Fuji EULA Dictates What Pictures You Can Take

[The Straight Story]

When you crack open the seal on a high-end Fuji camera, Fuji gets to tell you what kind of pictures you get to take. We're all for ethical behavior and not invading people's privacy, but come on. Increasingly these End User License Agreements go too far in telling people what they can do with the stuff they buy with the money they earned. Hey there's an idea, write an EULA on your dollars when you give it to the store stipulating how they can spend the money you give them. "By accepting these dollars you agree to..."

http://consumerist.com/349006/fuji-eula-dictates-what-pictures-you-can-take

[Redstone]

1. Thanks for posting that. I've been reading about "Fuji's absurdly restrictive EULA recently, but

had not seen the text before.

So, "just for the hell of it" is an illegal reason to use the camera?

And furthermore, "This license is not transferable?" They're telling you that you can NEVER SELL THE CAMERA?"

What assholes.

Redstone

[The Straight Story]

2. That website has a lot of interesting things to read

:)

[dysfunctional press]

5. it's just legal semantics to protect themselves from liability.

no big shakes.

[Peregrine]

3. Its for liability protection

Remember about 10 years ago Sony had an IR capable video camera. Well it turned out that if you used IR during the day, you could see through some clothing. So Sony got their ass sued.

[Warpy]

4. In other words, no dirty IR pictures through the shower curtain,

ya pervert. This is a bunch of legal tap dancing to avoid getting sued if pervs do start taking IR pictures of women in hopes of getting nudie shots through their clothing.

It's not going to work, as anyone who's seen infrared photographs can tell you, but it's not going to stop a perv from trying. Women and children will not be recognizable as individuals.

As for the non transferable license, that does seem a bit odd.

[NashVegas]

6. Give People The Tools to Be Assholes, Then Beg Them to Be Civil With Said Tools?

Right.

[Gman]

7. There not so much interested in pictures you might take

as much as they are protecting theirselves from getting sued by the a creative lawyer representing someone you took a picture of and they didn't like it.

[strategery blunder]

8. So apparently Fuji doesn't want its cameras to be used by tourists.

Way to cut off a huge market there. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

9. Adhesive contracts are rarely enforcable ...

... particularly when there is a great disparity in bargaining power and the parties are international. This is merely an attempt to create a penumbra of liability protection where actual liability would/should only be found if evidence of deliberate marketing for such illicit use were found.

(IANAL)

[Quantess]

10. It's just lawsuit protection.

They don't care what kind of illegal, filthy photos you take as long as THEY aren't liable.

[jmowreader]

11. You can't take the camera on vacation?

You can, according to that EULA-from-hell, only use the camera to make money. Not for fun.

I also note you can't use the camera in journalism.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. What if your legitimate business purpose is lewd photography?

:shrug: