If You Ask A Stranger To Take Your Photo, You May Have Violated Your Digital Camera Contract

from the lovely dept

Mon, Nov 13th 2006 12:07pm — Mike Masnick

The Against Monopoly blog is discussing the creeping of end user license agreements (EULAs) out of the digital world into the physical world -- often through embedded software. In this case, they note that when you buy a digital camera, you may own the hardware, but the EULA on the embedded software has massive restrictions on how you can use the camera, even suggesting that: "If you let anyone outside your immediate family use the camera--if you lend it to a friend for the weekend or even ask a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife--Canon could technically sue you for breach of contract." We're reaching an age where you will actually own less and less of what you buy, and instead will be held to various license agreements and terms of service even after the purchase.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Robert, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:37pm

Freedom
Well when the first European Americans came to fight for America because they could be free of the European restrictions opposed on them, at least they had room to fight a war for their rights. Now there's no room to make the same kind of move.

Somehow I find it interesting that such unnecessary restrictions aren't being blamed for all the murder-suicides, yet games are. From a personal perspective I have fun playing games, no matter how realistic they are, and the frustration from the worst of those games is nothing compared to the rage that boils when someone tells me what I can't do with my own things. Not to the point of murder-suicide, but I definitely want to hit someone every time I hear about something like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:37pm

sue me
I am less amazed at the content than I am at the fact that someone actually read it. Who reads these things, who lives their life by them? Does anyone believe Canon will actually sue them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Egat, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: sue me
  Well no, they're probably not going to sue. But, why should I not complain when they try to reserve the right to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: sue me
  Apathy is exactly why these stupid EULA’s are getting so out of control. The WORST thing that we can do is pretend that it does not matter. It is only a matter of time before some stupid company struggling to save itself decides to make good on their EULA threats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Flamsmark, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re: sue me
    I expect that the judge would laugh them out of court.
    
    In the UK, an EULA would be considered an 'Onerous Covenant'. That is to say: when you buy the camera, you enter into a contract of sale, wherein you exchange money, goods, or what have you, for the product. Once you have finished that contract, and you have taken possession of the camera, and the seller has got your money, the contract is completed. You have some rights about the device performing as described, but that's not important here. Here's the clincher: the party who has sold you the camera cannot impose any further contracts on you for the use of the camera. The EULA in this case is *exactly* equivolent to them selling you the camera then saying 'aah, but you're not allowed to use the installed lens as advertised until you give us more money.' The EULA 'contract' is unenforcable on these grounds.
    
    *Furthermore* a contract can only occur when two parties each give something to the other. When both parties have acted under the contract, 'consideration has passed', and, until consideration has passed, the contract is not yet valid. Since the EULA 'contract' requires things of you without giving anything back in return, consideration can *never* pass, the contract cannot become valid, and the terms remain forever unenforcable.
    
    These are among the many reasons why - in the UK at least - you don't need to read EULAs: they aren't worth the paper they're written on... well, you know what I mean.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re: sue me
  Yeah, i'll line up for that. WTF are they going to sue me for? What, precisely, is the law they say I am breaking? What about all the times I have already had some random person passing by take a pic of me?? F**k them if they think anyone is going to abide by this commie BS. Tell me I can't have someone take my picture, f**king ludicrous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wow, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re: sue me
    You...really need to calm down.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:38pm

WTF!?
WTF!? I think I'll just buy an expensive 35mm camera and a nice shiney new scanner!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sarah, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: WTF!?
  ...until an EULA on your scanner decides scanning images that belong to friends or family members that do not own said scanner is a similar violation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew Pollack, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:41pm

In context where it could mean something....
Imagine if say, the Zapruder film (movie taken during the Kennedy assassination) had been taken on a video camera with an EULA like this, by someone other than the owner of the camera -- maybe a neighbor had borrowed it.

Could you see the manufacturer of the camera, or maybe the software owner who licenses the byte code to the camera manufacturer claiming ownership of the video as a result of this kind of violation?

