As I understand this, it's all you list and more.

Cornroaster, please see this post by PTravel that is an overview of the discussion that led to this motion being presented.

I also support this forum, as a way to assist those of us who travel for leisure as well as work.

It could also be useful in some ways where words can't describe particular destinations, as a link from miles & points forums.

Thank you in advance to the TB Members for considering the input of the wider FT 'community'.

I think this is a terrific idea and would actually have a lot of appeal to many travelers.

I think the idea is good, but argued for a full forum which I strongly favour and feel it would get more patronage than several full forums voted in by TG in there past.

I do not like the idea of a sub forum where things often get buried and overlooked when they have been tried on FT. I voted against the sub forum idea.

The proposal encompasses Trip Reports handling of media.

Images will be displayed in-line with the thread whenever Image Tags are used.

Ref: The Photo Contest.

Thanks Jenbel! That must have changed in the last couple of weeks. I will amend my photo contest rules to include the new verbiage.

Speaking not-as-a-lawyer, I think FT will be very careful about handling any images they might be interested in re-posting, including obtaining a release from the photographer/owner.

Just because I post an image does not necessarily mean I own it.

The forum should be broader than just a gallery. It should be a place to discuss technical issues, but also other aspects of video and photography as they apply to travel, e.g.:

- What are the social norms of different countries with respect to taking pictures of strangers? Some cultures like it (India comes to mind). Others don't (Morocco?).

- What can you do with a picture of a sculpture visible in public? What about a building? Can you post it on FT in the Travel Photography Forum? (the answer is complicated and would probably surprise you)

- How do you pack a camcorder and still camera, a couple of lenses, video tape, batteries and a charger, along with all your other carryon stuff and still meet the weight requirement for some foreign carriers?

- I want to photograph an eclipse. When and where is best?

- What do I do with all these digital photos while I'm traveling?

- Can I get a good deal on a camcorder in Hong Kong? How good are those 15 RMB filters I see in Shanghai?

- How can I video a museum's collection and make it interesting enough that my relatives will want to watch?

- What are the "must photograph" and "must video" sites for these cities taht I'm going to?

- Will the salt air at a beach hurt my camcorder? How about on a cruise? How about in Hong Kong in July?

- A policeman told me that I can't take a photograph on the New York City subways. He's kidding, right?

- I see a lot of FTers get great candid shots of people on the street. How do you do that without attracting attention?

- How did you get that great video right under Niagara Falls without ruining your camcorder?

- What's the best, small still camera for traveling, assuming I want to make nice 13 x 19 prints on my printer?

- What's the best printer for making nice 13 x 19 prints from my small still camera?

- Will the guards at the Royal Palace in Bangkok really rip the film out of your camera if you take a picture inside (Answer: yes, they will!)?

What I'm particularly looking forward to is seeing how different people see the same place. I love Birdstrike's photo competition (if this passes, I'll try to set up something similar for video). I'd like to see the next competition's theme be something like, "Paris" or "Tokyo" or "New York" or "Tuscany." I think it would be fun to see what other FTers think is notable or important at places that we like to visit.

Oh, yeah, and I'm in favor of the new forum, too. ;)

Couple of points (speaking as intellectual property lawyer). . .

1. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) limits the infringement liability of the operator of a website like FT. Basically, unless and until a "take down" demand is received by a copyright owner, FT is not liable for infringement. (This isn't a legal opinion for FT -- I'm sure the new owners have their own attorneys -- I'm just pointing this out in the context of this discussion).

2. I'm not aware of anything in the FT TOS that forfeits copyright in any images that we post. I construe the FT language as a license, not an assignment. Note that the license is broad enough to allow FT's owners to exploit, commercially, any posted images however they want. If you're concerned about that, I'd recommend either (1) watermarking the image, (2) posting only low-res images, or (3) don't post images.

3. Though FT reserves for itself a license, there are no user-provided reps and warranties against non-infringement, i.e. FT could use these images only at its own risk. Speaking as a lawyer who counsels clients who acquire and distribute IP, I would never advise using images posted in such context -- it would just be asking for trouble.

4. Posting images to FT involves exactly the same kinds of considerations, from FT's perspective, as posting text, i.e. infringing text could could result in liability if it is maintained after a "take down" demand per the DMCA, "deep-linking" can be problematic, etc. There should, of course, be incorporated in the TOS a prohibition against posting or linking IP that is protected by copyright without the permission of the copyright owner.

When all is said and done, I don't see any greater legal concern for FT if images and videos are permitted than is already the case with text posting. Of course, FT's lawyers will make that determination and, DMCA notwithstanding, Youtube has been sued (though in what I think is probably a meritless lawsuit).

