Sign in to follow this  
AlexB

On-Ride photo copyright

9 posts in this topic

HI Amber, and welcome finally to the forums. Those photos you have posted look really good, i'm glad somebody took some photos with something other than a camera phone (although i'm sure Ian would have some nice ones tucked away somewhere). I just need to take issue with the onride photo however. It's great to see the special effort movie world made for the on-ride photos, but these photos are copyrighted by the park, with no permission for public use or display - they are for private use only. I'm not sure what the park's stance on this is, but I don't believe its favourable. I don't suggest posting on-ride photos that have been purchased from the park. Ian \ Richard - whats the go with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just grabbed my SE photo and cardboard holder, and nowhere does it say anything that restricts its use (Apart from " TM & © DC Comics."), nor was anything on display at the time of purchase (apart from the usual no photos sign to deter people from taking free photos of the screens) In any case, posting the photo on a forum is well within the bounds of fair use IMO, and at $15 a pop I would hope that price would allow those who buy the photos freedom to use it for any non commercial purpose. I don't see how any On ride shot is any different to things like school photos, Santa photos, wedding shots etc , they are all shots taken by somebody else commercially, but I don't think your wedding photographer is going to come after you if you decide to use your shots how you like. Besides, other coaster sites often have on ride photo forums/threads, and on ride photos are a popular idea for an avatar (even here). There was never an issue before now. Edit: And now Ian does have pics: http://ozcoaster.net/index.php?option=com_...8&Itemid=27 2nd Edit: Churros, when you dressed up as Jonah Takalua, did you write Dicktation on your shirt?

Edited by Gazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how any On ride shot is any different to things like school photos, Santa photos, wedding shots etc , they are all shots taken by somebody else commercially, but I don't think your wedding photographer is going to come after you if you decide to use your shots how you like.
Gazza, this is where you will fall into problems. I used to be a park photographer, and I am now a photographer for weddings (privately) as well as - sports - www.goodsport.net.au schools - www.goodschool.net.au and new for this year - Santa - www.goodsanta.net.au (site coming soon) We maintain and enforce very strict copyright retention on all of our photos. Our photographers are all professionals, using professional equipment and design. We actively pursue those who violate our rights as copyright owners, and defend our intellectual property. School, Santa, and Wedding shots all usually have a copyright agreement drawn up with the client, and usually, if you want the rights for display, commercial use, or reproduction, you pay extra. Pre-digital, your wedding photographer would not give you the negatives unless you paid an additional fee. In the day of digital, it is somewhat harder, which is why unless you pay extra for the CD, you only see the digitals with an intrusive watermark. Some "less professional" photographers out there now who buy a cheap consumer digital SLR, who undercut professionals usually throw in the cd for free since its not much effort to do and it means they get the job over a professional... But typically this backfires on them as the wedding party is not as impressed and wow'ed as they would have been with the pro. Ruining their special day is the last thing they want and they tell everyone to go pro. Anyway to come back to your original point - that on-ride photos are no different to wedding, school or santa photos - you are right - they aren't any different, and they do maintain copyright. For evidence of this - check any professionally produced photo, by a professional - wedding, school, santa... anything not "instant printed" - and the photo paper will contain a watermark on the reverse that clearly says "do not copy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how exactly is somebody posting an on ride photo on a website damaging? Something else I might point out, PortAventura installed on ride video cameras on Furius Baco when It opened, and since then Youtube has seen a flood of these videos being uploaded, the park has actually embraced this, seeing it as free publicity. I really dont think MW would care at all about people posting on ride photos. Again, nothing indicates you aren't free to use them how you wish personally. The only reason photographers seem so uptight about copyright is because they know consumers can produce their own duplicates at home using fairly cheap printers and scanners rather than being charged exorbitant fees for a duplicate in a commercial setting. The hard work has already been done in taking the originals. Hate to say it but I guess these days It is a lot easier for people to make copies of content that was previously quite controlled. I would hope you don't own an MP3 player (or have iTunes installed) or a VCR as that would be hypocritical. Basically what you are saying is that guy should only be allowed to show others his photo by getting it out in person.