Could we see a case in the near future where some highly valuable photo taken at the spur of the moment actually turns out to be not owned by the person who took it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:43pm

Thats why the Open source community and independent hardware vendors really need to start gettin there asses in gear. We can beat the Monopolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:43pm

Wonder how they'd enforce it
I haven't seen an EULA for my camera, much less have I agreed to one explicitly or implicitly (I saw no notice on the packaging saying that by opening it I agreed to X). I can't see how this would stand up in any court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sgt99999, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re: Wonder how they'd enforce it
  I can't see what their damages are either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
agent888, 13 Nov 2006 @ 12:47pm

marketing potential killed
I remember reading about a camera phone that the company marketed by sending fake couples to tourist destinations and had them ask people to take their pictures.

Doing this sort of thing with the EULA would kill word of mouth advertising. Not that anyone really thinks about the EULA when they want their picture taken.

I sat in with a band last friday night. I handed my camera to someone, and it passed through many different hands in the bar, with many interesting pictures taken. It was a cheap-o digital camera, but that sorta thing is cool....i got it back. Guess i violated the EULA tho~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TickedOffConsumer, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:03pm

Hmm - I bought mine used and didn't include a EULA.
So do I sue cannon for allowing this to happen... Whos with me for a class action suite???

the specific law broken?? wouldnt it be copyright infringement (now a criminal offense, what used to be a civil offense before big business changed that law) - as the ELUA is the agreement for use of their IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:04pm

No one reads them
Because no one reads the EULA's that is why the companies are getting away with this. If there was a big warning label on the box that said "Sharing of camera will result in lawsuit" I'm sure everyone would not buy that camera, but since it is hidden away in tiny lettered EULA double speak the camera (or insert your favorite hated company here) company has that right, if they ever choose to exercise it, to use it against you. I think jerky EULA restrictions should be bold faced / large font / in red on a box so that consumers know how much they are being taken. That way consumers could choose the right company to buy from, thus eliminating these frivolous and silly EULA's. No doubt, a EULA to protect the copying of software and reselling it or any other FAIR agreement makes sense, someone spent a lot of time creating the software and should be rewarded for his/her efforts, but if I buy something it should be totally owned by me, in essance my personal property, so that I may use it as I will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chuck, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:06pm

That's what you get with rubber-stamp corp shills in congress. I'd like to see it tested in front of a judge. If it was upheld, congress critter heads would roll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:06pm

I'd like to see Cannon, Fuji or any of the other camera companies actually fallow through with this. It's bullshit and I'd like to see them prove that I violated anything if it is there. They do any searching for this proof they are violating my privacy and in turn can be sued. I'd like to see stories that make sense get on techdirt. This one is just plain stupid. Are stories getting that far n few between that this crap has to be posted?! Christ my 6 year old can come up with something better then this garbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScaredOfTheMan, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:08pm

Is this same for Nikon too? Or is this Just Canon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:12pm

To Mike: The law you'd be breaking...
The law you'd be breaking is "Breach of contract". Although I agree it's questionable in the case of the cameras, since I've never seen a "By opening this box" type EULA, in the case of most EULAs, it's not that doing something by itself is criminal, but by agreeing to a EULA, you're engaging in a contract that can lead to a civil suit...

In the small scale, it probably "doesn't matter" to any of us individually at home, because there's not much to gain by suing one home body, but as these Eulas get more and more out of control, COMPANIES have to protect themselves, which takes lawyers and time, and increases consumer costs, inhibits innovation, etc.. It most definitely IS a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DVD, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:15pm

hehehe
I just took a picture of my ballsack and sent it to Canon ... sue that ya rat bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: hehehe
  As long as you didn't borrow the camera, you're okay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:15pm

Counter Lawsuit for breach of MY rights!
OUR consumer rights! Stand up for our rights. When I buy a camera I'll allow whomever I feel like to take my picture. What the hell is wrong with this PICTURE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neal, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:16pm

As tony says
Every day, week, month and year that passes these greedy corporations draft more rediculous terms into these "contracts" and EULAs. They haven't faced any significant legal challenge and personally I agree with Tony the Tiger (TM)... They're Grrreat! If these agreements are challenged when they are marginally restrictive then there's a good chance some moronic court will rule they're valid and enforcable. The more rediculous they get the better, because when some corporation finally tries to enforce one and takes it to court they're much more likely to be laughed at by the judge and such "contracts" ruled unenforcable across the board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shane, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:17pm

Registration
If you don't want to register, check out Google's cache;
The commercial licensing epidemic [google.com]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:20pm

Where's the EULA
Before we panic, it’s worth noting that possibly no one, including the esteemed editors at TechDirt, has read the original article, because it’s only available online by subscription. We are also lacking a link to the text of the offending EULA. (Is there even such a link in the original article?)

