Slashdot Mirror
'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."
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.
... 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.
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.
"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.
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.
Suddenly people start being very good at attribution.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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.
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?
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.
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
..
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
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.
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).
Color Run founder and owner -
travis@thecolorrun.com
https://www.facebook.com/travislsnyder
support photographer here
http://www.gofundme.com/thecolorrunsuedme
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.
@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
" 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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Be careful what you send to that email address. He might sue you.
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.
davecb@spamcop.net
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.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
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?
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.
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.
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!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
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.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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/...
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/...
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.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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.
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."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
That would lead to a miserable and stressful life.
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!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Not even the bit where it says "transferable, sub-licensable"?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Color Run never claimed to have obtained a license from Facebook. That they could have is therefore irrelevant.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
Facebook can save the day by granting the color run a license for $0.99 I hope they do :)
In that case it's up to Facebook to sue, not the photographer; he already "gave" it to FB.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
"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."
..
.. "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." ...
"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"'
Response from Color Run
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.
NEGATE THE ABOVE.
I mis-read, and thought the Color Run had "hired" the photographer.
Pushing me into Beta? Fuck you, Dice.
When Classic goes, so do I.