'The Color Run' Violates Agreement With College Photographer, Then Sues Him

An anonymous reader writes "Photographer Maxwell Jackson went to an event called The Color Run and took some pictures. He was approached by the organization to share some of his photos on Facebook, and he agreed. Later, he found they were being used without attribution in promotional materials such as flyers and signs. When he contacted The Color Run over the misuse of his photos, they sued him. As a professional freelance photographer for a local college and a hobbyist code junky, I'm intrigued by this story and how it should be a warning for members of either trade. There is a good lesson to be learned here about taking for granted the legal implications of the manner in which you exchange your own intellectual property with anyone."

Comments

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they sued him. You contact anyone and cite legal concerns (i.e., if not threaten to sue, imply that there are potential grounds for a suit), that's the automatic response. Especially if they're guilty - get lawyers involved right away.

Surprised you're intrigued by this - it's pretty much par for the course.

Re:Of course

[wiredlogic]

that's the automatic response.

Failing to make a reasonable attempt to settle disputes before going to the courts isn't a good way to get a judge on your side, especially when you're clearly the belligerent party.

Re:Of course

[hax4bux]

Agreed. This is the automatic response (note I didn't say the good or fair response) on the theory your opponent cannot afford a defense and will simply capitulate. Almost no attorney will accept the defense on contingency, you will have to pay up front. Depending upon where you live, probably $20K just to get to "show cause" and more during "discovery" and even more during the "trial". This would be a great time to consider what those pictures are worth to you because law != justice and participation is not optional.

Re:Of course

[UnknownSoldier]

America really needs a new tag-line: Lawyers for the Rich; Injustice for the Poor.

Re:Of course

[ZosX]

Actually willful infringement is worth quite a bit in the court of law. Its well within his interests to pursue this and if he doesn't it sets the example that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

"get a judge on your side..." what a crock of shit.

Re:Of course

[thegarbz]

Can you make reasonable attempts to settle a case when someone asks $100k for something worth $2-3k and then threatens legal action?

Re:Of course

[davester666]

sure, but court cases are rarely a slam dunk and you need to front the $20K and up yourself [or get it from others somehow].

but it's an easy way to win, if you can spend the other side into quitting.

Re:Of course

[Redmancometh]

As much as it sounds like these guys are being pricks on the surface here is a response from the owner that raises some pretty serious questions:

"Hi, this is Travis Snyder.

I wanted to respond personally to this matter. As the founder of The Color Run, I've had the opportunity to work with many successful creative partnerships of all sizes, including amazing photographers. I respect their ability to capture the essence of our event and fully believe that they deserve attribution for their work to showcase their talents. This issue with Max is a single anomaly and quite frankly makes me sad. Max first came to shoot The Color Run because we granted his school class non-commercial access to come shoot the race in Miami where the photos in question were taken. After this, Max actually ended up working our events over the next year as a non-photographer and traveling and setting up with our traveling teams.

About a year later, Max first initiated questions about the use of some of the Miami photos. 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. 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, there was little option left but to defend our rights through the legal system. I have been and will continue to be at the table to visit about how to resolve this outstanding issue.

As hard as it is to see tweets calling you a "#scumbag", I love the Internet and its ability to give everyone a voice. I also appreciate the opportunity to share more information and insight into a complex situation. My personal hope and intention has always been to get this resolved directly, amicably, and fairly."

Re:Of course

[j-beda]

Can you make reasonable attempts to settle a case when someone asks $100k for something worth $2-3k and then threatens legal action?

If you are using someone's "something" worth $2-3k without permission, then you're in a pretty piss-poor bargaining position and $100k night actually be not such a bad price to pay. The statutory damages for copyright infringement can be pretty steep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work."

Re:Of course

[thegarbz]

If he didn't register the image with the patent and trademark office before it was used (and lets face it most photographers don't, and pretty much every event photographer doesn't), then the maximum he can hope for is actual damages.

Few people who actually register photos: Photographers working for large publishers (e.g. National Geographics), top tier wedding photographers, and top tier commercial photographers where their contract specifically says they get to keep the work.

Interesting to note that it also looks like the guy could have an implied working contract with The Color Run, and if it is shown that he did have such a working relationship unless he had a contract upfront stating otherwise he may actually not have copyright over his own images, as images taken under contract are forfeited by the contractor unless the contact states otherwise.

I don't think he's got much of a legal ground to stand on, especially given that he's not the one doing the suing, and it looks like a pretty clear case of attempted extortion.

Re:Of course

[mysidia]

If he didn't register the image with the patent and trademark office before it was used (and lets face it most photographers don't, and pretty much every event photographer doesn't), then the maximum he can hope for is actual damages.

He could have registered the copyright formally, any time in the past year or so after shooting the photos, after he found that he was going to need to enforce the legally protected exclusive rights.

He won't be looking very good if they made an offer to remedy the situation and mitigate damages by paying the customary amounts for the license to copy and use a photograph commercially, and he refused, demanding an astronomical amount, after they learned that they were unwittingly infringing upon his rights.

The fact is... a fee of $100,000 for the use of a photograph in promotional materials and flyers is not customary. The onus will most likely be on him to demonstrate how ill-gotten gains from copyright infringement exceed the $100k he is seeking, and what is so special about his photograph, that the royalty he warrants for its use is so high.

Re:Of course

[Half-pint HAL]

Actually willful infringement is worth quite a bit in the court of law. Its well within his interests to pursue this and if he doesn't it sets the example that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

The problem is that this is quite plausibly a genuine mistake -- it happens all the time that someone within an organisation lifts a graphic from one resource and dumps it straight into another thinking "it's on our page, therefore it's ours" and doing no background checks. So in theory, it's very difficult to prove willful infringement.

The question that the legal profession should be asking is more interesting: as this type of case is pretty common, it is clear that most companies do not have systems in place to check these things, and crucially that they are aware that this is an issue. This is currently considered negligent, but there comes a point where even negligence can be considered willful: if you refuse to fix a known problem which allows you to continue to act in a way that prejudicially benefits your company, that's willful.

I don't think this case will set a precedent (because the guy doesn't appear to be negotiating reasonably), but there will be a case sooner or later that will put the onus on the company to audit their copy text and marketing IP properly. Only once the company has a central data bank of resources and a published policy of "only ever draw collateral from the data bank" should the company be considered non-negligent. Once that's in place, the occassional employee ignoring the policy would be accepted as unintentional, as long as it the employee was officially reprimanded.

Re:Of course

[the-real-morpheus]

Dude made a rookie mistake. Never work without a contract and never give your work away for free. He kind of screwed himself. A judge may rule compensation and copyright violation but he will likely not get enough to cover his legal fees.

Re:Of course

[hsmith]

lol, you don't have to register a thing with the USPTO to have enforceable copyright. What a preposterous position.

Re:Of course

[Theaetetus]

Can you make reasonable attempts to settle a case when someone asks $100k for something worth $2-3k and then threatens legal action?

If you are using someone's "something" worth $2-3k without permission, then you're in a pretty piss-poor bargaining position and $100k night actually be not such a bad price to pay. The statutory damages for copyright infringement can be pretty steep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Plaintiffs who can show willful infringement may be entitled to damages up to $150,000 per work."

However, statutory damages are unavailable unless you have registered your copyright within 3 months of first publication or within 1 month of learning of infringement. It is unlikely he did this, and as a result, he can only collect actual damages, which may be closer to the range of a few hundred or a couple thousand, based on what similar license agreements go for. Possibly even less, if the Color Run folks can show that there was no market for his photos to anyone else.

Re:Of course

[Theaetetus]

If he didn't register the image with the patent and trademark office before it was used (and lets face it most photographers don't, and pretty much every event photographer doesn't), then the maximum he can hope for is actual damages.

You're absolutely correct, with one caveat - copyright is registered with the US Copyright Office. The Patent and Trademark Office only covers [drumroll] patents and trademarks. The Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress.

Re:Of course

[Theaetetus]

If he didn't register the image with the patent and trademark office before it was used (and lets face it most photographers don't, and pretty much every event photographer doesn't), then the maximum he can hope for is actual damages.

He could have registered the copyright formally, any time in the past year or so after shooting the photos, after he found that he was going to need to enforce the legally protected exclusive rights.

Nope, statutory damages are unavailable unless you have registered your copyright within 3 months of first publication or within 1 month of learning of infringement. If he waited longer than that, then he can't collect statutory damages.

Re:Of course

[Bite The Pillow]

And now we have two sides of the story to distrust, instead of just two.

(not a typo)

Re:Of course

[Doomsought]

The Problem is that makes this a SLAPP suit, and those are flagrant misused of the legal system that should carry mandatory disbarment and criminal penalties to the plaintiff. If they wanted to do this right, they could have invited him to an office and continued to haggle (ludicrous claims are how you start that, on both sides), or let him sue them and then defend themselves in court. They are clearly in the wrong.

Re:Of course

[ediron2]

BTW, Travis Snyder's euphemism 'exposure' is commonly heard by any photographer: GIVE US YOUR WORK AND WE WILL USE IT AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CLAIM WE USED YOUR WORK.

