Tourism Australia changes comp T&C's

The recent uproar over the restrictive and unfair terms and conditions of the Tourism Australia "There's nothing like..." photography competition has finally been heard.

The AIPP reports that it, together with the ACMP and  has successfully lobbied to have some amendments made to remove the exclusivity aspect of the entry mentioned in clause 11.

They have also removed clause 45 in which the entrant surrendered all their intellectual property to the promoter.

Well done to the AIPP, the ACMP and to the numerous other organisations and forums that have gotten together and caused enough of a stink to make the changes happen.

Marketers take note.  This is how social media should be used...and feared!

A shared sadness

So the 3.5 inch floppy disk is officially to be come extinct with Sony deciding it will stop producing them next year. :(

It seems that some people are taking this pretty badly...

What goes around...

The latest twist on the iPhone saga sees the home of Gizmodo's editor raided by police.  I was wondering at what point the police would get involved in this debarcle.  I guess that puts the rumours of this being an Apple publicity stunt to an end...

Karma's a bitch Mr Chen.

Morals & Ethics, where have you gone?

Imagine this.

You're walking along the street and you notice a brand new Ferrari concept car sitting by the kerb with the keys in the ignition, the engine running and nobody around.  You wait a while and then figure that it doesn't look like anyone is coming by to claim it so you jump in and drive it home.

You hang on to it for a few days and then call Ferrari to tell them that you've found one of their cars.  But they don't believe you or don't return your calls.

So you take some photos of this car and send them to a few media outlets to show them what you've found.

You eventually decide that you're going to make some money off this and start shopping this car around to a few of the more interested car blogs and media outlets to see who wants to buy into this guaranteed scoop.  You eventually sell it for a very tidy sum to a prominent auto blog.

Now as Farrari has remotely demobilised the car, the auto blog then goes about pulling the car apart and examining it from the inside out.  All the while fully knowing that they have bought something that didn't belong to the person selling it in the first place.  

Inside the car they find the drivers licence and photos of the test driver who had apparently been driving it before it was 'lost'.  They publish his pictures and personal details online and make light of the fact that he was the one that 'lost' it in the first place.

They make as much money as they can from this story before Ferrari contacts them and asks for it back.

Sound familiar?  No?  Well this is basically the same thing that happened with the recent loss of an iPhone prototype by an Apple engineer in the US.

My question is around the morals of the person that found the phone in the first place.  Who finds something then takes it home and keeps it?  Why not hand it in to the police or management of the restaurant where they found it, like any normal person would do?

And what type of 'respectable' media outlet buys something from someone that is obviously not theirs to sell and makes no attempt to return it to the owner?  What type of ethics allow the people at Gizmodo to operate like this?  In my mind it has turned what once used to be a reputable gadget blog into nothing more than a cheap tabloid.

Finally, why the hell would you go about systematically ruining the reputation of the engineer that seems to have been the one that lost it?  Publishing his name, his photo and even his flickr photostream.  And all the while with not one single sign of remorse or wrongdoing in any way.

The redeeming factor here is that he backlash against Gizmodo has been severe.  The community has overwhelmingly condemned their actions in ruining the engineers' reputation.

Shame on you Gizmodo.

Photographers and their rights

Further to the discussion around the unfairness of the copyright grab by Tourism Australia, comes this interesting article regarding the rights of photographers for shooting in public spaces, courtesy of Onlineopinion.com.au

While I can somewhat understand the issue around using/exploiting public spaces and buildings for commercial purposes, it gets really hazy when we start to talk about what's permissible at all.  Many of these regulations are not really specific whether an image uploaded to Facebook or Redbubble are breaching their guidelines/laws.

One of the things that really surprised me is that Waverly Council in Sydney requires a permit for any filming and photography undertaken in their public open spaces.  What?  I need a permit of up to $300 to take snaps of family or friends at Bondi or Centennial Park?  Not surprisingly the actual wording and terms of the permit are completely hazy and makes no distinction between commercial and private use.

Activities requiring permit

You will need a permit to engage in any of the following activities:

• Film and photography
• Organised sport
• Picnics or other informal gatherings of over 50 people
• Wedding ceremonies
• Erection of any structures, including marquees, jumping castles, etc
• Use of any equipment, including barbecues, public address systems, scaffolding, etc
• Corporate promotion, product sale, charity events
• Fitness training: please see Fitness Groups & Personal Trainers Policy

Please note that users of Council property can be asked by Council officers to produce a valid permit.

Even the famously restrictive Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority seems to allow commercial photography in most areas around the harbour without a permit as long as you have under 10 crew members and only use handheld or a tripod.  This is fine for the weekend gaggle of wedding photographers - but the more interesting aspect is that they might not realise that having the Opera House or Harbour Bridge as the backdrop for that shot is probably breaching copyright - a different conversation altogether.

And finally, if a wedding photographer thought that they could go anywhere in Sydney Olympic Park and take a few shots, they could do it free of charge.   Oh, sorry, as long as you apply in writing and pay a $500 bond!

The Arts Law Centre of NSW have more detailed information on what rights we actually have as street photographers right here.  It seems to imply that some of the regulations that local councils and authorities try to implement are apparently not completely binding.

Planes or volcanoes?

Information Is Beautiful has a great visualisation of the comparison of CO² emissions from Mt. Unpronounceable compared to how much the European Aviation industry belches out every day.

More details are here

internet - all you can't eat

In Australia, truly 'unlimited' internet plans are as rare as flights to London right now.

This great article on Lifehacker explains why it is that we pay more and how most of our plans are based on the 80/20 rule; a calculated gamble on the part of the ISP that most of us won't use our monthly allowances.

Check it out