tell them the rejects were out of focus so you deleted them.
 
Do they have commercially sensitive processes on the site that could fall into the background of your images?
 
reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit, and the context in which the images are used before publication.
Click to expand...


Looks like they're not interested in seeing any you aren't going to publish so that will no doubt limit the situation and you are not going to be publishing in RAW.
Looks to me like a great opportunity with reasonable conditions. :)
 
Sounds fine to me, and re-assuring that they're on the ball.
As regards "All images" I would read that as all images that you (the photographer) approve for release, not all images you take. (Delete the ones you don't approve.)
The second bit I would want a bit of clarification as to the word "Use". I would limit it to use for the promotion of the respective organisations, or whatever you agree between you. I tend to specify "Not for re-sale, syndication or passing to third parties" or something along those lines.
 
This is the actual wording -

"reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit,"

At first I felt uncomfortable about the T&C's but then I thought more about the practicalities of their request, both for them and me. Would they want to sift through possibly hundreds of RAW files (even if i agreed to it) to approve them and choose those which they might want to publish?

There's no way i'm going to process more than a small proportion of them anyway. i think I may need to expalin the difference between RAW files and jpegs and the need to process the former into the latter.

Mozthecat said:
Do they have commercially sensitive processes on the site that could fall into the background of your images?
Click to expand...

My intention, quite clearly stated, was to photograph wildlife in an industrial setting so perhaps that is behind their caution.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
This is the actual wording -

"reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit,"

At first I felt uncomfortable about the T&C's but then I thought more about the practicalities of their request, both for them and me. Would they want to sift through possibly hundreds of RAW files (even if i agreed to it) to approve them and choose those which they might want to publish?

There's no way i'm going to process more than a small proportion of them anyway. i think I may need to expalin the difference between RAW files and jpegs and the need to process the former into the latter.



My intention, quite clearly stated, was to photograph wildlife in an industrial setting so perhaps that is behind their caution.
Click to expand...

But, according to the italics of conditions of use in your very first post - THAT is not the actual post, you have ommitted the most vital and pertinent section / phrase...PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.

[..................} reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit, and the context in which the images are used before publication.

They are not worried about what you TAKE. They ARE worried about what you will PUBLISH - all they ask is they can vet any pictures prior to them being published (that will include posting on social media sites/blogs) and if you post something somewhere that has not been given their clearance, you risk serious prosecution for breaching that term.

All they want to do is protect their reputation and ensure you will not publish something derogatroy or that could be used against them. Perfectly normal.
 
Lensflare said:
But, according to the italics of conditions of use in your very first post - THAT is not the actual post, you have ommitted the most vital and pertinent section / phrase...PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.

[..................} reserve the right to approve all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit, and the context in which the images are used before publication.

They are not worried about what you TAKE. They ARE worried about what you will PUBLISH - all they ask is they can vet any pictures prior to them being published (that will include posting on social media sites/blogs) and if you post something somewhere that has not been given their clearance, you risk serious prosecution for breaching that term.

All they want to do is protect their reputation and ensure you will not publish something derogatroy or that could be used against them. Perfectly normal.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see. It is possible to read the relevant sentence in two different ways. I'm looking at it as if there is no comma between "used and "before publication" - which there isn't.

it is also possible to read it as if there was a comma there (which there isn't.....!). Reading it this way implies that "before publication" refers to all of the preceding wording in the sentence. This must be what lawyers argue endlessly about.

I'll definitely need clarification before going any further. Thanks to all for helping me to understand what the problem is.
 
"Reserve the right" isn't even saying that they will do it!
 
NO - it is merely giving them the option if you give them need to....
 
jerry12953 said:
Yes, I see. It is possible to read the relevant sentence in two different ways. I'm looking at it as if there is no comma between "used and "before publication" - which there isn't.

it is also possible to read it as if there was a comma there (which there isn't.....!). Reading it this way implies that "before publication" refers to all of the preceding wording in the sentence. This must be what lawyers argue endlessly about.

I'll definitely need clarification before going any further. Thanks to all for helping me to understand what the problem is.
Click to expand...

I do see what you are getting at. Your main problem is that the agreement is poorly drafted.