The unspoken next sentence apparently reads "After which, magical fairies and flying unicorns will shit rainbows and gold out of their asses and make your second gig insanely profitable -- profitable enough that you should THANK us for demanding you let us use stuff for free, just for the exposure."

Fuck that noise.

Also, while $2-3000 for use of photos is 'common', copyright isn't in any way tied to compulsory licensing in the US. The artist controls all use. Period. They can choose an unreasonable price, especially punitively if they're negotiating against $150k per infringement.

Personally, I'm in favor of compulsory licensing - we're long past the point where I think copyright, patent and trademark laws would be saner if they had them. A mellow, tiered compulsory pricing structure could simplify a lot of 21st-century art creation: enhance mashup and reuse culture, make life easier for events and presentations, for indie films and animators and artists, and in general let people focus more on art than on copyright law. But that's just my opinion.

Re: Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The color run have those photos to the Sports Authority and Coca cola, that's worth many times more than 2-3k which is an absurd number for such a huge audience. To license a simple photo for less than 10,000 views will cost between 300-1500 from a photo agency, now do the math for the Coca Cola.
$100,000 is low ball. And I hate to break it to you, but without a specific usage license given by the photographer, the color run doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, the photographer will more than cover his legal fees, since both Coke and Sports Authority used the photos for commercial purposes without the proper releases.

Re:Of course

[thegarbz]

No you don't, but you absolutely do if you want any summary judgement to include statutory damages.

The reasoning is how can you claim any losses beyond actual damages if you don't have any intent to use images for commercial reasons, which is why you register images in the first place.

His enforceable copyright is limited to market rates for actual damages per infringement if he didn't register the image prior to the infringement.

Re:Of course

[thegarbz]

Thanks for the correction.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

after they learned that they were unwittingly infringing upon his rights.

Bullshit on on the unwittingly. The only thing they didn't know is they would get caught. In legitimate, legal, business you need a release for every photograph and every model in each. Anything else is willful and gross negligence in that business.

Exactly how is it OK that freely torrenting a single mp3 is worth $150,000 in civil damages but "stealing" and selling his multiple photos isn't worth $100k? It's not consistent. If this kid stole (used without permission) TCR photos and sold them to Coke he'd be sued for millions. How come they can take his and sell it to Coke and say $100k, after the fact?

Re:Of course

[kmoser]

His first mistake was posting them to Facebook, with or without an agreement.

Trademark powers?

[rhazz]

... they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them.

Is that true that there is a level of entitlement if your trademark is photographed in a public place? I recall that the IoC have successfully forced take-downs of videos that happened to have the olympic rings in the background of them, citing trademark protection even though the video had nothing to do with the Olympics.

Re:Trademark powers?

[afgun]

Trademark preventing use of, perhaps. Ownership? Hell no.

Re:Trademark powers?

[SJHillman]

The NFL is also huge on this to the point where most radio stations, sports bars and the likes can't even use "Superbowl" (or sometimes even "The Big Game") when advertising Superbowl-related events.

Re:Trademark powers?

[wiredlogic]

Congress has granted the IOC special trademark privileges for exclusive use any linked ring motif and the word Olympic (other than areas related to the Olympic mountains). Their ruthless execution of that power isn't typical of normal trademark enforcement which must demonstrate marketplace confusion and potential harm to business.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL is also huge on this to the point where most radio stations, sports bars and the likes can't even use "Superbowl" (or sometimes even "The Big Game") when advertising Superbowl-related events.

But they can use Superb Owl.

Re:Trademark powers?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Same with London Olympics. A new law was made for this purpose, the 'London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006'.

Re:Trademark powers?

[ChrisMaple]

Congress has granted the IOC special trademark privileges for exclusive use any linked ring motif

That must be really irritating to Audi, and also the maker of Ballantine's beer.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Immerman]

Yes, but the Superb Owl has better things to do than watch a bunch of hairless bipedal apes chase a ball around the field. I mean they don't even eat the thing after they catch it!

Re:Trademark powers?

[ottothecow]

The [fake, unfortunately] Audi advertisement in response to the opening ceremony ring failure was pretty funny:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/brilliant-audi-ad-mocking-sochi-olympic-rings-fail-is-probably-fake/

Re:Trademark powers?

[amicusNYCL]

I wouldn't really call that a fake advertisement. It sure is an actual advertisement for Audi. It didn't come from Audi, though.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Any radio or tv ad during this period talking about "the big game" is in exactly this boat. But the NFL gets paid a lot by Doritos to be the official chip or snack or some damned thing, so some other chip company using "Superbowl" is intruding on, and, let's be honest, trying to make additional sales via ad hoc association.

Re:Trademark powers?

[nbauman]

As I recall Michael Geist gave examples of documentary film makers who had incidentally gotten shots with snippets of copyrighted music or video incidentally in the background. [citation needed]

They showed the documentary at film festivals, got good reviews, and got offers to distribute nationally and show on TV.

When the distributors' lawyers looked at it, they said they had to get permission from the copyright owners to use the snippets. The copyright owners asked an exorbitant fee, and they couldn't use it.

Geist said that some of the examples were clearly fair use, and they had a legal right to use it, but it would cost even more in legal fees than the copyright owners' exorbitant demands.

The Olympics are a special case. They had a copyright law written just for them.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just advertise Sunday's Football Game from New Jersey?

Not enough snap? Not enough punch? Then just add a big picture of a football and it will have all the impact and punch that you need to attract attention to the sign.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

#concussionbowl

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and in Los Angeles there is a building that has an large Olympic Sign on top, left over from the 1932 Olympics. It used to house Helm's Bakery. They supplied bread and baked goods to the Olympics in 1932, and recipes for future Olympics. Fast forward 50 years: during the 1982 Olympics, The Olympic ya-ya's tried to get that sign taken down. I think they backed down because of bad publicity. Or their Lawyers gave them some good advice. Google "Helms Bakery Sign."

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast forward 50 years: during the 1982 Olympics,

Fifty-two years to the 1984 Olympics, actually.

Re:Trademark powers?

[SvnLyrBrto]

I've been told by a lawyer (not getting legal advice, just chatting with a friend a couple of weeks before a Super Bowl one year) that if those sorts of shenanigans ever went through a trial all the way to a judgement that they wouldn't hold up. And according to the actual letter of the law, Joe Schmoe grocer could legally go ahead and sell beer and chips to you for your Super Bowl party instead of echoing the "big game day party" nonsense.

The problem is that there are very few companies that have the resources to see a conflict with the NFL, NBA, IOC, or whoever, all the way through a trial to judgement. Joe Schmoe is not one of those and would just be crushed under the sheer weight of the lawyers that would be brought to bear against him.

Re:Trademark powers?

[mysidia]

I recall that the IoC have successfully forced take-downs of videos that happened to have the olympic rings in the background of them, citing trademark protection even though the video had nothing to do with the Olympics.

Takedowns, Yes.

Transfer of copyright and royalty-free use, No.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Olympic years are divisible by 4, you retard.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I think the Olympics is a force of evil these days. It is so big that it has governments implementing draconian laws in hopes of hosting the event. Is it worth it?

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah they started that with the Calgary games in 86?
They made a profit by suing everyone in Canada. I think one restaurant was able to keep the name Olympia. Only because the owner had the original papers for registering the name stating that it was named after his wife Olympia. Disgusting habit.

Re:Trademark powers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Olympic years are divisible by 4, you retard.

Yeah, like 2014.

Wow....

[King_TJ]

From the summary of this article, I was just trying to wrap my head around how this college student could have gotten himself into this predicament. My first suspicion was he didn't read the terms and conditions carefully enough when he was asked for permission to share some of his photos. (I figured, "Ok... maybe he just saw the part about them wanting to put them on their Facebook page and didn't notice some fine print releasing the photos for all promotional uses?")

But unless there's more to this story than what's being told? "The Color Run" is simply owned by a guy who's being a complete asshole. Receiving a letter asking to be fairly compensated for the use of photographs in commercial material, after you *only* received permission to share them on Facebook, is hardly "extortion"!

And trying to add on additional charges against the student seeking just compensation, by claiming he owes them for trademark infringement because the "Color Run" name and logo showed up in some of the photos?! Yeah.... I think not, buddy.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Color Run also has a dispute with Victoria's Secret over terms of an agreement:

  http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2013/07/victorias-secret-seeing-red-over.html?page=all

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post the owner's address so I can send him a photo of my butthole. And don't ask why I have photos of my butthole...

Re:Wow....

[mtrachtenberg]

Hey, Color Run, shouldn't you be suing Slashdot for pointing out that you are complete assholes? After all, you have big pockets for attorneys, so you're allowed to steal.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post the owner's address so I can send him a photo of my butthole. And don't ask why I have photos of my butthole...

I already sent him a copy of your photo of your butthole. Don't ask why I have photos of your butthole.

Re:Wow....

