ACCC & Optus

Optus recently ran a set of ads that got the attention of the ACCC. The complaint isn't that the supersonic deer ad that it ran recently was a blatant ripoff of a series of US ISP ads, but that the ad didn't actually mention the throttling that reduced you to almost dialup speeds once you reached the cap.

The judge hearing the case has had some pretty amusing comments.  Advertising unlimited broadband gave customers the impression they were getting a Ferrari, ''but what is disguised is the fact that the steering wheel disintegrates after 10 kilometres,'' Justice Tony North said in the Federal Court in Melbourne.

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!

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.

There's nothing like...

Tourism Australia is launching its new advertising campaign, and this time, it's asking ordinary Australians to do the work for them.  They're launching a competition that asks entrants to upload a photo and finish the tag line, "There's nothing like..."

While it smacks a little of laziness on the part of both TA and their agency, DDB, I can see where they're going by trying to crowdsource their advertising.  Kraft famously cocked it up with that cheesy vegemite 2.0 garbage so I guess TA thinks it can do it better with their effort.

Good luck with this TA, cause that tag like is just begging to be abused.

But one of the things that I have a problem with in the competition aspect is that it stinks of an attempt to build a royalty free image library.  Often brands will run these types of photo grabbing competitions in which every single entry, upon submission, belongs to the promoter - regardless of whether it wins or not!


Checking out the terms and conditions reveals clause11 that says:

11. By entering the Promotion, Eligible Entrants absolutely and unconditionally assign (and agree to use their best endeavours to procure any relevant third parties to absolutely and unconditionally assign) to the Promoter all right, title and interest in all intellectual property rights in their entry, including ownership of intellectual property rights in any photograph that forms part of an entry.

And refined further in clause 12:

12. By entering the Promotion, Eligible Entrants acknowledge that their entry may be used by the Promoter, the Promoter's related entities, agencies engaged by the Promoter, or any other third party nominated by the Promoter, for the Promoter's current and future promotional and marketing purposes without further reference or compensation to them.  Eligible Entrants unconditionally and irrevocably:
(a) consent to any act or omission that would otherwise infringe any of their moral rights in their entry (as defined in Part IX of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)) and present and future rights of a similar nature conferred by statute anywhere in the world whether occurring before or after this consent is given (Moral Rights); and
(b) waive all Moral Rights in their entry that arise outside Australia.

And in case you don't bother to read all that, they sum it up again for you nicely in clause 45:

45. Entrants agree and acknowledge that all entries and any intellectual property rights subsisting in their entries become and remain the property of the Promoter.

Note the word Entrants, not Winners.

While the prizes sound more than fair if you win, why should I give up the rights over my photo if I don't win? That hardly seems fair whatsoever as TA and their agents can use it for free, forever.

The cynic in me also questions whether this will be a competition at all when they can use any and every image  uploaded for promo purposes.

On a final note, a very interesting side-effect of this type of promotion is that all images become the property of Tourism Australia.  ALL images.  This means that if anyone uploads an image of something offensive, or even illegal (child porn for example), TA then own the rights over that image and are therefore legally liable for being in possession of such material... interesting.

There's nothing like.. claiming copyright over everybody's holiday snaps - even the offensive and illegal ones!