'all images of the colony and the site taken during the visit' [emphasis added] is the source of your confusion. If they are only interested in photographs you intend to publish, then your other (unpublished photographs) are irrelevant to their request and shouldn't be mentioned. The Oxford comma suggests that the approval of all images and then the context of published photographs are two separate clauses.

I suspect their intentions are not properly set out in their words.
 
Personally, if what's in "the colony" is worth photographing I would jump at the chance compared to oft used conditions like 'unlimited licence' or copyright. :)
 
jerry12953 said:
it is also possible to read it as if there was a comma there (which there isn't.....!). Reading it this way implies that "before publication" refers to all of the preceding wording in the sentence. This must be what lawyers argue endlessly about.
Click to expand...
Legal documents almost invariably do not contain punctuation. They claim it helps clarity! !!
 
Also at no point do 'they' mention raw files........ remember many non photographers would not know raw from jpeg.

They have no need to even be told that you shoot raw!

If you are concerned, liaise with them to clarify and confirm the specifics of the control and as such any limitations it may have on your use of the imagery.

Their agreement makes me think of a catchall copied and modified from a competition entry form!
 
I think you're over-reading it Jerry. If you consider what, I imagine, you want and what they want, I don't see any conflict. That may not be the same for all photographers though, so they reserve the right etc. The bird-ringing clause is, I think, a thoughtful touch you'd be happy to comply with.

I'd just say thanks, and send them low-res JPEGs of the good ones (there won't be many haha :D). They'll not thank thank you for a huge data-pile of Raws that they can't even see. It might even raise suspicion.
 
I have a question...
In the US copyright law "publication" has a specific meaning: It is the transfer of ownership to copies by various means, i.e. the sale of a book w/ image in it (and the copyright notice date is the date of first publication, not the date of creation or filing). Publication is *not* public performance/display nor "making known to the public."
So, the way I read that first requirement the images could be used as desired w/o concern unless copies of the images were transferred to others by some means... i.e. you do not need approval to post the images on your website/etc. I.e. it's not restricting your rights of "public performance" or "communication to the public." Is that not the case over there?

I've noted references to "published editions" as separate/additional entities, and the code does separate distribution/performance/communication as separate legal actions... but I can't find a definition of "publication" in regards to UK copyright law (at least not from a reliable source).


Edit: I've just realized that the restriction is probably more legally applicable to privacy rights in this case, where "publication" has a different meaning and it does include "communication to the public."
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I have a question...
In the US copyright law "publication" has a specific meaning: It is the transfer of ownership to copies by various means, i.e. the sale of a book w/ image in it (and the copyright notice date is the date of first publication, not the date of creation or filing). Publication is *not* public performance/display nor "making known to the public."
So, the way I read that first requirement the images could be used as desired w/o concern unless copies of the images were transferred to others by some means... i.e. you do not need approval to post the images on your website/etc. I.e. it's not restricting your rights of "public performance" or "communication to the public." Is that not the case over there?

I've noted references to "published editions" as separate/additional entities, and the code does separate distribution/performance/communication as separate legal actions... but I can't find a definition of "publication" in regards to UK copyright law (at least not from a reliable source).


Edit: I've just realized that the restriction is probably more legally applicable to privacy rights in this case, where "publication" has a different meaning and it does include "communication to the public."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't answer that. In this case "publication" means "in a book" but I can foresee other uses for the image such as on my website, blog, possible competition entries, etc; possibility of sale to third parties.
 
Frankly if you're so upset or worried about their T&Cs don't bother going or taking photos - the simple fact, as already stated, it is their land - "their land their rules" - simples!
 
jerry12953 said:
Thanks to all for helping me to understand what the problem is.
Click to expand...
I think we know what the problem is :p
Several members have told you that they think the terms are acceptable, but you dont seem to want to accept what they are saying, so, If it bothers you that much, don't do it.
 
Last edited:
PUBLICATION - does not mean 'putting in a book'. That is one way of 'publicising' but there are others. To publish means to put into the public domain - all the firm is wanting to ensure is that nothing derogatory is said about their business or land management. That is all - stop trying to read into it what isn't there. You are simply making yourself look stupid.
 

Attachments

  • f*** off ya Tit..jpg
    f*** off ya Tit..jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 22
petersmart said:
Frankly if you're so upset or worried about their T&Cs don't bother going or taking photos - the simple fact, as already stated, it is their land - "their land their rules" - simples!
Click to expand...