[evendiagram]

Jackson wrote that instead, he was "requesting compensation as follows: $100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account, additionally to be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Internationally) for the remainder of its existence, my Logo to be added in sponsors section next to Chevy on the bottom of your web pages. My name to read at the bottom of any photo's used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photogrph by Max Jackson." He warned "if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action." Source

The kid should be compensated but this is borderline extortion.

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Smart-ass kid talks to his bigshot dad and decides to lawyer up because he thinks his photos were worth six figures. Yeah, no. I totally can understand why the guy on the receiving end of that load of horseshit decided to return fire with fier.

Also, he seems confused about what a "sponsor" is. A sponsor is someone who donates money, goods, or services in exchange for the publicity they receive. He is asking them to pay him. He isn't a sponsor. Full stop.

Re:Wow....

[iamhassi]

actually that doesn't sound unreasonable, you have to figure they got at least $100,000 of use from the photos and the rest is essentially free, putting him down as a sponsor, putting his name on the photos he took.... all sounds like reasonable requests. And that $100,000 provides royal free usage of all photos he has provided the color run from now until eternity, I would think that's a great deal for the color run.

Re:Wow....

[Immerman]

IF true that's a pretty lousy opening correspondence - the kind usually reserved for patent trolls and others with an overblown sense of entitlement and enough lawyers to back it up. Without the lawyers it's just smack talk and deserves nothing more than to get smacked back.

I agree the kid deserves compensation, and the company deserves to be slapped hard as an example to others, but I *seriously* doubt $100,000 is the going rate for a single image by even a top-tier professional photographer.

Re:Wow....

[ottothecow]

$100k for that use is too high.

In store advertisements don't pay like that. It might be a reasonable price for full rights to all photos, but not to license an image for use in an advertisement (which is what you would have to sue them for).

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

I buy stock photography for about 10 dollar (it varies a bit) per photo per use from iStockPhoto.

For 100.000 dollar they could have hired dozens of photographers for the day with full rights to their material. Asking $100.000 means the kid doesn't understand the pricing of photographs. At all.

Re:Wow....

[tompaulco]

Sounds like he got out-assholed and decided to go whine about it on slashdot.

Re:Wow....

[tlhIngan]

I agree the kid deserves compensation, and the company deserves to be slapped hard as an example to others, but I *seriously* doubt $100,000 is the going rate for a single image by even a top-tier professional photographer.

Well, technically it could be future licensing fees PLUS copyright infringement fees.

Remember, as photographer, he owns the copyright to the photos. The fact that the photos were pirated does entitle him to claim copyright infringement. Especially since they were used in ways to make profit.

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Multiple photos for world-wide use in marketing via several types of media, including big prints, for multiple years, and sublicensing - tripled for retroactive licensing, and you think he can not get $100.000?

Re:Wow....

[davmoo]

But...if he did not register the copyrighted photos, he can only go for actual damages. He cannot get anything "punitive".

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have hired a bunch of photographers, but they didn't. Professional marketing photography isn't cheap, certainly not comparable to stock photography. The going rate for retroactive licensing (without a lawsuit) is three times the normal price. They got their pick of many people's photos. Professional prices are in order.

Re:Wow....

[rtb61]

Of course even worse for the fool, he has now made a name for himself as someone not to touch with a barge pole when it comes to commercial photography. Greed driven stupidity, one lucky chance becomes the end of a career, there is a lesson for everyone here. Oh yes and trying to scam slashdot with the bullshit plea whilst not declaring the original claim really pretty shitty.

Re: Wow....

[ZosX]

$100,000 is a good ballpark figure. Infringement is punished with severe financial penalties to discourage it.

Re:Wow....

[ZosX]

But damages for copyright infringement vastly larger than their actual worth. Look into copyright law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Re:Wow....

[ZosX]

Actually you don't understand pricing of photographs at all. Companies routinely spend $10,000 and more to hire a photographer for just one day. 100,000 also accounting for damages. The maximum amount you can sue for is 30,000 per instance.

Re:Wow....

[ottothecow]

Yeah, but he wasn't asking for the statuatory damages. He was asking for compensation for the photo plus a job (or at least his name plastered all over their site and being named their official photographer for life). If he is going to sue them for damages, they sure as hell aren't going to name him their official sponsor and plaster their name over their site--they are going to never mention his name, never buy an image from him, and make sure to remove all reference to his photos from their site.

His demands were pretty unreasonable (but he's just a college student who probably doesn't realize that).

Re:Wow....

[nbauman]

According to a comment at that link:

Jackson wrote “requesting compensation as follows:
$100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account, additionally to be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Internationally) for the remainder of its existence, my Logo to be added in sponsors section next to Chevy on the bottom of your web pages. My name to read at the bottom of any photo’s used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photogrph by Max Jackson.” He warned “if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action.”

That sounds like he was overreaching. If that was his first communication, it was a bad mistake.

I do a lot of negotiations like this, and I've gotten advice from a lot of lawyers. The first step should be a friendly letter or phone call.

"Did you know that my photos are copyrighted, and you have to get my permission to use them?"

"Oh noes! Is that true? I never knew! I'm terribly sorry!"

"If you want to use them, you have to get my permission. It's customary for a photographer to charge money for his work. That's how we make a living. How much could you afford?" ...

Under the copyright law, in order to transfer permissions to reuse a photo, the transaction has to be in writing. So they should have had a signed contract to use those photos on Facebook. They probably didn't. But they certainly didn't have a signed contract to use those photos anyplace else besides Facebook.

Copyright is one of those areas of law where you have all kinds of complicated rights (and all kinds of gray areas), but it usually costs you more money in legal costs to defend those rights than the matter at issue.

You're much better off if you can keep things friendly and out of the courts. That's true everywhere, but especially in copyright law.

I write articles. Sometimes I'd write a profile about a company or organization, and they would reprint one of my articles for a press kit or something in the apparently honest believe that this was the custom in the publishing business.

I'd usually call them up, explain copyright law to them, and figure out how much money they had. If they have a lot of money, I want some. I'd usually start out by asking for $1 a copy. I really don't have a good negotiating position, because I have no way of knowing how many copies they're making.

If they don't have any money, fuck it, let them have it. Sometimes it would be a patient's organization of people with a disease, who don't have rich sponsors. They spent all that time interviewing me. Sometimes they sent me materials. I can do something for them in return without feeling that I got ripped off.

One copyright lawyer in the publishing business told me that book authors prepare press kits, and they would customarily include copies of book reviews from newspapers and magazines in the press kits. He never heard of the authors paying the reviewers or the newspapers or magazines, and he never heard of the book authors being sued. It was just the custom of the industry, one of those courtesies that made everything easier for everyone in the long run.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't it $150k/per as minimum statutory damages?

Re:Wow....

[Solandri]

While The Color Run's response is a bit extreme, they are correct that what Jackson is asking for is completely unreasonable. Typical compensation for a full-page photo published with a distribution of between 10,000 to 100,000 is on the order of $500-$1000. For a photo used in advertisements at retail stores, it's about $1000-$2000. Usually, if the parties involved can't come to an agreement, these type of unattributed photographer incidents wind up in small claims court because the amounts involved are so small, not federal court.

I think what we have a kid here who hears stories about how much 30 year veteran pro photographers with well-established reputations make, and thinks it's normal to snap a few photos and be set for the year. The only way he could realistically collect $100,000 is if (1) he registered the copyrights on his photos with the U.S. Library of Congress, and (2) he managed to prove in court that The Color Run knowingly, deliberately, and willfully violated his copyright. I highly doubt he's going to be able to prove (2), and if he didn't do (1) he's only entitled to damages suffered (in this case, probably zero unless he has a letter from another advertiser saying they wanted to pay him $x to use his photos but decided not to after seeing that The Color Run was already using them.

To any budding photographers: Copyright infringement on the Internet is rampant. If you find your photos being used without your permission, you are not the first person this has happened to. If you don't want to pay for a lawyer, ask what to do in online photo forums. Lots of photographers who've had the same thing happen will be more than happy to give you advice on how to proceed, and provide guidelines on reasonable pricing like the link I gave above.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, $2000 for the retail store ads. But that's per picture, and the story says "his pictures", so at least twice that amount. Then there's the flyer, plus multiple web sites with global reach. And they "sublicensed" the pictures. The article mentions that even Coca-Cola used his pictures. It would be interesting to know if Coca Cola sponsored the Run and got to use the pictures in their ads in return. And then retroactive licensing is usually three times the normal price. Do you still think $100.000 is far out? And don't start with the "he's only a kid, not a top photographer". If multiple companies (including marketing giants like Coca Cola) deem his work worthy of being used in advertising, he deserves a professional price for his photos.

Re: Wow....

[dale.furno]

I'm sure he can get $100.000 but can he get $100,000.00?

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone in the world uses commas for thousands separators...

Re:Wow....

[dbIII]

It's called a high opening bid. When it's unreasonably high and tactless it's a message to fuck off and stop using someone else's stuff instead of being extortion, but usually it's a request for a counter offer.
See the Breaking Bad car wash sale scenes for an an unreasonable price being used as a message to fuck off.

Re:Wow....

[dbIII]

Asking $100.000 means the kid doesn't understand the pricing of photographs. At all.

So? That's a sign that negotiation is needed and not that government resources should be wasted in a petty dispute by going to court.

Re:Wow....

[Applehu Akbar]

There's an assumption on the part of business that all photographers will "work for credit" and need to actually be paid for their art.

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

The photos were used in advertisements, newspapers, etc. What exactly do you think photos that make front pages of newspapers cost for usage, for big runs, for advertising? LOTS of money. Indeed, it can be 6 figures.

He deserves to be paid.

Re:Wow....

[Ecuador]

Are you serious? He is requesting at the same time to be paid (quite highly actually - no it is not a good deal) for his photos AND be put down as a sponsor AND have his name printed on them. You can't ask for all of that - you give something to be a sponsor, you don't take, and in general asking for a big sum for photos usually means allowing no watermarks etc. And IN ADDITION he wants to be their official international photographer for life! But of course his father is a "cosmetic surgeon" and told him he can spend money and lawyer up, so he thought a little ridiculous extortion is fine too...

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

What the f is with the mobile site? Helpfully,i can't click this link ANDthey made it so I can't select text ... Come on /.

Re:Wow....

[Oligonicella]

You're thinking fashion shoots. Normal coverage? Not even close to that expensive. Those are also professionals, not some unknown college kid. He was asking for a cash pillow, not compensation.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

He can ask anything he wants to. What he should get is a different story. In negotiations, I sometimes ask for more that what I think I should get and am willing to negotiate towards a mutually agreed value. It's pretty much standard practice in negotiations.

Re:Wow....

[j-beda]

Yeah, but he wasn't asking for the statuatory damages. He was asking for compensation for the photo plus a job (or at least his name plastered all over their site and being named their official photographer for life). If he is going to sue them for damages, they sure as hell aren't going to name him their official sponsor and plaster their name over their site--they are going to never mention his name, never buy an image from him, and make sure to remove all reference to his photos from their site.

His demands were pretty unreasonable (but he's just a college student who probably doesn't realize that).

So, he can collect $150k per work in statutory damages after a court case, or CR can cut a cheque for a bunch less and correct their lack of license. That seems like a pretty reasonable beginning of negotiations. Now if this was negotiations before they had used the images improperly, asking for $100k + other stuff would probably be over the top and unlikely to be very effective.

Re:Wow....

[j-beda]

He can ask anything he wants to. What he should get is a different story. In negotiations, I sometimes ask for more that what I think I should get and am willing to negotiate towards a mutually agreed value. It's pretty much standard practice in negotiations.

Exactly. In this case, he has the strong negotiating position that statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as much as $150k per work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Per what? You essentially have "$150k//" there (two slashes or "per per").

Re: Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't click links because the poster didn't use < a> tags. As for lack of highlighting, that's because... I don't know, works fine on my phone.

Re:Wow....

[mysidia]

The kid should be compensated but this is borderline extortion.

The $100,000 may actually be reasonable for the worldwide usage in multiple marketing venues. However "Photography sponsor naming" and "Name on bottom of photos" in legible print is not customary.

He just doesn't no where to stop making demands, before they become unreasonably excessive. And the courts probably won't award him nearly what he wants, even if he prevails.

Re:Wow....

[mysidia]

he's only entitled to damages suffered (in this case, probably zero unless he has a letter from another advertiser

The phrase is Actual Damages and Profits. If his photograph was used in a marketing campaign, and there were additional revenues after the marketing campaign ---- then a proportion of the additional revenues will be profits from infringement.

Damages suffered, includes actual benefits for the infringer and his loss from their failure to pay for their commercial exercise of his exclusive rights without due compensation ----- plus any profits to the infringer that are attributable to the infringement that were not taken into account when computing actual damages.

Re:Wow....

[Theaetetus]

Yeah, but he wasn't asking for the statuatory damages. He was asking for compensation for the photo plus a job (or at least his name plastered all over their site and being named their official photographer for life). If he is going to sue them for damages, they sure as hell aren't going to name him their official sponsor and plaster their name over their site--they are going to never mention his name, never buy an image from him, and make sure to remove all reference to his photos from their site.

His demands were pretty unreasonable (but he's just a college student who probably doesn't realize that).

So, he can collect $150k per work in statutory damages after a court case, or CR can cut a cheque for a bunch less and correct their lack of license. That seems like a pretty reasonable beginning of negotiations. Now if this was negotiations before they had used the images improperly, asking for $100k + other stuff would probably be over the top and unlikely to be very effective.

Statutory damages are unavailable unless you have registered your copyright within 3 months of first publication or within 1 month of learning of infringement. It is unlikely he did this, and as a result, he can only collect actual damages.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what we have a kid here who

He's not a "kid." He's a photographer.

You condescending pricks are worse than a trade guild, yet you have nothing to stand on but your age and your reclining easy chairs. Enough. A real adult doing real work deserves real respect, and is legally entitled to it. Stop trying to minimize everything around you to make your own unproductive ass feel bigger.

Re:Wow....

[j-beda]

Yeah, but he wasn't asking for the statuatory damages. He was asking for compensation for the photo plus a job (or at least his name plastered all over their site and being named their official photographer for life). If he is going to sue them for damages, they sure as hell aren't going to name him their official sponsor and plaster their name over their site--they are going to never mention his name, never buy an image from him, and make sure to remove all reference to his photos from their site.

His demands were pretty unreasonable (but he's just a college student who probably doesn't realize that).

So, he can collect $150k per work in statutory damages after a court case, or CR can cut a cheque for a bunch less and correct their lack of license. That seems like a pretty reasonable beginning of negotiations. Now if this was negotiations before they had used the images improperly, asking for $100k + other stuff would probably be over the top and unlikely to be very effective.

Statutory damages are unavailable unless you have registered your copyright within 3 months of first publication or within 1 month of learning of infringement. It is unlikely he did this, and as a result, he can only collect actual damages.

Good point. I wonder how expensive it is to register photos with the correct bodies. Would one large image composed of a thousand small images give sufficient protection to those thousand images?

Of course CR probably is not happy to have their unethical business practices in terms of copyright infringement widely reported. Would cases like this also include court costs for the plaintiff if successful? Even if court costs were not included, it is probably still cheaper to settle at a price higher than what the expected damage award might be to save on CR court costs. Maybe not at hundreds of thousands, but it seems likely it would be in the tens of thousands.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you remember what the result of that was in Breaking Bad? If you tell someone to fuck off when there's no call of it, then they're likely to come back at you. Which is exactly what is happening here too. Seriously, don't escalate a bad situation, it's rude and dangerous.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks - max's dad

Logic

[SJHillman]

"they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them"

Just wait until Apple or Coca-Cola hears about this. They'll suddenly own so many movies in which their logo appears they won't know what to do with them.

Re:Logic

[Mente]

Nah, Apple and Coke pay to have their brands seen in movies and TV.

Re:Logic

[Desler]

Apple does not.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple...

"Apple won't pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads and iPhones," said Gavin Polone, producer of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm. "It's kind of a graft situation."

Re:Logic

[Nemesisghost]

To add what others say, when product placement isn't paid for you'll notice the logos are always blanked out. You can usually see this with cars, the heroes are always driving the sponsored cars & the villains will be driving their competitor's cars with the logos painted over. Another example is drinks & restaurants, the names will be parodies of real places, McWaldos for McDonalds.

Re:Logic

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention that any photo I took at Disney World would suddenly become properly of Walt Disney Company and I could be sued for sharing out photos of my vacations there without them giving me permission.

Re:Logic

[ArbitraryName]

On what planet does giving someone expensive electronics in return for a service not count as "payment"?

Re:Logic

[wonkey_monkey]

There was a scene in an episode of Heroes where the cheerleader got a new car from her dad. "Dad! Is that the new [make] [model]?!" squeals the girl in delight, as the camera does a nice slow twirl around the car.

What's shameful is that I didn't even notice how blatant it was until it was pointed out on another TV show.

Here in the UK, broadcasters - at least when it comes to domestic shows - are required to display a "P" symbol at the start of any show featuring product placement.

Re:Logic

[hawguy]

"they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them"

Just wait until Apple or Coca-Cola hears about this. They'll suddenly own so many movies in which their logo appears they won't know what to do with them.

Hmm...so if someone takes a picture of a 17 year old topless girl at a Color Run race that shows the Color Run logo, does Color Run own that photo, and are they the ones facing child pornography charges?

Re:Logic

[operagost]

This is irritating when I watch Mythbusters and the test cars have their logos removed. I'm bothered that they had to waste time doing this when the logos will probably be flying off on their own in the inevitable crash or explosion.

Re:Logic

[tompaulco]

Yes, it is clear to anyone that watches movies that 90% of all computers in the world are Macs.
Conversely, it is clear to anyone that has a job that 90% of all computers in the world are PCs.

Re:Logic

[kwbauer]

iWorld

Re:Logic

[kwbauer]

You are complaining that it is unrealistic that a teenage girl would be excited about getting the exact make and model of her dreams?

Re:Logic

[dale.furno]

In what jurisdiction?

