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."
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.
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.
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
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.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
"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.
Same with London Olympics. A new law was made for this purpose, the 'London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006'.
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!
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
America really needs a new tag-line: Lawyers for the Rich; Injustice for the Poor.
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.
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.
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:[.]
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."
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."