Park Liability

[matty_o_911]

Im with Nev, ALL sites should re-open their galleries without their permission. You cant get in trouble for disobeying some corporations rules, they aren't the law. Do it Rich.

Actually I should think would get in trouble. Firstly, copyright laws would protect a corporation or individual's ownership and control of use of trademarks/characters/etc. and give WVTP the right to refuse their display online, and this I am sure would be enforceable by a court. Secondly, anyone who publishes or takes the photos would have been in breach of such laws. To quote my park brochure: "Any use, reuse, or reproduction for commercial purposes without the express written consent of Warner Bros Movie World is strictly prohibited and CONTRAVENES COPYRIGHT LAWS." Secondly, it is a contractual term of entry that such photos are not to be used for commercial purposes. When you purchase your ticket and enter the park, you accept all terms of agreement and would be contractually bound by them. So anyone who took the photos and then distributed them online would be found for breach of contract. This is why the parks have so many terms of entry, to protect themselves from liability. For example, if you enter the park, you agree with the terms of entry that they are not liable for any injury or damage to property and so if you tripped in the park and hurt your leg, you would have a difficult time suing them because you entered at your own risk and waived to sue. So likewise, if you enter and break the terms of entry stating that personal photos can not be used for commercial gain, they can sue you, and combined with any copyright infringement they would be very successful I am sure. So I basically strongly advise not following the suggestions of some angry theme park enthusiasts and putting them online anyway, because from what is common sense to me and also from what I have learnt in the law degree I am studying at University - WVTP would have many avenues of legal action which they can take and they would most likely be successful.

[Richard]

For example, if you enter the park, you agree with the terms of entry that they are not liable for any injury or damage to property and so if you tripped in the park and hurt your leg, you would have a difficult time suing them because you entered at your own risk and waived to sue.

If you tripped and fell in the park as a result of the operator's negligence (a crack in the pavement or a badly aligned tile for instance), you would be very much eligible to sue for injuries.

[scott]

^But not if you were being an idiot and simply tripped over you're own feet. Any way, this thing WV are doing is starting to piss me off, Richard won't be able to make any Magazines or DVDs and if they keep it up till when Superman opens I'm just going to tell everyone that the ride's going to be s**thouse, regardless of how good it actually is.

[rappa]

Well when it is your site and your standing and relationship with the park that is at stake then you can make that judgement call. Unfortunately you do now own these sites so the decision is really up to those that do. You should also bear in mind that some key members of both this site and others are actualy emplpyed by WVTP so it would not really be in their best interests to go actively trying to p|ss them off now would it?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

"Any use, reuse, or reproduction for commercial purposes without the express written consent of Warner Bros Movie World is strictly prohibited and CONTRAVENES COPYRIGHT LAWS."

The point here is, what is classified as commercial purposes? I would classify COMMERCIAL as "for profit", so, so long as the site isnt charging to view the photos, i dont see a commercial gain?

if you enter the park, you agree with the terms of entry that they are not liable for any injury or damage to property and so if you tripped in the park and hurt your leg, you would have a difficult time suing them because you entered at your own risk and waived to sue.

Some friends of mine own a laser skirmish centre. Basically, for those who have never played, its a dark room, painted black, with walls everywhere like a maze. Its an accident waiting to happen. At the entry to the maze, there is signage posted everywhere saying "you are playing at your own risk" and "staff take no responsibility for loss, injury or accident" etc... all the standard signage, like the ones you see at a regional show next to rides etc. Let me tell you something - that signage is rubbish. You dont need a loose paving tile, or a crack in the pavement to be able to sue. You can fall over from your own stupidity, and still successfully sue - all it takes it to find a reason why the park was responsible for your falling. You go on a gravitron, you come out, and through dizzyness, fall through a plate glass window - the owners of gravitron could be sued for that. To blend themeing in a ride, a low step is painted black, so is the floor, and so is the walkway. Because there isn't a different colour, you dont see the step, trip and smash your front teeth out. the ride owner can be sued for that. You are lining up for a roller coaster, and the safety barrier holding back the queue is not latched (such as at aussie world). A young child opens the gate, and wanders out onto the coaster rails, and promptly gets squished. Most would blame the parents for holding onto the child, but because the barrier was not latched..... sue away. Im sure bussy would be able to provide some more ride safety examples as well. It doesnt matter how many signs you post saying you are responsible for your safety, and they take no responsibility whatsoever, if you can find a reason why they are to blame for your own stupidity, you have an arguable case in court.