Re:Logic

[Desler]

On what planet does giving someone expensive electronics in return for a service not count as "payment"?

In the one where a producer of a show specifically says "Apple won't pay to have their products featured"?

Re:Logic

[bitingduck]

What's shameful is that I didn't even notice how blatant it was until it was pointed out on another TV show.

I've seen it even worse in Burn Notice-- something like "If you're going to ditch someone chasing you in a pursuit, you need a car with a lot of acceleration, quick handling, and great braking. That means something like the [make][model] is ideal". Followed by what amounts to a car commercial of a chase, with lots of logo shots.

Re:Logic

[ArbitraryName]

And Lance Armstrong said "I have never doped." How is that relevant? I'm sure that producer either wants to feel like he's not accepting payment or wants others to view it that way. Unfortunately for him, that's not an accurate reflection of reality. Giving someone items of value in exchange for performing a service is the very definition of payment. End of story.

Re:Logic

[RotateLeftByte]

Typically it costs a lot more to 'Pay' to have your brand mentioned than it is to give away some kit for free.
That costs you only the cost price of the items and is often tax deductable as a promotional expense.
Also, in many places giving kit is not considered a bribe whereas paying $$$$$ for some placement is the opposite.

Simple really.

Re:Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is called product placement and has been going on for over a century in static mediums and in film since 1927 with Hershey's being 1st to jump onto this band wagon. It really became noticeable after E.T. and reeses pieces (sp?) The alien would not shut up about the candy.

Re:Logic

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I've yet to see anyone use "Google" as a search engine in the movies.

Well, he got a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

so I guess he's not looking for advice on the internet, which is good.

I hope he didn't sign away his rights. If the Facebook request was indeed the entire basis of their agreement, then of course he can demand royalties, not just from them but from everybody they licensed the pictures to. Scumbags.

Re:Well, he got a lawyer

[almitydave]

Exactly, it's time for him to countersue for copyright infringement. His photos are being used in many places without permission or attribution. Time to pull a page out of the ol' RIAA playbook and sue for maximum damage per instance of infringement. Unfortunately, I doubt he can afford the legal case that would take.

Re:Well, he got a lawyer

[Theaetetus]

Exactly, it's time for him to countersue for copyright infringement. His photos are being used in many places without permission or attribution. Time to pull a page out of the ol' RIAA playbook and sue for maximum damage per instance of infringement. Unfortunately, I doubt he can afford the legal case that would take.

Statutory damages are unavailable unless you have registered your copyright within 3 months of first publication or within 1 month of learning of infringement. It is unlikely he did this, and as a result, he can only collect actual damages, which may be on the order of a few hundred dollars or a thousand. He also cannot collect attorney's fees. As a result, no lawyer would take this case on contingency, and unless he wants to pay $100k to get $1-2k, he should be looking to settle, not countersue.

Put punative measures in your contracts

[gurps_npc]

If you want to insist that someone gives you attribution, get a signed contract that says failure to attribute costs the violator $100,000.

Suddenly people start being very good at attribution.

Re:Put punative measures in your contracts

[CanHasDIY]

If you want to insist that someone gives you attribution, get a signed contract that says failure to attribute costs the violator $100,000.

... Per instance.

Re:Put punative measures in your contracts

[St.Creed]

And if you want to get rich, get a contract that says you get one million dollar every time you fart.

No one will sign contracts like that. Photographers, especially college kids, are cheap and plentiful. There's no need to pay them more than beer money.

Unfortunately, this is how tort-based judiciaries

[Anonymous Coward]

When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.

Legal system works

[EMG at MU]

Who would have thought a legal system designed by lawyers works for lawyers. Eventually a court might side with Mr. Jackson, but either way we all know who is going to be making a lot of money here: the lawyers representing both sides.

Besides that point, do you think it would bother the participants of this event that the organization running it has such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings. I have never participated (partially because I only run if there is a fire or if someone chases me) but if I did I would be upset. This organization makes money off of me and then tries to rip off another college guy just trying to do his thing? That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit. It would be appropriate if there was a boycott until the suit against Mr. Jackson is dropped.

Re:Legal system works

[ProZachar]

"That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit."

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich while convincing the rest of the world that you're a selfless do-gooder.

Re:Legal system works

[EMG at MU]

Yeah no doubt there are a lot of organizations/people who are making a handsome living from "non-profit" work. But being a non-profit isn't really what I was thinking of when I described them as "hippy".

Reading their about page and the event involving a bunch of people running around like a human tie dye t-shirt is why I describe them as "hippy".

Re:Legal system works

[Anonymous Coward]

such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings.

So you're attempting to influence our opinions by citing irrelevances?

Re:Legal system works

[Mr. Slippery]

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Corporate officers can't profit either. But employees -- especially top management -- can make out like bandits. Most don't, of course, but employees of a non-profit can make $1,000,000+ salaries quite legally.

But The Color Run is not a non-profit.

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich

That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?

Re:Legal system works

[Anonymous Coward]

"That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit."

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich while convincing the rest of the world that you're a selfless do-gooder.

While The Color Run partners with charities, it is a for-profit company.

Re:Legal system works

[oldhack]

Yep. Back in the 90s, a cliched joke was "all the money's in non-profit."

Re:Legal system works

[operagost]

They aren't even nonprofit, actually.

Re:Legal system works

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?

You don't have to be an employee; you can be a contractor just as easily. e.g. A common one is shady car dealerships who organize car raffles in shopping centers on behalf of some charity, take 90% of the donations as "costs" and give 10% to the charity. They even get volunteers for free to man the shopping center raffle. Charities allow their name to be used and mistakenly take the money thinking that 10% is better than nothing, if they even know they're only getting 10%. It's a mistake because in the long term the charity's name will be tarnished to the profit of the car dealer and in addition fooling donors into giving money to the car dealer rather than the charity they think they are giving it to.

This is only one of many such scams. Our legal system in general is just too primitive to deal with things like this.

Re:Legal system works

[ArsenneLupin]

Even easier: you can hire friends, or even family members or spouses as "contractors" or "suppliers" to help funnel those profits out of your (state-sponsored) non-profit. Happens commonly here in Luxembourg, and nobody bats an eye...

Hopefully this too will change with the new "Gambia" coalition...

Let's keep Color Run busy

[Anonymous Coward]

info@thecolorrun.com

Found via: http://www.thecolorrun.com/contact/

I actually know quite a few people who do 5Ks as my sister has been a runner since competing in college (most only do 5Ks, a perfect slice of people to mention this to).

I think you're forgetting

[Anonymous Coward]

About a little thing called "product placement." :) They pay for that kind of advertising in movies. ;)

Re:I think you're forgetting

[SJHillman]

Not always, a lot of times they (Apple in particular) just gives the product away, or an indie producer might put the product in hoping to get the attention of that company.

Re: I think you're forgetting

[Anonymous Coward]

First, stop upvoting your own comments.

Secondly, we both know that the vast majority of product placement is paid. Don't be purposely obtuse.

Lastly, Apple does pay for product placement, but not in broadcast programming. They only pay for it in movies. How do I know? I'm a production accountant in the movie industry, and I see them writing checks for this all the time.

Candice Schwager

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of this debacle: http://petapixel.com/2012/05/2...

That one got weird in a hurry.

It's about time

[no-body]

that some folks - lawyers(?) - come to their senses, maybe by giving them a strong whack left and right on their cheeks, looking straight in their eyes and telling them "you don't do this again".

If this happens enough - maybe 100 times per individual - this nonsense may change...

Any other ideas?

This isn't the only problem with Color Run

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a bastardized version of India's Holi festival, which draws complaints from some Indians. Also, having a lot of colored dust around while you breath heavily raises some health concerns. IIRC, there were also some really big questions about how much of the money raised goes to charity (IIRC, single digit percents). I got curious about the whole thing after I saw what I thought was a Holi celebration in Redwood City with people running. It turned out to be a Color Run. Google around, there's plenty of controversy for everybody.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run

[interkin3tic]

Fuck that. I suspect Holi is more than just throwing colored dust around, in which case it's as much a bastardization of Holi as people having plants is a bastardization of Christmas.

If it's like christmas in that pretty much all the boring religious traditions have been ignored in favor of the fun parts, then it's not a bastardization, it's simply spreading a fun thing to do. More power to them.

In any event, religious people whining about their traditions being bastardized can take a sharp religious icon of theirs and cram it up their asses. There's no ownership over traditions. There's certainly not any ownership over throwing colored powder at people.

"Health concerns"? Citation needed. Don't spread pointless FUD, just stick to documented douchebaggery.

As far as charity, meh, the color run doesn't seem to really hold itself out as a charity. I am not familiar with their advertising, but the appeal seems to be "Throw colors at people." Not "Run to cure breast cancer" or anything similar.

I hate to defend these assholes, but making up shit like this overshadows valid criticisms. People hear your shit and they're going to dismiss the bit about stealing photos and then using frivolous lawsuits as weapons as well.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run

[epyT-R]

Oh no, non white people chose to take offense, so we should .....what? ban things? Activities? Expression? I'm no fan of color run' s actions, but their event should not be censored just because some group chose to take offense.

