|
which photo shoot?
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
like everything man, especially SDC!
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
as a disclaimer, it has nothing to do with the photoclub.
Due to some unfortunate politics the photos will remain private for now. If this changes i will let you know who to contact.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not sure if this is related....
www.therecord.com/news/local/article/516129--uw-shuts-dow...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think this is reddit material...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Seems like a pretty big over-reaction on the part of UW? If this wasn't in the record I'd think it was a joke.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
This is a very disconcerting turn of events. As reported, Adel says that the ban "results from misuse of the student design centre space for an unauthorized photo shoot involving the Formula SAE vehicle." Have we ever needed authorization to shoot in places like the Student Design Centre? What specific UW policy did the photographer of SAE team violate? Does anyone have information on this point. I have not been able to find any UW policy that prohibits photography of any sort. What was specific policy used to level this charge of misconduct? (Are they invoking some part of Policy 73, on Intellectual Property? That wasn't reported by the Record.)
Why did the Formula SAE team capitulate so easily?
I urge you to take this decision very seriously, as it has serious ramifications for fellow photographers on campus. How do we know if we need authorization to photograph in any location on campus? Who makes such authorizations? And what specific policy legitimizes and sets boundaries on the extent of legitimate photography on Campus? Why have we never heard of this policy before?
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
ramchops edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
Being the photographer involved, I am looking into this. But after i am done writing the only exam i have this term.
I will be writing a blog post when i get some of the facts straight and will be talking to people to make sure we have the facts going forward. I just don't have time to deal with this until next week.
I just finished a meeting with the Dean and have spoken with the student relations officer a bunch so will get information out as to make sure nobody else is faced with the situation that I have had to deal with over the past few weeks.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Mike: Let me know if you need help. Adel's decision definitely seems unjustified at this point.
Getting this issue on Reddit will definitely assist the cause.
Good luck on exams.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Mike - if you need any help looking into this, let me know - I hope they give you a better reason than misuse of student space, because that sounds like total BS, and sets a scary precedent going forward. This might be a disadvantage of the FSAE group falling under engineering, is FEDs able to provide any support?
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
At this point the decision has been made and i am going to focus on getting the facts straight about photography on campus and what is allowed and not allowed so that down the road this dosen't happen again.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
They should be giving you a specific policy that was violated, or else this is a case for the ombudsman
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Matt's totally right - I admit that I'm pretty short on details, but this feels like Admin trying to push people around for seeing something they didn't like.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Yeah, this is all a little alarming. What next? No photos in Bomber? We arn't allowed to do our WW shoots? I have been approached before about taking photos outside DP&AL (the officer said specifically "You can't be taking photos here")
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'd like to point out at this time the irony in the "homepage photo submission" form:
We want to see what YOUR perspective is of uWaterloo. What does uWaterloo mean to you? What image or experience, captured in a photo, expresses to you Waterloo's key qualities of being innovative, collaborative, unconventional, risk-taking, creative and connected?
Maybe since Mike's picture was so innovative, collaborative, unconventional, risk-taking and creative, it's the perfect candidate for the main page.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
matt.manjos edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
jalopnik.com/#!5792168/how-a-university-punished-a-female...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
swo.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110413/waterloo-stu...
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hahah, yea. Maybe i will submit it to the home page.
On another note. Let me know if this pops up with accompanying photos on any major sites, the photo is still copyright after all.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I saw it on gawker fyi
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
0-60 blog took down the photo at my request Gawker has had more than 60,000 views so even if they do take it down i am sending them a retroactive invoice.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Mike: (1) The University-owned research project (FSAE) and the corporate logos on the car require copyright clearance for commercial use by photographers. Did you get permission to photograph the University-owned car and all of its sponsors' logos, and then get the right to post those photos online? I suspect not.
(2) Did you get permission from the model to post pictures of her in a bikini? The original agreement seems to cover only personal portfolio use and the calendar. You need her permission for online distribution or else you've put yourself in legal limbo, especially if you try to seek financial reward from news or corporate outlets for using the picture.
It's disappointing to see that you attempt to assert your own copyrights without respecting the rights of others. Perhaps the University should send an invoice to you as well.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
1) No, that is part of the argument. But it is very difficult to take a photo without getting somthing in the photo that is branded. If i were to include a can of coke in a photo shoot do i need to get their permission?
