Notices at Intel press event seem to say attending photographers must assign copyright to all pictures and videos to the company?

Originally published at:


I’d love to hear lawyers weigh in on whether this could be enforceable, but the grandiose references to “all recording media ever conceived by the mind of man or other sentient beings throughout the life of this or any other universe, including multiple dimensions, alternate realities, and noncorporeal planes of existence” etc. etc. are pretty standard.


And of course, IANAL but even I can tel that what the notice says is not how it’s interpreted in Cory’s headline; they’re only claiming the right to record you visually and aurally and (this is the important bit) claim copyright on whatever works they may derive from said recordings they themselves made.


That maybe be what they want to claim, but I am not sure that is what it is claiming. I am troubled by the use of “ALL PHOTOGRAPHY, FILMING AND/OR RECORDING” (emphasis mine) in the second paragraph, for example, as certainly ALL would imply not just that done by Intel staff/contractors, no?


Deceptive headline and body copy. Read the notice again. They are claiming copyright ownership of images and recordings they make of you. They are NOT claiming ownership of images you make. This is a fairly standard notice and not at all the same as the Vessel situation to which it is being compared in this post.


Yeah, this is the only concerning passage, and should probably be worded “All photography, filming and/or recording performed by Intel…” to avoid ambiguity, if that was their intention, as seems likely.


Perhaps they ran out of space on the page and didn’t have room to put BY INTEL after the ALL? Ahh, Ninja’d by pdf. Another possibility is they are deliberately stating that by entering the area you give consent to ALL recording by ANYONE, but they’re not about to speak for what rights other will be claiming. Ahh, for a simple paragraph in English of what they are saying in Lawyerese.



It sounds like an absolutely stock standard “We are going to take pictures, video, and audio here; and we may use it for commercials or other ways. If that isn’t cool with you, leave now” kind of clause that is buried in almost any ticket purchase clause.

The headline question answer is always no theory remains in place…


I am not a lawyer but I am a copy editor. The run-on second sentence is badly worded. The antecedent of “the same” is “images of you”, not “images of the event.” So they’re saying they can copyright any recordings of you, anywhere. Probably not what was meant, but clearly someone got sloppy.


This is just a standard, overbroad and over-worded model release. I’m not sure how Cory managed to think that it was claiming copyright in images taken by individuals attending rather than claim copyright of images taken by Intel of individuals attending. And I’d say it’s a lot clearer and more forthright than the model releases that other companies and venues use that are written on the back of tickets in tiny print.

Cory just needs to wear an agreement t-shirt that says “By allowing me to enter this event…” with language denying permission and saying it supercedes all previous agreements. Didn’t BB or some such sell such a shirt back in the day?


Is it just me or did someone forget to specify that they claim copyright to pictures taken by them at this specific event? Because it kind of seems like they claim copyright on any photos and recordings of any person who enters the room for the rest of their lives. So according to this they can follow you around filming you in perpetuity and do what they want with the recording.


It’s clickbait, nothing to see here, move along…


Yeah, that seems pretty clear (even if the notice is poorly written). And very reasonable. It’s a bit silly that they even feel the need to say this, actually.

1 Like

I get these occasionally when I’m working special effects on commercials. Often, the ad agency will send a cameraperson around to shoot behind the scenes footage, ostensibly for in-house usage. And then, some production assistant comes around with a release form for me to sign, about as all-encompassing as the one above. And I always mark it up, and cross out parts, mostly saying, “You can have my image, as it stands, to promote this particular product, in this one case; but you cannot keep, alter, sell, or assign my image in perpetuity.” And I give it back, and the PA takes it to the producer, who comes back to me, and says, “We can’t use you in the behind-the-scenes footage, if you mark it up this way.” And I say, “Okay then. You hired me as an effects guy, not an actor.” And I point out that the ad agency could take that footage of me at my workbench, and sell it to someone in five years, who could use it in an ad, saying, “Hard working Americans know that illegals and gays are the biggest problem in our country…” And they sigh, and say, “Well, you won’t be in the behind the scenes reel, then.” And I say, “I’m okay with that.”


The thing of it is that frequently Cory’s posts clearly contradict his headlines. I get that one can make mistakes once in a while, but I’d expect the headline and the post to both get the facts wrong, not just the headline. So I guess that and the rarity of him ever correcting even the most demonstrably counterfactual headlines is consistent with your thesis that the inaccurate headlines are deliberate clickbait, though I’m loath to think they aren’t just mistakes.


I don’t think those sorts of waivers are actually legally binding. Like the one you see at stores that say “we have the right to search you bag if you enter”- like no, you don’t. You have to right to ASK and refuse further service if you want to be a dick about me declining.
At best its a warning that photography/filming is taking so don’t do something gross like pick your nose or something.


Well, my I’m-not-an-expert-but-I-deal-with-rights-management-daily reading is:

In exchange for Intel granting you entry, you grant Intel et al irrevocable, absolute, and perpetual permission to:

  • image you and record audio of you

  • own and use any image or audio recording, or any current or future media representation of you that they can get their hands on and that either they already own, or you own and have the right to grant someone else permission to use and own (which is the right you have just exercised in exchange for entry)


They could have added by Intel.

By not doing it this way I’m pretty sure that if they wanted to be able to shut up some tech vlogger/blogger who is saying bad things about them or their events this wording gives them a stronger legal position.

1 Like

My colloquial translation:

“Hey, we are going to be filming this, including shots of the audience. You want to be in the audience, then there’s a chance that we may film you. Consider it part of the price of admission. And no, you’re not going to tell us we can’t do it afterwards. If you want to be in the audience, you may be filmed. Deal with it.”

EDIT: reading it some more says: “Oh, and we can do what we like with the recordings. If we add googly eyes to each audience member, or make it sound like wild cheering? That’s our right. You don’t have to be here if you’re worried about that.”


A film crew was filming on location in my home town yesterday. They closed off a street and put up signs with a similar but shorter notice. As Skeptic says, I think that this is a standard warning intended for use on film sets, where all filming and photography is carried out by only one entity. The notice is not intended to claim copyright over other people’s photos or videos, because there are presumed to be none.

1 Like