Indians who aren't fans of freedom are welcome to go back to India. It takes monumental arrogance to emigrate to other countries and then demand the indigenous populations bow to your expectations.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run

[oldhack]

Mod the parent up. I've seen that festival in India, and this scheme looks like a straight rip-off with, of course, no credit.

I'm helping them out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm doing my best to help them, and that other big sporting event in Russia, maintain their trademark by not watching or discussing it with anybody.

Scott Winn said on Facebook ..

[DTentilhao]

Scott Winn

Hey, My name is Scott Winn and I manage the photography and videography for The Color Run. I saw that you got some awesome photos from our last race. Would you be interested in letting us use some of your photos in an album on our Facebook page?

http://www.facebook.com/thecolorrun

We'll link back to your work in the album. Our other photographs have gotton some good exposure from this. So let us know if you'd be interested. Thanks!

The Color Run

We make the happiest 5k's on the planet, donate paint, and have a hack of a lot of fun. Page: 596,940 like this ..
--

The Color Run Sues College Photographer

Re:Scott Winn said on Facebook ..

[ottothecow]

Ah yes, the old "you'll get good exposure" argument for companies not having to pay photographers for their work.

Re:Scott Winn said on Facebook ..

[fibonacci8]

http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2....

BS all around

[Charliemopps]

Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.

If it's in public, where anyone could have viewed it should they have been there, there shouldn't be a copyright concern. It should automatically be public domain. I'm looking at you Olympic committee.

Re:BS all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, not only is a photograph of a public event copyrightable, it is automatically copyrighten.

Knowing where to point, what equipment to use, and when to click is an art. It is protected. It shouldn't be public domain for 25 years (I'm looking at you, Disney).

Re:BS all around

[__aagmrb7289]

I have no problem saying that public events can't claim that photos taken at the event are owned by the event sponsor, organizer, etc. HOWEVER, to say that the photographer has no rights to the photo they took is a bit crazy. I'm guessing that you have no idea how difficult it can be to actually TAKE a good photograph. I could be wrong, but seriously, if you had one hundred people take a photograph of the same thing, and one, good, professional photographer take the same shot, I guarantee the difference between those one hundred amateur photos and the one professional photo would be obvious and non-trivial.

Re:BS all around

[jratcliffe]

If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself.

Photographs of a public event are absolutely copyrightable. If you doubt this, try using photos from a newspaper without permission. Fundamentally, the photographer holds the copyright on the picture.

Re:BS all around

[Anonymous Coward]

7 years.

Re:BS all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.

It may be stupid, but it's the law. I *can* prevent you from using pictures I take with you in them, and you *can* also prevent me from using the same pictures.

Re:BS all around

[Lumpy]

" I *can* prevent you from using pictures I take with you in them, and you *can* also prevent me from using the same pictures."

Not in all instances you can't. I can take photos of you in public and sell them as art or to news publications and you cant do anything about it.
Now use your photo to promote a product service or event? That can be stopped but only because it is covered under a law about misrepresentation, not copyright.

As a photographer I own the copyright of any photo I take, even under contract, because I make sure that is still in there unless they pay my fee for purchasing the copyright.. and that is REALLY expensive.

Re:BS all around

[dbIII]

I could be wrong, but seriously, if you had one hundred people take a photograph of the same thing, and one, good, professional photographer take the same shot

I had a really good wake up call with that. On a misty morning on a rainforest covered mountaintop I met a professional photographer. My shots were all just a tiny bit underexposed and were mere travel snaps when it came down to it. The professional photographer used shots taken that day in his calendars for the next decade (one or two each time) and paid off a couple of houses with those calendars. It was the difference between "that's sort of nice" and the photo hanging on thousands of walls with people wishing that they had been there.
His camera gear was not much better because he was limited in how much he could carry up there. Instead he could see what how to compose a good image far better than I could with spectacular results, and that takes experience.

Which way does the wind blow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am bound to get confused on this, so I just need to clarify before posting. Is this one of the threads where we are pro-copyright or are we still anti-copyright and IP?

Re:Which way does the wind blow?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you're lost and confused, just ask yourself What would St. Snowden do?.

Might = right?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot of discussing about who is right in legal / moral senses.

In the current legal system, might in terms of legal firepower can make a lot of "right". Loser rarely pays court costs. Court / legal fees are high. Cases drag on (and can be appealed) for an even longer time.

Having seen a few cases with someone in the let's call it simple right (nothing even as complicated as this), you STILL must evaluate - is it worth persuing. Right doesn't always matter.

For example - selling a book on ebay, getting a takedown notice saying book sale violates an agreement not to resell a book. That's well settled case law, but worth / possible to fight? No. Then getting a bill for costs of investigation into the "piracy" of the book (legally purchased). Again, do you just pay the $200 even though it's totally baseless, or do you go up against the major trade organization and law firm that wrote you the letter? Do you go against ebay through arbitration? Again, no and no, it's a totally no win situation, "right" does not matter unless you want to take a costly principled stand (few folks working to make ends meet do in reality).

Basically, with enough money and lawyers, you may be able to change the law just by you ability to "enforce" your version of it.

So less discussion of what the law says, and more on how you get funding / money to fight this, or how to give in as quickly as possible :)

Where the photographer erred...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd have registered his copyrights, he'd have a cut and dried case against everyone who used them. Handshake? Sorry, no signature, no deal. Pay up.

But you have to register before you can sue,

Color Run owner contact info and photographer's Go

[Anonymous Coward]

Color Run founder and owner -
travis@thecolorrun.com
https://www.facebook.com/travislsnyder

support photographer here

http://www.gofundme.com/thecolorrunsuedme

What terms and conditions?

[DTentilhao]

@King_TJ: "I was just trying to wrap my head around how this college student could have gotten himself into this predicament. My first suspicion was he didn't read the terms and conditions carefully enough when he was asked for permission to share some of his photos."

Winn contacted Jackson and was asked if the Color Run web site could use some of his (Jacksons) images on the Color Run website. Jackson was given an undertaking that Winn would receive full credit for his own images on the the Color Run web site: eg and quoting: " We'll link back to your work in the album ". This Winn failed to do. Not only that, Jacksons images also started to appear on flyers and on other sites such as U.S. News, Baltimore Sun Times, and Coca-Cola. When Jackson contacted the company seeking compensation, the Color Run promptly sued him in a court of law.

Re:What terms and conditions?

[rnturn]

Yeah... I think a lot of people are overlooking that exchange in the email where CR would provide attribution of his photos, etc. Having failed to do that, they (CR) may not be in violation of Jackson's copyright but it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that there's still a clear contractual violation in the way CR chose to use his photos.

I think Color Run needs to admit they screwed up and, at the very least, pull all of their marketing materials and replace them with versions that provide the byline that Jackson was asking for. Failure to do that just makes CR look really, really dickish. And as a runner, I'd never toe up to any starting line that they had anything to do with.

bleh another IP spat

[epyT-R]

Maybe intellectual property is an unenforceable farce, even with a total-information-awareness police state backing it. Markets lacking natural scarcity arent markets at all. They are actually privileges granted by the state that encourage all kinds of petty bickering and teenage-like territorial pissings. Lawyers, and the top 1 percent rich enough to afford them, are the only ones who benefit. To the rest of us, lP throws up minefields that block potential paths of innovation.

I feel sorry for him, but if Jackson intended to profit from his images, he shouldn't have made them available until after he was paid.

the end users can just say we got them from vendor

[Joe_Dragon]

the end users can just say we got them from the vendor and it's not our job to check copyrights it's there job and that will be a 20K fee for our legal time.

Jacksonville

[jimshatt]

Jacksonville (FL) hosts a run tomorrow. Ironic! Any chance of getting this boycotted?

Re:the end users can just say we got them from ven

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally, that's not correct (but of course IANAL), Copyright law requires that you have a valid license. Licensing from someone who can't give you a valid license may be enough to prove that you didn't knowingly violate copyright, so punitive damages are off the table, but that's all. They all still have to pay for an actual license. Then they can sue the provider of the invalid license to cover their damages. Or, if you want a much saner arrangement, the scumbags who handed out licenses that they were not entitled to could pay for a license which allows them to sublicense the pictures. (Don't let them off cheaply: These are the most expensive licenses, especially for world-wide distribution, use in marketing, multiple media and big prints. Retroactive licensing usually triples the price. It's easy to see why they would rather spend $500.000 on lawyers instead.)

Re:Unfortunately, this is how tort-based judiciari

[tompaulco]

When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.

And when there IS oversight by the government, this is also what happens, only you get taxed for the privilege.

They Didn't Even Humor Him with an Insulting Offer

[Koreantoast]

What makes this particular case even crazier is that they didn't bother to humor him with the sort of token, small dollar amount that most, more established companies will offer when this sort of thing arises (and in this case, the photographer might have actually accepted). Nope, they went straight for the lawsuit.

Ugh "color run"

[Lumpy]

to a photographer these are gear destroyers. that crap gets inside the lenses and everywhere else.

And if the kid did not give them a written RELEASE spelling it out carefully, he deserves what he gets. As a photographer I will do a release for gratis for events, it requires them to sign the release that spells out exactly what hey can do and that they must give me full credit as well as links to my website, and it says that any use outside what was spelled out is a violation of the release.

They must sign it, then they get CROPPED or lower resolution photos, you never EVER give the full resolution raw files.

Re:Ugh "color run"

[ZosX]

People starting out don't see their own self value and will do anything for exposure because they think exposure will bring them work. Its a hard lesson to learn that you don't just give away work for free.

Re:Ugh "color run"

[6502_C64]

Here is an opinion piece from the owner of lensrentals.com why, going forward Color Runs are no longer covered by damage waivers. http://www.lensrentals.com/blo...

Morley

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually many directors and producers shy away from product placing since the advertiser wants to influence the movie when you do this. The product needs to be visible in a certain way, they even want changes to the plot to shed a positive light on a product.

This is why many directors and producers use Hollywood brand names and trademarks, such as Morley Cigarettes.

But some movies do indeed do product placement for some extra cash injections.

Re:Morley

[Anonymous Coward]

The first that comes to mind is Iron Man 3, so much placement

-ODDWare

Re:No Compensation Needed

[ScentCone]

Don't be an idiot. This isn't about Facebook using his photos, it's about a third party using them. Nothing about allowing Facebook to exhibit your photos grants a license to some OTHER party for commercial use.

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[Howitzer86]

Be careful what you send to that email address. He might sue you.

Trust no one ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple

Re:Trust no one ever.

[jones_supa]

That would lead to a miserable and stressful life.

Sue someone for comitting a crime? Are you NUTS?

[davecb]

Hey guys, if someone defrauds you, you go to the cops. You may want to have a good lawyer beside you, to help reassure them it isn't just you being an asshole, but fraud is one of those breaches of "the king's peace" that police were created to deal with.

Re:Trademark powers? -- NO.

[localroger]

This is all actually fairly straightforward if a little weird under boilerplate copyright law. First, lacking model releases of his own, Jackson cannot use the photos for commercial purposes. He could use them as part of a portfolio but as soon as he puts one on a billboard or in an ad, he needs permission from the individuals who are identifiable in the image, which he doesn't have. Second, in the absence of a contract Jackson owns the images, full stop. Nobody can put them on a billboard without his permission. He gave permission to put them on Facebook, but the going rate for use on billboards and in ads is much higher. $100K is not unreasonable for the level of use that has been demonstrated. Third, Color Run almost certainly has a model release embedded in the paperwork the runners sign to enter the race, so they have the right on that count to use the pictures. They would be OK if they compensated Jackson, but they are not OK if they do not compensate Jackson. This is the ONLY way it is OK to put those pictures on billboards -- Jackson has to give permission to do so, for which he deserves much more compensation than he would get for use on Facebook, and Color Run has to do the publishing because they have the model releases. The Color Run people are way out of line here and probably indulging in a snit because their authoritah was disrespected. But they are very clearly in the wrong. As for trademark, that's completely irrelevant, since Jackson has no right to publish the pictures commercially without the model releases that Color Run has. However, Jackson DOES have certain Fair Use rights, such as releasing a few examples in the course of presenting his side of this story, as long as there is no danger of the images being misinterpreted as a commercial representation by Color Run themselves and as long as they serve certain alternate purposes, for which "news" qualifies.

Lack of empathy

[dbIII]

So if sometime takes your work and claims it for their own, and you complain about it, does that make you someone not to touch with a barge pole in your field?
What's your answer to that and why should your personal situation be treated differently to what you suggest for this young photographer?

Re:Lack of empathy

[rtb61]

If someone asks for your work (pay bloody attention) and you say yes, don't turn around a stipulate new conditions after they use in a manner you had not intended but did not stipulate or limit ie stinks of typical patent trap, just applied to copyright. So yeah, once you here of someone who behaves like that, you simply do not touch them, ever. Who knows what extortionate demands he might make in the future. When you say yes it is your responsibility to clarify, a person with half a brain with have just asked for attribution and taken the free advertising but greed won out.

Re:Lack of empathy

[dbIII]

However they broke the agreed terms of the contract. Would you complain? I would. I wouldn't do it like the person in the article because I'm not a teenager, but I wouldn't let it slide either and I doubt you would either.

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[thegarbz]

I won't support a photographer who attempts to extort a company to the tune of $100k

As usual on Slashdot you only get one side of the story, and people all over cry in sympathy. I did too until I realised this photographer is quite the arsehole, I'd have sued him too if he tried a stunt like that. I worked in the industry. His work is worth $2-3k tops. Even less because he's freelance.

Eh, before going all gung-ho...

[Ecuador]

The kid seems like a little shit to me. When he found out they were using the pictures he send an extortionist email. He wrote that his father "a cosmetic surgeon", advised him to retain a lawyer and sue in federal court. But he said, magnanimously, instead he is: "requesting compensation as follows: $100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account, additionally to be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Internationally) for the remainder of its existence, my Logo to be added in sponsors section next to Chevy on the bottom of your web pages. My name to read at the bottom of any photo's used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photogrph by Max Jackson." "if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action." This is not some poor kid here that they take away his livelihood. Yes, Color Run was in the wrong, but I can understand how they would get litigious after this!

Re:Eh, before going all gung-ho...

[__aarzwb9394]

Have you considered that he was adopting a negotiating position?
This would be seen as par for the course in business. A laudable, if aggressive, move to protect ones resources from unauthorised, uncompensated exploitation. A lot of people call it theft.
It was the Color Run (an alleged charity) that took things into a business arena from a cuddly "charity fun run" area. His work was plastered everywhere for commercial exploitation and he received nil compensation, and nil attribution. The guilty party is clear.

Re:Eh, before going all gung-ho...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Color Run was wrong, but he is being a shit."

It seems like you disagree, but you don't actually contradict anything. The company did something wrong, seemingly by accident, the kid wants crazy compensation and demands to go through the courts, then cries when the company goes through the court.

Never paid the cyclist a modeling fee

[Stan92057]

I don,t believe the photographer paid the cyclist or got her permission to be photographed and published. Hes also claiming its art lol its NOT art all he did was push the camera button the scene was not posed in anyway nothing was thought out.

Re:They Didn't Even Humor Him with an Insulting Of

[Stan92057]

The photographer never bothered to ask the Runner for permission or pay a modeling fee. Where is the model release? how much was she paid Hes seeking out 100,000 and paid nothing to the model. Hes no pro photographer and that image was not art it was just a snapshot maybe worth 0.

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[Stan92057]

Screw the photographer pay the Runners in the image they are the True victims here. they never got any money or credit in the image but were soposta feel sorry for some jackass amateur snapshot taker?

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[Anonymous Coward]

gofundme??? Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa!! Laugh all you want at the people who get suckered by a 419 scam, but this sounds like a great scam for the Slashdot sheeple (yes, the derisive term you like to throw at others equally applies to you and your narrow hive mind).

Dear Slashdot, a big bad and evil corporation is trying to squash me and my intellectual property. Send money before it is too late. If we don't take a stand now, they'll come after you too (I'm pretty sure they hate Snowden and think Manning got what he deserved, and they REFUSE to deal in bitcoin). I take PayPal and bitcoin.

Are we even sure any of this happened? If it did, I am POSITIVE it happened just the way he says. I know he wouldn't lie because I agree with his stance.

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[j-beda]

In this case, he has the strong negotiating position that statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as much as $150k per work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is not extortion when you offer to not sue someone who has clearly broken the law. Unless the CR people have a contract that gives them some rights to the images (which they do not claim to have) then the CR people are clearly on the wrong side of the current copyright legislation. Sucks to be them - I guess they shouldn't have misappropriated someone else's work for their advertising campaign.

Re:They Didn't Even Humor Him with an Insulting Of

[j-beda]

You could be correct that the runners too might be owed some compensation if they have not already signed away some rights when they registered for the run, but the photographer in this case is not the publisher, so the subjects of the photo would not have any reasonable grounds to take action against the photographer, but they might against the people using their images in the advertising campaign.

The photos maybe were only worth a few dollars before they were misappropriated, but the point of statutory damages in this type of copyright infringement is to act as a deterrent against this type of misappropriation. Statutory damages for copyright infringement can be as much as $150k per work, so the photographer's requested price could be the cheaper route for CR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Never paid the cyclist a modeling fee

[j-beda]

I don,t believe the photographer paid the cyclist or got her permission to be photographed and published. Hes also claiming its art lol its NOT art all he did was push the camera button the scene was not posed in anyway nothing was thought out.

It is not clear that the photographer ever intended for the work to be published - all the publishing was done by CR, so they would be most liable from any claim made by the subjects of the images.

In any case, you do not need to prove the value of the "art" of your photos to claim copyright protection for them. If CR did not get permission to use them in their advertising, they they are liable for copyright infringement - which can carry some pretty significant statuory damages, as much as $150k per work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[SethJohnson]

If the runners were on public property, they will have a difficult time suing over control of their image.