I think it would make for a far more enlightened discussion if we could all view the EULA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Starky, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re: Where's the EULA
  You can use Bug-me-not to view the article.
  Or, if you are too lazy to find the account yourself, here's the one I used: "loginX" for username and "password" for the password.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusted, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:20pm

Here is my Idea
Have someone take a picture of the area where the sun don't shine and send it back to Cannon saying Look someone violated the EULA by taking this pic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Magoo, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:35pm

@Jack - You can get to the article with BugMeNot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wolff000, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:35pm

BS
It won't and can't hold up in court you bought the device you own it. I have signed contracts while on hiking and kayaking expeditions that say the company isn't resposible if I hurt myself. That contract is null and void in court because you can't sign your rights away including the right to sue. A friend of mine broke his arm on a similiar trip after signing the exact contract I had signed and he won the law suit. He only wanted medical bills paid and luckily he got it. These stupid contracts mean nothing especially if you buy your gear second hand. I hardly buy anything new I'm to cheap. The stuff hardly comes with manuals much less EULA paperwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 1:55pm

Hypothetically...

I spend 300 bucks on my camera, I ask someone to take my picture, and I can get sued for that?

What a load of bullsh*t, EULA's are getting more and more anal now...

I want a third button between "I agree" and "I disagree"; the "F*ck you I paid for this, so bugger off" button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teknosapien, 13 Nov 2006 @ 2:51pm

Guess that means ..
Taking out the old SLR cameras and boycotting the digital camera industry.. Dam I was just about to put those things to bed for ever !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
acousticiris, 13 Nov 2006 @ 2:57pm

What if you don't use the software?
I've had three different Canon cameras over the years and I have *never* installed the software that came with them. I know there are some nice features, like being able to trigger a camera shot directly from the software interface, but I have had no use for them.

In Windows and every Linux distribution I run, the camera "just works" when plugged in. And I'll take the "just works" over the garbage they include as a "bonus" on the CD. Admittedly, I rarely read the EULA unless I'm evaluating an application for my company. I had no idea about the restrictions on Canon's bundled stuff...not because I blindly clicked-thru, but because I never opened the CD sleeve (or the manual for that matter!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:07pm
  
  Re: What if you don't use the software?
  It's not the software on the computer that is being discussed - it's the software IN the camera.
  
  Without it, said camera don't work.
  
  God, I'm glad I live in the UK
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KC, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:04pm

One day, the car companies will do the same with an EULA that says that only the owner can drive the car... hrm... should patent that idea before they use it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:24pm

What will happen next?
US buyers of digital cameras (and other like devices) will have to read through and sign (paper or digitally) the EULA BEFORE the sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geren, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:32pm

The EULA is not for the camera...
It's for the imaging software packaged with the camera -- not the "firmware" in the camera.

Yeesh.

Any real camera company (Canon, Nikon, etc.,) wouldn't be that stupid. They'd be killing their own pro business -- magazines and newspapers could no longer buy gear for use by their employee pools, if this were truly the case.

Let's think a little bit before we start spreading around garbage like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Original Just Me, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:37pm

Let them try
I've got the time and resources to put up a fight. Not that I'll ever buy a Cannon now, but I'd like to see them try to sue me based on that EULA. I could use the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mary hill, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:45pm

can't see it holding up in court
I have the EOS digital Rebel XT. I love it
but this GREATLY upsets me ..
which also makes me wonder .. what about the colleges that have 10 or 20 of these cameras for there students?

I don't think it would ever hold up by any judge just like the RIAA rulings in england and austrailia are being called bogus by those respective countries.

hopefully more people will wake uop and blow a wistle when they see really bad ideas in bisness.