(Gee, this is the second thread today in which I've gotten to write about intellectual property law. I'm not sure that's a good thing. ;))

To #2/3... For example, say that I take a picture of myself with Mickey Mouse at a Disney park. The next FT photo contest has the theme "Mice", so I submit that image. I'm not making money off of it, and as part of a contest, it's subject to critique, which makes it editorial, and therefore doesn't require a license from Disney. However, IB/Randy cannot commercially exploit my image without permission from Disney, irrespective of whether I've given permission explicitly or implicitly per the TOS.

I think that the correct answer to this is that IB/Randy should just change the terms, because while they can certainly claim a license to use our images, as you rightly note in #3 it would just be asking for trouble. I just did a little sniffing at a few of the photo sites I frequent, and I found that the ones I visit most disclaim any rights to images posted in their discussion forums (in fact, they disclaim rights to everything in their forums). For example:

Hey, if IB/Randy are crazy enough to want to make commercial use of my images, they can PM me and I'll give them a reasonable price as well as something a little higher res than 800x600.

The design of Mickey Mouse is subject to copyright. The image of Mickey Mouse is also, probably, a trademark of Disney.

Irrelevant. Because MM is protected by copyright, putting it on FT violates the right to make copies, the distribution right and the right to publicly display. It doesn't matter, in the least, whether or not you make money from it -- that's relevant only to damages, not liability. However, arguably, you have a license (at least implied and possibly express) that allowed making the photo in the first place and might allow this kind of a use. FT is a commercial enterprise, so there are trademark issues as well. If the nature of the photo and the way it was displayed on FT was such that consumer confusion as to sponsorship, affiliation or source was likely, it would constitute trademark infringement. Depending on the nature of the photo, it could also constitute tarnishment.

Irrelevant to an infringement determination.

Nope. This is a perfect example of something I was talking about in another thread. First, you've misstated one of the four fair use factors, but you're also operating under the assumption that a fair use determination can be made by rote application of the statutory factors. That's wrong. Fair use is an equitable doctrine that has been codified by statute. "Equitable" means that the determination is committed to the discretion of the judge (not jury) and subject to the traditional considerations of equity. The four factors that appear in statute are a framework (and it is an abuse of judicial discretion to ignore them), but they are not dispositive -- all four can be present and still result in a finding of infringement, and none of the four can be present yet the use held to be fair use. In order to accurately predict whether any given use is likely to be held fair use, requires a thorough familiarity with the case law as well as an understanding of jurisprudential basis for the doctrine (in the US, it is predicated upon balancing the tension between Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which enables copyright protection, and the First Amendment).

However, before you'll even get to fair use based on submitting the photograph, you have to determine whether the photograph is, itself, infringing. Here are two thought problems that will make this clear:

1. I sneak my camcorder into the Broadway production of Les Miserables. I later enter the video I shot of the performance into a competition for videographers. Will the fact that it is critiqued by others in the competition indemnify the use under fair use doctrine? Answer: No, because the underlying video is infringing of the rights in the Broadway show, hurts the market for the original, is contrary to the license, etc.

2. I take a photograph of a sculpture that is installed outside a building in New York City. I enter it into Birdstrike's next photo competition. Dovster posts a detailed analysis of the photograph, explaining in great detail how use of depth of field and composition resulted in a compelling work, how using a high speed film resulted in grain that was accentuated by push processing to produce reticulation, thereby adding a unique texture that complimented the image. Does Dovster's scholarly analysis mean that use of the photograph comes within fair use? Maybe, with respect to FT. Not with respect to me, because the photograph that I took infringes the reproduction right and the public display right in the statue.

And that's simply wrong.

And that's also simply wrong. Randy can commercially exploit even an infringing photograph, as long as he didn't upload it himself, didn't know it was infringing and didn't receive a "take down" notice from Disney. That's because the DMCA expressly excludes website operators like Randy from liability when someone uploads an infringing work. Randy does commercially-exploit FT -- he gets income from ads (or, at least, the new owners do). The fact of commercial exploitation is irrelevant to the DMCA.

I think the correct answer is that the owners of FT should consult their legal counsel and not rely on the legal analysis of FT posters, even those like myself who hold themselves out as lawyers. Sorry, but your analysis, though reflecting common sense, is simply wrong. IP law is very arcane and not something that lay people can usually apply accurately.

The reason for the disclaimer is because the website owner is, clearly, not the author of uploaded work, nor has there been an assignment of copyright to him.

They're already making commercial use of your images when you link to one as part of a trip report. The TOS for FT contemplates more extensive commercial exploitation. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to upload photos.

This is a good idea, the lawyers be damned.

It is a shame that this forum is not getting more attention due to the obvious distraction occuring. I was a lot more enthusiastic about it myself a week or so ago.

I am strongly in favor of this! I think it will attract a lot of attention, just look at the photo contest in Trip Reports. I look forward to seeing and participating in this forum, so thanks for all those that have worked hard for it!^

I strongly support this forum and would be an active participant. ^ ^