[rappa]

Yes as sad as it is that post is all too true. Just one of the fantastic gifts Americans have given us. Why be resposible for your own stupid actions when you can just SUE someone else HORRAAY! And people wonder why smaller parks (like those at Port Macquarie) are closing their doors after all these years.

[matty_o_911]

If you tripped and fell in the park as a result of the operator's negligence (a crack in the pavement or a badly aligned tile for instance), you would be very much eligible to sue for injuries.

While my original point by now has lost a little bit of its objective by now, i will just quote the back of a ticket: "The owners and operators of these premises and attractions shall not be liable for any injury or damage to any property arising from any cause whatsoever (including the negligence of staff) while on these premises or attending any of the attractions." That is all my example was based upon, and I am sure WVTP has a legal team to help protect them from liability so this obviously wasn't just added on there to fill the back of a page. And yes, I do see the alternative view with the examples, and yes it is unfortunate that people can sue for their own stupidity however it does create jobs for those like me studing to be lawyers so I shouldn't complain too much. But either way my simple little example got the thread a little off topic but my point main point still remains. WVTP would have several legal arguments it could use to justify its policy and to sue those who breach it. And yes while it may be a waste of money pursuing internet fansites, they may decide to sue just one site as to send the example of what could happen to other sites to discourage them from doing similar things.

[rappa]

I should point out my last post in regards to public liability was COMPLETELEY SARCASTIC! I am 100% against these stupid arse laws allowing people to sue and can only wish the greatest of misfortune upon all the lawers and legal professionals encouraging and profiting from this practice. ITS A JOKE!! Yes whilst they can have that nice little statement on the back of their ticket it really doesn't mean jack unfortunately. Just like the 'we take no responsibility' signs. Sad but true.

[Zamperla]

Secondly, it is a contractual term of entry that such photos are not to be used for commercial purposes

Agreed Alex. Non-profit websites would not be considered "commercial" in nature, as no profit is being made from them. (though Richard's entrepeneurial souveneirs and membership fees could possibly dispute this)

[Richard]

That is all my example was based upon, and I am sure WVTP has a legal team to help protect them from liability so this obviously wasn't just added on there to fill the back of a page.

Try telling me how legally binding that negligibility clause is once you've got your degree. It's interesting that the the issue of fraudulent suing was brought up. My initial point went against this. To devalue this clause I was careful to mention only legitimate reasons to sue.

And yes, I do see the alternative view with the examples, and yes it is unfortunate that people can sue for their own stupidity however it does create jobs for those like me studing to be lawyers so I shouldn't complain too much.

Is this what they teach you in law school? And here I was thinking law was about justice. :confused:

[T-bone]

Maybe everyone should see the film "The Man who sued God".

[matty_o_911]

  Is this what they teach you in law school? And here I was thinking law was about justice. :confused:

I was only joking. I myself will be looking more towards working in corporate law, so I won't be chasing ambulances or none of the other stuff that breaks up families and the like.

[Adam]

Interesting discussion.... What if this was written on the back of the ticket / at the front gate?

"By entering this park you void any right to sue the owners and operators of these premises and attractions or hold them responsible for any injuries or damage to property arising from any cause whatsoever (including the negligence of staff)."

Or something similar?

