Do many people actually read the terms of the client contract? I forget the exact wording, but a little clause in the RCL contract I had to agree to in order to be allowed on their boat basically said:
"You give us worlwide copyright of all photos or video we take of you, to do with as we please."
Then everytime you turn around, there's a ship-sponsored photographer or videographer asking you to say cheese.
So, it sounds like if some guy in RCL marketing decides your face is ideal for their new ad campaign in "Sado-Masochist's Weekly", you can find yourself the darling of the leather set and have absolutely zero to say about it. Don't want thousands of strangers to have video of you on a DVD on their shelf for decades to come? Too bad, it's none of your business - we own your face on this ship and we'll publish it where we please. At least that's what their clause made it sound like to me.
Seemed a tad over the top and heavy handed to me, but we accepted on the logic that noone would want our ugly mugs in an ad or on a DVD. But it seems the possibility's there.
A) Anyone know for a fact that this interpretation is erroneous?
B) Doesn't this bother anyone else? (Or did you even read the terms?)
The clause is in there for the very purpose of the Cruise DVD they make of each cruise. They take video around the ship and on excursions and combine it to make a video. So, instead of having to figure out who each person is in the video and get their permission to use the footage in the video, they elected to add thisclause to the contract. I doubt highly that it gives them the right to take you picture and sell it to a third party.
If you don't like this, don't cruise. It certainly doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother you. In fact I am on the cruise video for our last 3 cruises (yes, carnival does this also). I am really happy to have video of me/us on a dvd already edited and ready to go.
It isn't "outrageous". It is a common practice for many businesses. For instance, if you call a radio talk show you are giving "implied consent" which means anything you say on the air can be used by the radio station for promotional use. Similarly, RCI and in fact all cruise lines require that any passenger give their consent to fair use of images. This allows me to buy a DVD of my cruise which happens to have you doing stupid pool games, and perhaps me doing the same. It is not something worth dwelling on. It is done everywhere and no, it doesn't bother me. I'd be thrilled if a cruise line used a photo of me in their brochures or on their website, and I wouldn't be thinking about getting paid for it.
Gee, if I'm lucky they will run my picture in Play Girl.....Worrying about what they may do or not do with my picture has never bothered me while on a cruise....Heck, nothing bothers me while I'm cruising...Happy sailing...
As the others have said, the main purpose of this clause is to use footage of pax on the cruise DVD. I don't worry about it too much..for one thing, we never seem to make the cut!
Seriously, you can always decline to be photographed when you spot a camera aimed at you, although this is much easier for the still photography than for the videos. As for advertisements, I've been onboard ships when there is an advertising shoot going on and it is a big production. The lighting has to be just right, etc., plus they tend to use models rather than the average passenger.
It's actually far more likely that you'd show up in the background of a fellow passenger's photos on an Internet photo share site than in something the cruise line produces.
Anytime you're out in public (on cruise or land), you're subject to being photographed. It is free domain. Now if they tried to come in your cabin and film you I would understand your being upset. I just tell the photographers I don't want a picture.
The only problem I have with it (and Carnival has a very similar policy) is the commercial use without express consent. The onboard DVDS etc. would not be an issue. If I see myself on a TV commercial going down a waterslide, I better be dang well paid for the public humiliation.
Think of all the people you see everyday on the news, most did not give their consent. Most of us have raised our camera and taken photos of people on board, or in public somewhere. Some of the photos I have probably posted on this site. Like someone else said If you are in public you are fair game.
Hi abcruisin, welcome to Cruise-Chat. Sorry you are so upset about the clause. It really isn't for them to do anything bad to you. As everyone has stated, you do not have to let them photograph you. Just say "no, thank you" and go on your way. I love watching the videos. Some of the cruises I've been on, they'll play it on the tv in your cabin from the day before or some of the games. It's great to watch. I doubt very seriously, any of the pictures on any of the brochures, are of passengers. Please don't let it spoil your fun, just tell them you don't want to be photographed. Best wishes and welcome aboard!
With all due respect, I have to take with a grain of salt the approving replies from moderators and administrators who, by definition, are approving cruise-line afficionados. And of course someone like gdjoslin who has his entire family posted publicly on the web isn't going to mind.
Comparisons to news casts are incorrect - the press operates under special statutes specifically because it's the press. A private company, or a private citizen, that is not a member of the press can't take pictures at random in public and then use them for profit.
No, this is equivalent to Sears making you sign a waiver at the entrance door that they can videotape you shopping and then use that video any way they please. Your every move. That moment you wiped your nose? Ha ha, perfect humourous footage for the TV ad campaign. Better be on your guard every second. And that most certainly is not a common practice outside of the cruise world. Imagine if every private company you patronized did it. Want an ice-cream? Sign here so we can film you and then do whatever we please with the footage. You'll be perfect for our ads in Dope Dealer Quarterly. (Unlikely, yes, but it does appear that they have reserved themselves the option to do so if they please.)
Now, I realize that in this day of Youtube and the like, many people are so enamoured with getting their 15 seconds of fame that the notion of personal privacy has gone out the window, but this is just abusive. I suspect the only reason they get away with it is that 90% of people don't actualy read the terms, another 8% don't understand just how far what they're agreeing to could go, and to the 2% who read and understand they can afford to say "if you don't like it, take a hike".