2)I did specifically ask if I could post the bikini photos as I wan't going to originally but after clearing it with the model i went ahead. We both didn't see anything wrong with them at the time. Also, we have both agreed to make the best of the situation now and I am splitting all money associated to this photo set with the model.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The laws and regulations with respect to photography in Canada are quite unclear. Legal precedents have been set here in Canadian law, this case went to the supreme court: www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canli.... A fairly large collection of the regulatory documentation has been posted in this www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/55105-photograp... forum referencing carefully the documents they stem from.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm surprised that some outlets have, as you say, "licensed" the photo, despite the fact that it falls under the "fair dealing" section of the Copyright Act. The news agencies don't have to pay you if they credit the source. Your only real claim is against those publications that haven't credited you. But note that the University is within its rights to seek compensation from you for violating their copyrights.
"Fair Dealing" section of Copyright Act:
[edit: fixed two grammar errors]
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
ramchops edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
sidestepping the copyright discussion,
saw on reddit: www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/15/canadian-university-repo...
It does seem somewhat amusing that the photo is FAR more widely distributed due to the university trying to stop it than it ever would have been otherwise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
edit: just noticed Mike has a blog post up now, and had already linked the above article.
One note: "I am currently working with members of the University Community to figure out exactly what our university allows student photographers on campus to photograph." If you're planning on claiming to speak for all campus photographers, please do so in public, rather than the university handing down some "already agreed with students" statement after the fact.
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
lytfyre edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
I am merely talking to people asking them what we can and cannot do under their rules. It is more or less for me personally and to educate others on what the university will and will not allow. I don't plan on being an official spokesperson on behalf of the students or anything or even figuring out some sort of policy. It is merely so that something like this can be avoided in the future.
And by talking to people, i mean starting to meet next week.
I am sure that if you keep the subject matter fairly tame, even if the rules technically don't allow it, i am sure nobody will actually say anything.
As far as the copyright act goes, I guess I don't have to be as angry anymore. However, that doesn't stop me from asking. How does that work if i don't want it up there and send down a take down notice, do they have to comply?
Originally posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
Mike Seliske edited this topic 14 months ago.
|
|
|
@Mike. You've missed the point about finding out the exact policies regarding what we can and cannot photograph. Your stipulation that "if we keep the subject matter fairly tame" amounts to nothing less than self-censorship! (And what does "fairly tame" mean?) The university has no right to dictate the content of our photography so long as it falls within the bounds of Federal law and, perhaps, university policy. The university can, however, dictate which areas of campus can and cannot be photographed. To our knowledge, however, there is no formal policy on that matter (yet). Figuring out our rights on campus is what Lytfyre, and the rest of us, want clarified. That is the crucial task that must be addressed.
The remainder of your statement offers some atrociously misguided advice, and I'm sure it's this sort of thinking that got you and some talented members of the FSAE team in trouble: "if the rules technically don't allow it, i am sure nobody will actually say anything." If the rules don't allow it, then don't do it! Or, at the very least, don't offer advice to fellow members to the effect that they can safely ignore the rules that "technically don't allow" photographing certain sites or objects on campus.
We need clarity on our the exact extent of our rights as photographers on campus. That is all.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So basically, I am going to talk to various people at the administration and clarify what is allowed on campus and what is not. That is what I am saying. If you guys want to talk to them because you don't trust me to get an understanding of what is allowed, talk to them yourself. Stop picking at the words i choose and taking them out of context.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
On a slightly lighter note, my number of referrals from Google Image searches for "University of Waterloo" were noticeably higher than usual yesterday.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm a little curious as to whether anyone else has tried to contact the ombudsmen? I sent an email out the other night asking if they could help me locate the rules for photography on campus and haven't heard back - anyone else have any luck?
Mike, when you're talking to admin, if you could get any information about where to find the rules, I'd love to hear/read them. At the moment I get the feeling that Admin is making up policies as they go in regards to photography, and that the safety violations (moving cars, leaf blower) are where they have a solid case. Am I right?
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jim: we still have an ombudsman? I thought they got rid of that.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's called the Student Resource Office and as far as I know, they have the same mandate as the former ombudsperson position
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
For those interested, the student resource office got back to me and mentioned that this was the policy that was violated in the FSAE shoot:
secretariat.uwaterloo.ca/Policies/policy66.htm
I think it's the last bit that was the real problem.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
makes sense. I agree with that, although not the reasons used by the engineering admin.
Posted 14 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
University of Waterloo Photography Club /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to University of Waterloo Photography Club discussion threads