Edited by Gazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope you don't own an MP3 player (or have iTunes installed) or a VCR as that would be hypocritical.
I agree, It would be hippocritical and also if he had limewire installed, im sure that would be just as bad as photo copyright, its the same thing Edited by PixelPushed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The park would own the copyright, but there's no justifiable reason for them to pursue such usage in this manner. They got their 15 bucks and it's acting as free publicity (especially given that it's plastered in logos etc. for Movie World). We have no issue with members posting such photos here, and I've never had any indication from any park that it's something they don't approve of. While on the topic I'm sure if someone posted scans of wedding photos on some message boards not too many photographers, despite holding the copyright, would take any legal action. For one it'd be incredibly difficult to prove loss of income, and if anything it's again free publicity for the photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reason photographers seem so uptight about copyright is because they know consumers can produce their own duplicates at home using fairly cheap printers and scanners rather than being charged exorbitant fees for a duplicate in a commercial setting. The hard work has already been done in taking the originals. Hate to say it but I guess these days It is a lot easier for people to make copies of content that was previously quite controlled. I would hope you don't own an MP3 player (or have iTunes installed) or a VCR as that would be hypocritical. Basically what you are saying is that guy should only be allowed to show others his photo by getting it out in person.
You're somewhat missing the point Gazza. You raise a very good point in regards to MP3 players or iTunes, and that is the piracy issue with music and music file sharing programs - why? Because it is the Musicians special artistic skill and talent and they should be paid for each copy of their song that is distributed - which is why the iTunes music store has a digital licensed download. Musicians get paid (or should be) by every person who owns or obtains a copy of their song. This is why the US courts shut down Napster. Why is the skill of a photographer - a good photographer any less important? The ability to record or copy music has been around a long time - cassette tapes were the first mainstream option, but nothing caused music piracy to explode like digital music devices, cd burners and the internet. This is why musicians are combating these options with things like digital downloads - bigpond music and iTunes etc. Photographers have no choice. They cannot identify their work over the top of it because it ruins the image - so they can only place indicators of some sort on the back of the photo, which cannot be seen if scanned. Gazza your comments devalue the work of a photographer to no end. "all the hard work is done in creating the original" ? So by that comment, a musical artist has done all the work creating the original, and charging an exorbitant amount for their album, so the artist is just geting uptight about copyright because using cheap home computers their work can easily be copied in seconds. This contradicts your lower comment about an MP3 player, because you have devalued the copyright on music just as much as you have on any other intellectual work or property. I'll accept what Richard has said in regards to the park photos, and I agree that the exposure the park would get in most cases is more beneficial than any reproduction income would be, but its not the point. On the back of the WBMW ticket it does say photography within the park is only for private home use, or something to that effect - can anyone tell me that this intention does not extend to the photography taken BY the park and purchased by the guest? In regards to your comments about MP3 players and iTunes and VCR's - I own an iPod, I have iTunes installed, I also use Bigpond Music, and I don't have a VCR - I do have Foxtel IQ, which is provided by Foxtel to record programs to watch later, so that is definitely not breaking any copyright or creating any piracy. Despite the fact that I own an Ipod, TV recorder, and iTunes means nothing and your point is moot. Why? The TV is licensed by the service provider, and as a DJ, all of the music I obtain is paid for, and licensed by APRA. Click on the link to read through the detail of the licensing, but needless to say, of anybody with digital music - including YOURSELF, I probably have the most legitimate electronic collection here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gazza your comments devalue the work of a photographer to no end. "all the hard work is done in creating the original" ? So by that comment, a musical artist has done all the work creating the original, and charging an exorbitant amount for their album, so the artist is just geting uptight about copyright because using cheap home computers their work can easily be copied in seconds.
What I meant by that is, say if you get wedding photos, the bulk of the work has been done in actually taking the photos, and printing the first round of originals. Similarly, with music, the bulk of the work has been done in producing the music in the first place, and actually making the physical album. In both cases, this is reflected in what you pay, the artist/photographer has made their profit. If you want to make a duplicate for personal use then I see nothing wrong with that. I would rather pay cents for a CD-R to back up something than to pay $20 for a whole second copy of an album. IMO its the same thing with photos you have paid for. I'm not devaluating the work of artists/photographers. What difference does it make wether it is you that makes duplicates of original photos or the photographer. If effect all the photographer is doing is providing a service, not using any special skills, that's what I'm getting at when I say "the hard work has been done", At the end of the day people are only usually going to buy one copy of photos anyway, its not like they are missing out on much. I guess photos are a little different to Music, with photos, the only market for duplicates is the person who bought them in the first place really, with music, the market is everybody. No offence, but it comes across as a bit dorkish/toolish to even raise the copyright issue when a new member posts an onride photo on a coaster site. I mean if they were doing a genuinely bad form of copyright then fair enough, but really, who the hell cares if somebody posts an onride photo, it seems only you. Edited by Gazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Parkz Crew

    Support Parkz... join the Crew for:

    • Ad-banner free viewing
    • Parkz Crew profile badge
    • Extended editing
    • See who's liked your posts
    • Purchase discounts

    Join Now from $20/yr

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.