Photo ownership policy

[jason_r1]

<p>I found this photo policy rather interesting. Basically they are saying that if you the photographer take photos on the premises that those photos automatically become the property of the property or canyon owners. I just wanted to get some others opinions on such a policy. To my knowledge photos are always the sole property of the photographer unless he/she relinquishes it otherwise. Could this be a situation where you the photographer understands the policy upon entering the premises and essentially are agreeing to it if you decide to proceed? Still doesn't sound right but what do I know. Please see the link below. Rather than copying and pasting the policy I decided to post the direct link. Scroll about halfway down the page to canyon rules and policies and it is the very first policy listed.<br>

<a href="http://dismalscanyon.com/admission/index.html">http://dismalscanyon.com/admission/index.html</a><br>

<br />Jason</p>

<p> </p>

[allenahale]

<p>I don't know about the validity of their photography policy. However I am convinced that they got the name correct - "Dismals". Looks like it is all not much of a fun place to go to, let alone pay to get in. Paying to get in may be a significant fact in support of their photo policy - paying may impact the definition of a "public' place and paying indicates your acceptance of their photo policy - sort of like going to a concert or sporting event. Personally I would go somewhere different</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>It's not written very clearly - but I get the impression that they are referring to one of their own photographers who is taking pictures of visitors - and those visitors consent to have those images being used. <br>

<br />If it is indeed their policy to own the right to every photo taken by a visitor - then it appears indeed better to go somewhere else or at least not to take any images.</p>

[jason_r1]

<blockquote>

<p>Looks like it is all not much of a fun place to go to, let alone pay to get in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely not worth the prices for what it is. There are much better places to go in the area that are much much cheaper or evenfree.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Paying to get in may be a significant fact in support of their photo policy - paying may impact the definition of a "public' place and paying indicates your acceptance of their photo policy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was sort of my thoughts as well although the way their policy is written it still seems sketchy and gray.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's not written very clearly - but I get the impression that they are referring to one of their own photographers who is taking pictures of visitors - and those visitors consent to have those images being used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true and I'm definitely okay with that part however the way I interpreted the rest was that any photos taken by visitors would also become property of Dismals and they could use the photo's in any way they desire. I don't buy that policy at all. They have no way of getting peoples private photos anyway unless the essentially find them online and take them.</p>

<p><br />Bottom line is I have no plans to visit the place but was just looking around at some of the nature preserves in the area. I couldn't help but notice what they had written. There are several more preserves nearby that are much bigger and better and cost little to nothing. To my knowledge they don't have such wacky policies. Sounds to me like these folks are just out to make a dollar any way they can. They almost literally charge you to breath "their air" as long as your in the park. Not worth it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>What Dieter wrote, it is a poorly constructed paragraph.</p>

<p>The main point of that first policy, <em>is contained in the second sentence,</em> and that sentence should lead the paragraph as it contains the main concept of the policy, although, the whole policy statement could be much better written, with fewer negatives, as one example of how it could be improved.</p>

<p>Specifically, that second sentence refers to images captured by Dismals Canyon Photographers and states that by paying admission and thereby agreeing to Dismals Canyon's terms and conditions of entry, you (implicitly) agree to having your photograph taken; and that photograph belongs to the photographer (not you); and thereafter consent to the use of that photograph for publicity purposes.</p>

<p>In very simple and non legal terms, it is an implied Consent and Release Form - upon entry to the venue you are consenting to your photo being taken and release those photographs for publicity purposes.</p>

<p>viz (my bold for emphasis, my italic for implication):</p>

<p>"<strong>If you, or any member of your group, are photographed or filmed at Dismals Canyon</strong>, <em>[by a Dismals Canyon Photographer]</em> the photo and/or video belongs to the photographer, and you release to Dismals Canyon, its agents, and employees all rights to exhibit and market this work in print and electronic form publicly or privately."</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Sounds to me like these folks are just out to make a dollar any way they can."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't get that impression from reading their policy statements, what I see is the person(s) who wrote and proof read the website has/have very poor written communication skills. Ultimately that presents as poor marketing, evidenced somewhat by you not wanting to visit the venue based upon <em>'wacky policies'.</em></p>

<p>Arguably if the entry rates were exactly the same but the website was written containing positive sentences and positively emotive words, you'd be there with bells on and have a very enjoyable experience: however, arguably they're starting behind the eight-ball with a business name - "<em>Dismals Canyon</em>", if I were CEO I would consider changing that branding.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>It looked to me like it's run by the US Department of the Interior. I think the bullet point was just written very poorly and is supposed to convey that photos of visitors taken by the conservancy become the property of the conservancy. Instead of asking here, why not ask them?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's designated as a landmark by the Dept of the Interior. It's a private business.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>Dismals Canyon is privately owned and operated. It is NOT a national, state, county or municipal park.<br /> <br />It is in the category of a private property open to the public. Basically it has the same status as a concert hall or private amusement park. The owner can set any rules he wants with respect to photography (or anything else). If you violate them either because you did not know about them or intend to ignore them, the owner (or his agent) can tell you to stop. He cannot require you to surrender your film, memory card or camera. If you persist in taking pictures (or violating other rules), he can have you removed by the police and possibly have you charged with civil or criminal trespass (depending on local law).<br /> <br />That being said, I agree with others that the photography rule is poorly written. It seems that visitors are free to take all the pictures they want and use them in any legal way. However, any pictures taken by employees or park service providers belong to the park owners and any people in such pictures are deemed to have given a release allowing their image to be used for just about anything.</p>

<p>I can think of some circumstances where that rule would probably NOT withstand a legal challenge.</p>

[jason_r1]

<p>Thanks for all of the responses. Pretty much everyone is on par with what I was thinking. I agree 100% it is just a poorly constructed group of words. No plans to visit the place. I just happen to be scouting around and thought I would get some feedback.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Instead of asking here, why not ask them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bethe, Thanks for your reply. I could have done that but I wanted to get the opinions of others specifically. I may very well call and ask them directly at some point just for curiosity's sake.</p>

<p>Jason</p>