[DisneyDoll]

It would NEVER stand up in a court of law. THEY charge you to provide a service. THEY have a duty of care &.. if THEY are in the wrong & you get hurt, THEY can be sued.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

As with my point about the laser skirmish centre. At places such as that, or such as a theme park, there is an inherent risk of injury, illness, or death. I am almost certain that most places like that do have those "we take no responsibility" clauses, however, it will not stand up in court if challenged with a reasonable bankroll. (im talking like - $10,000 for a barrister's day in court, with the potential of millions in damages). Horse riding places have those clauses, skirmish, laser skirmish, theme parks, amusement carnivals and fairs, parasailing, skydiving, hanggliding, rockclimbing, scuba diving... Sea World's Shark Bay has those indemnity forms, however, if you're swimming in the shark tank and you get bit, or stung by a ray, you could easily hit up sea world for your medical bills, and a skillful lawyer would get even more than that... Its all about a duty of care. Look at that girl who died at Sydney's Big Day Out, by being crushed against the barricade during a performance? I GUARANTEE that the tickets said "no responsibility taken" or something to that effect. I ALSO GUARANTEE that the promoters of the big day out were hit BIG TIME over that incident, for failure to provide an adequate DUTY OF CARE, by admitting too many people to the mosh pit, not allowing punters to carry their own drinks into the arena, and then overcharging way too much for bottled water. it was a combination of overcrowding and dehydration that killed the girl - two points which, as i have shown, were caused by the promoter, therefore making them liable... even if they did have the "we're not liable" signs at the gate, or on the ticket. Result? - They Settled.

[rappa]

Hey Alex you make a very good point there and illustrate it well. It is certainly a line that has to be drawn between this kind of legitimate claim (as you explained) and the rediculous claims of "I stood on a twig and it cut my foot so now I'm suiing you." (don't laugh that is a real case from Jambaroo) Unfortunately in recent years this is where our legal system has been failing us IMO.

[T-bone]

And that is another reason as to why small parks like "Peppermint Park" and "Fantasy Glades" fail.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Thanks Clint, nice to be noticed once in a while...

[Gazza]

Actually I should think would get in trouble. Firstly, copyright laws would protect a corporation or individual's ownership and control of use of trademarks/characters/etc. and give WVTP the right to refuse their display online, and this I am sure would be enforceable by a court. Secondly, anyone who publishes or takes the photos would have been in breach of such laws.

But really, a photo like this: http://www.rcdb.com/ig1122.htm?picture=4 wouldn't be using any trademarks etc.

[matty_o_911]

True, but that is because of the angle that the picture was taken and there clearly aren't any trademarks in it. But in a park like Movie World, if you took a picture of any other place in the park, you could probably get a Warner Bros trademarked logo or character somewhere in the background and that is obviously what they don't want. Just because there aren't any trademarks in a photo like that doesn't mean there won't be in any other photo. And if Movie World is annoyed by having so many requests from sites to use images/trademarks etc, then the last thing they would want to do is to scan and approve every photo that is to go online just to make sure they are all like your example and have no trademarks in it. As such, to save that problem, they just ban it all together. Makes sense to me.

[Gazza]

And if Movie World is annoyed by having so many requests from sites to use images/trademarks etc, then the last thing they would want to do is to scan and approve every photo that is to go online just to make sure they are all like your example and have no trademarks in it.

But why would you be seeking approval from the park to post photos in the first place? If I were a coaster site owner I would post the photos without seeking any permission, and if the park saw any problems, then they would email me. Not the other way around. The thing I dont get about this whole situation is why MW would be getting so many requests for permission anyway. Do people honestly send an email every time they start a gallery? But anyway, quite a few photos dont feature trademarks. For example, have a look at this rcdb gallery: http://www.rcdb.com/ig1122.htm None of the photos have trademarks. Many of the gallerys didnt feature tradmarks, take the WWF gallery, photos of the mountain ect didnt have trademarks. In fact, the only ones to really have trademarks are photos of the main entrances of rides or close ups of ride vehicles bearing the logo, and even in these cases you could just use the blur tool.

[Adam]

I think if you posted photos on a website they wouldn't do much (especially if you acknowledged who the trademarks belonged to). On the back of every map it simply states 'not for commercial purposes'... if you're site isn't commercial then they don't have a case.