If they were on private property, like perhaps a strip club, then they would have a very strong position to sue the photographer.

I expect the Color Ruin will end up having to settle out of court. Probably will hand over some amount of money less than $100,000.

And a response.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a very one-sided interpretation - the company had partial rights to the photo and used it wrong, so in turn the kid refuses normal recompense, demands the world for the photos, and would only go through the courts. Leave it to Slashdot to be a strong supporter of stressing technicalities and suing over nothing and extorting money over copyrights, when it suits their purpose in some other way. From their response

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. 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, there was little option left but to defend our rights through the legal system.

re: Audi rings

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone from Audi probably made the image, but there's no way in hell they want to pay royalties on it.

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[thegarbz]

It is extortion when you initially request $100k, and when they deny you then up the ante to $300k + absurd requests that would never actually happen in any sane business relationship.

Also unless the images are individually registered with the patent and trademark office (most photographers don't do this unless the work for a media company who do it on their behalf) then he can't claim any statutory damages.

Also The Color Run apparently have evidence of him effectively working for them since he was their de-facto official photographer. If they can prove an implied workers contract than copyright actually defaults to them as a photographer must protect their copyright in any contract work.

This case has my interest. I actually think The Color Run guys are going to win this and at worst have to pay market rate for the photo (which will be dwarfed by legal expenses). Anyway the only people who will lose are the people actually participating in a Color Run when their fees go up to cover the costs.

Health concerns are valid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The colored powder is corn starch.

If you inhale corn starch, that is NOT GOOD.

People frequently get a face full of the powder and inhale some of it. NOT GOOD.

Re:If you are using "something" without permission

[TaoPhoenix]

Thank you for echoing the angle I have been concerned about for a while now!

We have almost been tricked into believing there are "different classes of copyrights"!

Not counting the cases the courts have specifically ruled on, there's no intrinsic difference between a photo and a song in the copyright sense. Flannery O'Connor had the right idea: "Everything that rises must converge".

So thanks to the Music Industry deciding that Copyrights are Big Biz, then ... a student's photos are too. Check out the key phrase from the Color Run suit:
"The lawsuit argues that Jackson "gave the Color Run an implied license" to use his pictures and that it "inadvertently" used them in print promotions."

Re:Superb Owl

[TaoPhoenix]

Oh I know this one!

This is where that young boy becomes the youngest Seeker in school history, and then later sends messages via his Superb Owl! Then later Hermione studies hard because she wants to pass her Ordinary Wizard Levels!

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> From the summary of this article, I was just trying to wrap my head around how this college student could have gotten himself into this predicament. My first suspicion was he didn't read the terms and conditions carefully enough when he was asked for permission to share some of his photos. (I figured, "Ok... maybe he just saw the part about them wanting to put them on their Facebook page and didn't notice some fine print releasing the photos for all promotional uses?")

There was no contract. I am the original submitter of this story to slashdot and I work as a photographer under very similar conditions. There is usually just a verbal agreement with the photogs that says, "I get you the media pass, you get me the pictures, we go on our merry way and never look back.". At the end of the day the photog has the upper hand, because there was no contract. Those pictures belong to the photographer all day long.

Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

For common use, you could not be found liable, but if you used the pictures in advertisements, as color run and their co-conspirators did, you could be.

DF?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like capturing a crook trying to rob you at gunpoint then shooting your wife.

Re:DF?

[ebvwfbw]

That's like capturing a crook trying to rob you at gunpoint then shooting your wife.

No it's like hiring someone to do a job, using what they did for great profit and then stiffing him. When he complains, releasing the hounds.

It's despicable and I've been that guy before. The guy the legal hounds were sicked on. Only cost me about $40,000 though. Back then you're just screwed. Believe me, there's nothing like the first time you see a letter in your mailbox from a lawyers office.

Just hope that there really is a special place in hell for these people.

Re:No Compensation Needed

[Hognoxious]

Not even the bit where it says "transferable, sub-licensable"?

Re:No Compensation Needed

[Half-pint HAL]

Color Run never claimed to have obtained a license from Facebook. That they could have is therefore irrelevant.

Free Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is anyone surprised? Go to any university and question the students and they will almost unanimously agree that the should be able to download and use stuff for free. Applications, Games, music, it's all good. Just read Slashdot and you will find that opinion is the majority.

So this guy surprised that a University, which mostly likely instills this "I deserve Free Shit" attitude is ripping him off?

Re:No Compensation Needed

[shinobiX]

Facebook can save the day by granting the color run a license for $0.99 I hope they do :)

Re:No Compensation Needed

[Hognoxious]

In that case it's up to Facebook to sue, not the photographer; he already "gave" it to FB.

Re:No Compensation Needed

[Half-pint HAL]

In that case it's up to Facebook to sue, not the photographer; he already "gave" it to FB.

Not true, he gave them a non-exclusive license. He did not ascribe the copyright to them. Facebook could have licensed it to them, but in the lack of such a license, they have absolutely no say in the matter. Where no license is in place, it is only the copyright holder who has the right to sue.

Response from Color Run ..

[DTentilhao]

"Max first came to shoot The Color Run because we granted his school class non-commercial access to come shoot the race in Miami where the photos in question were taken. After this, Max actually ended up working our events over the next year as a non-photographer and traveling and setting up with our traveling teams."

"About a year later, Max first initiated questions about the use of some of the Miami photos. 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"' ..

.. "when Max said he was planning to sue rather than continue a dialogue, there was little option left but to defend our rights through the legal system." ...

Response from Color Run

Re:Never paid the cyclist a modeling fee

[Stan92057]

Wasnt the publishing done by the photographer? He posted the image on his web site that's where CR got the image correct? Photographer may have given up his right just by attending the event. Both are buttheads IMB

Re:Color Run owner contact info and photographer's

[Stan92057]

I dont agree Time will tell, it will be an interesting court case none the less.

There is another argument to be made...

[PortHaven]

That this was clearly a "work for hire", and that the Color Run, in hiring the photographer, was clearly doing so in order to have photos they could utilize for promotional purposes (which would include Facebook).

As it is an organization, there is no point in having photos for ANY OTHER PURPOSE...than promotion & marketing. An organization doesn't spend money to have photographs for pleasure. That violates business, even non-profit businesses. Rather, to me it seems very clear that the photographer was hired for such work.

As such, the rights of those photos, should belong with the hiring agent. Otherwise, the photographer should not be paid. They should just attend the event, take their pictures and then try to sell them to Color Run.

And yes, I know some out there will exclaim, THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW WORKS. You're right, but it's damn well how it should be. And I am fully aware of how this law works thanks to Wedding Photographers. Who want to charge you thousands for the job, and hundreds for the photos. Which to me is wrong. You set a service price, you provide the service (which is includes the photos). That should be it...

Oh, and I've photographed quite a few weddings. And when I do so, I give copies of all the decent images on disc. Along with a print out granting the couple the right to re-produce.

MY BAD

[PortHaven]

NEGATE THE ABOVE.

I mis-read, and thought the Color Run had "hired" the photographer.

Fuck beta

[RyoShin]

Pushing me into Beta? Fuck you, Dice.

When Classic goes, so do I.

Lumpy how'd "eating your words" taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO @ "Chumpy" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

(You sure "talk a good game" -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... but you can't even produce a MERE SCRIPT!, windbag...)

You aren't even on the leve of a "script kiddie", & full of HOT AIR!

You certainly won't reply there in that 2nd link I posted either, as that would remove your downmods to my posts like this one you can't validly disprove or justify your downmod on -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

Oh, I suspect that IS the case here (simply logging out of a registered account & trolling by ac is a common troll trick around here OR using alternate registered 'luser' accounts sockpuppets to do the job will also, & Lumpy is LOADED with those & trolling - which doesn't matter: He PROVES he's all talk, no action (or skills, OR brains, lol))

(You're all TALK, & NO action "CHUMPY!)

* :)

(You know it, I know it, & so does anyone reading AND laughing their asses off @ you now... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Answer the question in the subject-line Lumpy - since you had to "eat your wrods" in the 1st link above flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH + the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", lol...

... apk

Lumpy how'd "eating your words" taste?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO @ "Chumpy" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

(You sure "talk a good game" -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... but you can't even produce a MERE SCRIPT!, windbag...)

You aren't even on the leve of a "script kiddie", & full of HOT AIR!

You certainly won't reply there in that 2nd link I posted either, as that would remove your downmods to my posts like this one you can't validly disprove or justify your downmod on -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

Oh, I suspect that IS the case here (simply logging out of a registered account & trolling by ac is a common troll trick around here OR using alternate registered 'luser' accounts sockpuppets to do the job will also, & Lumpy is LOADED with those & trolling - which doesn't matter: He PROVES he's all talk, no action (or skills, OR brains, lol))

(You're all TALK, & NO action "CHUMPY!)

* :)

(You know it, I know it, & so does anyone reading AND laughing their asses off @ you now... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Answer the question in the subject-line Lumpy - since you had to "eat your wrods" in the 1st link above flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH + the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", lol...

... apk