|
Forums >
General Industry >
Color Run "steals" image, sues copyright holder
Don't know if this has been previously posted, but it sure makes interesting reading. Apparently, Color Run approached a photographer to use one of his images on their website and credit him. They later went on to use it on flyers, advertising, etc without his consent and without any credit. When he approached them for usage compensation, they decided to go ahead and sue him . . . Full Story - http://fstoppers.com/the-color-run-coun … -for-image Feb 14 14 04:28 pm Link I saw that and I really hope they get what they deserve...which is nothing. Feb 14 14 04:32 pm Link Add them to my list of those companies that will never get a penny from me. (Walmart is another, to add my opinion to the rant). -Don Feb 14 14 04:38 pm Link I really, really hope the lad timely registered his images. Studio36 Feb 14 14 05:30 pm Link The company's response was linked too. There is a little "he said she said" going around but the company made extraordinary use of the image without even informing the photographer, let alone asking for permission beyond use on Facebook. The depositions will likely develop tighter facts than what are reported in the articles. If photographer didn't mark his images, didn't register the images and then granted use of the images verbally he made protection of his rights more difficult. We don't have all the facts but it appears that the company carelessly used property rights they didn't own and were caught flat footed when it was brought to their attention. Photographer made demands and played a bluff after which the Company wasn't prepared to fold even though they appear to have been in the wrong. Sounds like the Company knew they are wrong and this is all about negotiating a settlement. Win Win for the lawyers. Both sides will pay significant legal fees. Feb 14 14 06:27 pm Link Feb 14 14 06:37 pm Link the other side of the coin. from the link above ...... We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks. Our offers were declined, and met with the following demands:(language taken from legal filings) “$100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account” (This amount went on to be raised by Max to $300,000). “To be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Globally) for the remainder of its existence.” “Max Jackson Logo to be added in sponsors section on the bottom of all web pages” “My name to read at the bottom of any TCR photo’s used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photograph by Max Jackson” “if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action” Understandably, these demands were quite difficult for any organization. They went far outside professional compensation and credit for photography work. We discussed other options, and ultimately when Max said he was planning to sue rather than continue a dialogue ....... Feb 14 14 07:33 pm Link It seems SOP that someone posts a subject, with some controversy, and it seems, to a man and woman, that the MM "You're right!" folks jump right on board. Did anyone bother to read the companies response? Yes, Virginia, there are two sides to every story. The company says they did offer compensation to the photographer but he declined and responded with his own demands -- which were far from the innocent 'credit him for the pictures" he stated. According to the company the young man asked for $100,000.00, and more. When the company ran a race here in Maine they contacted me, after I answered their ad, about shooting the event. They explained there would be no pay and asked if I could help with the setup? I did not do the job because, frankly, I was nervous about all that dust and how it might possibly invade my cameras? If I had shot the event and they used one of my pictures in an ad campaign I might have nudged them for a credit, but if they did not give it I would not have been upset. It would have been one picture out of 100,000 pictures. Who cares? Feb 14 14 07:35 pm Link I am curious how this incident will unfold. We have to try our best to remain fair and impartial, until all the evidence are revealed. Feb 14 14 07:46 pm Link They are suing the photographer as a form of intimidation. They fucked up they used his images for Sports Authority Ads and Coca Cola for gods sake of course he was going to ask them for a shit ton after he clearly saw they were stupid enough to do such a thing. Feb 14 14 08:46 pm Link Looking at random threads around random sites...it seems no one has ever noticed you ALWAYS ask for more than you "need" or what the damages was in a lawsuit. Feb 14 14 10:38 pm Link If you want to know what's really going on then read the lawsuit and specifically Exhibit A which is a letter from the photographer not complaining of copyright infringement but rather of a breach of the written contract. Supposedly he was supposed to be credited on all usage including prints and that's why he's complaining. His demands are ridiculous IMO. http://www.scribd.com/doc/207186869/Color-Run-Letter Feb 15 14 01:17 am Link Being a public place/event, I wonder how the runner (model) featured feels about getting -0-. Feb 15 14 01:24 am Link Jules NYC wrote: "By participating in this event you give your consent for any images or footage to be used in future event promotional material or post-event coverage" Feb 15 14 01:44 am Link DwLPhoto wrote: I understand this yes, "Being a public place/event," Feb 15 14 01:51 am Link Jules NYC wrote: According to the photographer he signed a written usage agreement and the only issue is that he wasn't credit on the promotional material as the photographer. TRC offered him $30,000 and he turned it down and upped his demand to $300,000. Feb 15 14 02:04 am Link Instinct Images wrote: you realize he could have asked for $750,000 right? And if whatever his name was at Color Run knowingly gave the photos to Coca Cola he could go to prison Feb 15 14 02:11 am Link Instinct Images wrote: Bare bones: copyright infringement = $250,000.00 per Feb 15 14 02:16 am Link tenrocK photo wrote: Not if the images weren't registered prior to infringement. And definitely not if TRC has a written usage agreement as stated in the letter from the photographer. Feb 15 14 02:20 am Link barepixels wrote: This was supposedly AFTER they already violated the usage agreement. And the company continues to use the image. The photographer can ask for anything he wants. The company doesn't have to agree. It seems like an aggressive negotiating tactic, and whether he's being greedy or not isn't the point. Feb 15 14 06:30 am Link studio36uk wrote: That is one important element left out of the story which leads me to believe he did not. Feb 15 14 07:14 am Link Feb 15 14 11:19 am Link The Signature Image wrote: Note that they offered that compensation after having been discovered to have infringed on his copyright in the first place... according to their own account. Feb 15 14 12:15 pm Link I see one little problem on his part. He claimed himself that he was employed by color run and silverback to cover the race. So I don't know what their employment agreements are to take a side on the subject. I know that a lot of employers hold the copyrights of your works made while employed. So more details are needed. Feb 15 14 12:37 pm Link Jules NYC wrote: Good point I was thinking the same. As well as if there even exists a model release or contract? Feb 15 14 12:42 pm Link Caitin Bre wrote: Employers in general will have you sign an agreement though regarding that. Usually it states that any inventions, ideas, etc made by the employee will become ownership of the company and the employee will have no rights to them. Usually this agreement has to be signed otherwise they won't hire you. I've signed a few myself back in the day since all my jobs after college were in the electronics field. Feb 15 14 12:53 pm Link Gryph wrote: I have seen where to gain access to areas someone will claim that they are working for .... and by claiming this they are agreeing to the terms of employment. I know its a grey area but deep pockets of the company will win grey areas most of the time. Feb 15 14 01:06 pm Link studio36uk wrote: What do you mean by 'register' his images? Where? I thought that current state of play was that as soon as an image is made and physically exists the copyright automatically belongs to the creator of said image! Feb 15 14 01:10 pm Link studio36uk wrote: So you don't own your images unless you register them? Seems like BS Feb 15 14 01:17 pm Link studio36uk wrote: Earthspirit wrote: With the US Copyright Office. All the players in this story are based in the US, and the law here is different. Earthspirit wrote: Correct, but merely having the copyright to the work is not enough in the US. There are hoops the must be jumped through, first. Trisha May Photography wrote: Of course you own them, but your remedies for infringement are limited if registration with the Copyright Office is not timely with repect to three dates: the date of creation, the date of first publication and the date of infringement and you can't file a suit in Federal court for infringement at all until after registration, timely or otherwise. Feb 15 14 01:49 pm Link Al Lock Photography wrote: Wrong. They offered compensation after realizing they failed to credit him on the printed images as promised. Try reading his blog and the letter he wrote to TRC. No claims of copyright infringement are made. He states they violated the written usage agreement. Feb 15 14 02:18 pm Link Caitin Bre wrote: Well if there was a disclosure that pictures/media/etc. could be taken by being in the event, it is what it is... Feb 15 14 05:00 pm Link Trisha May Photography wrote: You still own copyright in the US but you can't get punitive damages. Feb 15 14 05:39 pm Link I hope he reams them a new asshole. He's a kid. A baby. And they took advantage of him. His images were a bird in the hand, not a bird in the bush. Had they commissioned another photographer, the images might not have turned out that well. It's not editorial photography, in the sense of illustrating a story in the newspaper for instance, it's commercial. Which generally pays very, very well. And perhaps the only remaining hope for professional photographers. Many of whom can read the writing on the wall. In general, it looks to me like they take advantage of the good will of volunteers for much of their grunt work. Operative phrase, "take advantage." If this is a money-making enterprise, and not some lofty-goaled fun exercise for all outfit, I hope he destroys them. I hope he's sending press releases to major media. They'll suck it up. And sets an example for all that would take advantage of talented, if inexperienced, young photographers. RBD Feb 15 14 06:24 pm Link Instinct Images wrote: He is making that claim, but that doesn't mean he is correct. His agreement (according to both parties) did not include the usage they made. Bottom line, that is copyright infringement. Feb 15 14 10:37 pm Link "Exposure" means very little if: a) No one knows your name (due to lack of credit). b) No one tells you it's out there. Seems the only exposure they gave was for themselves, sod the photographer's But it makes a nice buzz-word though! Feb 16 14 06:01 am Link Instinct Images wrote: I haven't read everything but I hope he wins. Feb 16 14 06:25 am Link Al Lock Photography wrote: And there's nothing to indicate they did violate his copyright. All this talk of his images being "stolen" yet that's not what he is claiming. Feb 16 14 10:24 am Link barepixels wrote: That's funny, seems like they got their legal advise from a place like MM. Feb 16 14 01:49 pm Link Hello? If you're a photographer, there's not much doubt as to which side you should be on. To side with the company reminds me of the Ashleigh Brilliant cartoon caption: "Come back, come back, there are parts of my face you haven't walked on." RBD Feb 16 14 03:27 pm Link |