Bobsyeruncle said:
I think we know what the problem is :p
Several members have told you that they think the terms are acceptable, but you dont seem to want to accept what they are saying, so, If it bothers you that much, don't do it.
Click to expand...


May I refer you to Musicman's post above. The contract is badly worded - I read it one way, others have read it another. It needs clarification and that is what I intend to ask for. I'm just glad that someone put it in a nutshell as well as he did. (although I've no idea what an Oxford comma is......!

Lensflare said:
PUBLICATION - does not mean 'putting in a book'. That is one way of 'publicising' but there are others. To publish means to put into the public domain - all the firm is wanting to ensure is that nothing derogatory is said about their business or land management. That is all - stop trying to read into it what isn't there. You are simply making yourself look stupid.
Click to expand...

In this case "publication" does mean using in a book. That is the background to my request to the company. But I can foresee other uses for the pics, assuming that they are useable.
 
sk66 said:
I have a question...
In the US copyright law "publication" has a specific meaning: It is the transfer of ownership to copies by various means, i.e. the sale of a book w/ image in it (and the copyright notice date is the date of first publication, not the date of creation or filing). Publication is *not* public performance/display nor "making known to the public."
So, the way I read that first requirement the images could be used as desired w/o concern unless copies of the images were transferred to others by some means... i.e. you do not need approval to post the images on your website/etc. I.e. it's not restricting your rights of "public performance" or "communication to the public." Is that not the case over there?

I've noted references to "published editions" as separate/additional entities, and the code does separate distribution/performance/communication as separate legal actions... but I can't find a definition of "publication" in regards to UK copyright law (at least not from a reliable source).


Edit: I've just realized that the restriction is probably more legally applicable to privacy rights in this case, where "publication" has a different meaning and it does include "communication to the public."
Click to expand...

Publication in the UK simply means "make public" as against "keep private".. it can be by any means whatsoever.
Copy right is from the creation, not publication or registration ( we do not register in the UK)
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Copy right is from the creation, not publication or registration (we do not register in the UK)
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware... However, I see a lot of people following the US convention of applying a copyright notice where the date is supposed to be the date of publication (not publicizing or creation).

jerry12953 said:
In this case "publication" does mean using in a book. That is the background to my request to the company. But I can foresee other uses for the pics, assuming that they are useable.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily... as it is private property such a clause could easily/equally apply to protecting their privacy rights, thereby restricting your right of "communication to the public." Just because you asked about publishing in a book does not mean that the clause is limited to only that; you would need clarification as to the intended meaning. But now I think it is fairly clear that they mean communicating to the public.


EDIT: I found this definition here:
  • "A work has been ‘published’ if, with the approval of the copyright owner, multiple copies of it have been issued to the public or it has been made available to the public online"
  • "A work has been ‘made available to the public’ for the purposes of duration if, with the approval of the copyright owner, it has been given exposure to the public by, for example, being put online, performed, exhibited or played in public or by being published"
 
Last edited:
Well, I've got that sorted. The guy I have been dealing with agreed that the wording was unclear and said that what they would want to see/use was a small selection of fully processed images. He said it was someone called "Corporate" who produced the original wording. :naughty:

Also, to my surprise, the "handshake shots" I thought he wanted me to take for them would be actually me shaking their hand and would be taken by someone else.
 
Last edited:
No, they are just saving themselves a few bob and doing a photographer out their breakfast by getting you to do their PR shots for free.......at least you know you can crack on with your project now though.
 
Lensflare said:
No, they are just saving themselves a few bob and doing a photographer out their breakfast by getting you to do their PR shots for free.......at least you know you can crack on with your project now though.
Click to expand...


That's not catually the case, Simon. I thought that was what they wanted but I'm the subject of the pictures, not the photographer.
 
jerry12953 said:
That's not catually the case, Simon. I thought that was what they wanted but I'm the subject of the pictures, not the photographer.
Click to expand...
They want to "use" a small selection of images.....
I presume they'd want them for free, and therefore you could be doing their PR shots for free.:)
 
So why are you worried about any restrictions they are placing on the photographer then?

Strange - or confused quesion through not everything being put forward to make the scenario clear. I know I am totally confused by the set up now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top