It's lawyers like that that give the legal dept and in the long run ther companies a bad name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abrow, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:50pm

Ridiculous
How would they even know if the person taking the picture is related to you or not? Or you loaned it in the first place?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abrow, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:50pm

Ridiculous
How would they even know if the person taking the picture is related to you or not? Or you loaned it in the first place?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MizLiz, 13 Nov 2006 @ 3:59pm

That'll be the day......
I'm going to worry about a greedy corporation telling me what I can do with my own property? When I buy that camera, it's MINE. I can lend it out to anyone I choose, and I'd like to see them try and stop me. I've sold a couple of them already, and I gave the buyers the software CD as well.

Big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2006 @ 5:25pm

Reasonable
EULA is only valid in court if it is determined to be reasonable.. I don't know the legal phrase..but these EULAs that take affect as soon as you open the package have to past a test in court. -- They can't make crazy statements like "we own your kidneys" -- it has to be 'reasonable'

Violating the contract by having a stranger snap a pic would not be found 'reasonable' by a judge or jury.

I agree, these EULAs need to be stopped. You buy it..you own it, period..

Putting limits would likely just give the EULAs MORE strength because they would define/know what is binding and what is not.

At least the way it is now.. with so much confusion about what's in the EULAs -- consumers probably have more strength then they know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derek gardiner, 13 Nov 2006 @ 5:47pm

liscense agreement
Well, I must say I used to respect Cannon but they themselves have forever lost a potential customer. And currently I am in the market for a new digital camera. can someone recomend a camera that won't ask me to agree to their terms, cause it's my pics my way and Cannon better hit the highway cause if I did own one of their cameras I would be smashing it tonight but thankfully I never wasted my money on such an un-american company company I do belive in freedom of speach and folks if we allow this, there will be more company's that will think "what a great idea this is we can violate our customers god given rights not to mention the constitution". Don't forget germany 1941 Hitler got his nation to turn in their weapons willingly, would they have if they knew what was in store for them? c'mon people wake up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarper, 13 Nov 2006 @ 5:54pm

RTFA! It's **not** payware.
It is amazing what people take for granted. For instance, the article quoted by TechDirt says the article requires a subscription. Wrong! It just requires free registration or a visit to bugmenot.com. The article never quotes the text that supposedly says you can't loan your camera out--but it is probably a clause that says that only you may use the "software". Generally a good article. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061030&s=risen103106
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bizconflict, 14 Nov 2006 @ 4:27am

well
If I can't take a camera from a friend and can't take pictures with it ...how in the world am I gonna buy that camera if I can't test it?
Guess I'm not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shadowman, 14 Nov 2006 @ 6:36am

hack your camera?
Suppose you find a way to install another OS (or firmware) onto the camera? This is done with many other consumer electronics (mp3 players, wireless networking equipment, portable gaming devices). I suppose in this case, I'd be able to do whatever I wanted with it, without violating any EULA from the camera manufacturer.

Unfortunately, this would probably void a warranty instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OrthoPod, 14 Nov 2006 @ 9:52am

You can be sued for being a nice guy!
I went to the site of the tool company discussed in the article to see what was so special about their tools that they are afraid of "tool piracy". The tools come with a license that is there to " verifying your honesty that only you will use the tool and you will not be passing it around to others to use for free. It is exactly the same as the "shrink wrap" agreement that comes with almost all computer software."

Of course the analogy is completely incorrect, as the software restraints on copying are to prevent concurrent multiple uses - something that would be pretty hard to do with a tool.

So if I loan my tools to a neighbor, I guess I am a criminal to these guys....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misanthropic humanist, 14 Nov 2006 @ 6:04pm

EULAS carry no legal meaning
Remember, no EULA has ever been tested in court. Neither has the GPL come to think of it, but that's another story.

The reason no EULA has ever been tested is that no company wants that happen, they usually settle before it goes that far.

The entire rationale for an "End user licencing agreement" is that you are deemed to have agreed to it by incidental action before you have the opportunity to read it or examine the product. This has no legal basis in any European country. As such it is not a contract, and any court in the world would probably arrive at that same reasonable conclusion.

You can safely ignore anything written in a EULA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gary, 20 Nov 2006 @ 9:35pm

No contract should be implied just by use
I think it's getting to a point where these kind of laws should be rewritten to only legally allowed personally negotiated or signed contracts to exist, not this contractual "take it or leave it" monopoly of technology.

What happens when everyone starts contracting their life by implied interactions with society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]