Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: hosehead

Hey Alex, how are you going to go about getting a signed release from Jesus?

H2H, How do you like the "Dark Side"?

Alex - Obviousely we disagree on the interpretation of copyright laws with regard to photography. I have researched this very subject and have consulted a lawyer with regards to it (albiet nearly 10 years ago) which is were I formed my opinion or understanding of it. If that kind of "ignorance" pisses you off perhaps you should find something else to read. Or maybe just take an anger management class.

There is no distinction in copyright law for selling your work to a magazine for publication or a company for use in there advertising. For that matter there is no distiction on what type of sale or re-sale is performed with photographs, simply the right of the creator of said photograph. For a photograph to be considered original and protected by copyright it needs to have elements of original composition. As and example: If you take a picture of the Mona Lisa, it is not protected as original work. If you take a picture of the Mona Lisa with people standing in front of and looking at it, you then have a different and original composition and a right to copyright the image.

Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph. An example of a permitted use would be a photograph of the Rockefeller Center Ice Rink that was used to illustrate a book about Rockefeller Center or about New York City attractions, even though many people may be identifiable.

There is no general legal requirement to obtain someone’s authorization to take his or her photograph. However, there are situations where photography can infringe on important social interests such as national security, protection of children, right of privacy, etc. Most of these situations are strictly controlled by national laws and regulations. Irrespective of the legalities, there are also some things a photographer should not photograph for ethical reasons. Certain photographs of people may amount to exploiting the persons concerned or misrepresenting the truth. If you, as a photographer, know the law and one’s legal rights, you will also be in a better position to find solutions that minimize your legal risks. The are also laws in each state regarding photography of people, especially with minor children.

Although property does not enjoy a right to privacy or publicity that there are other bodies of the law that might prohibit or restrict the unauthorized use of a photograph containing property. These bodies of law may include among others contract, trademark, unfair competition, copyright and trespass law.

The guiding principle, that of course is muddled with exceptions, is that as long as a photograph of private property is taken while the photographer is on public property or on property that is open to the public then it is permissible to publish that photograph without permission from the owner of the property.

Unlike copyright law, trademark law as such does not restrict the use of a trademark in a photograph. What trademark law does forbid is using a trademark in a way that can cause confusion regarding the affiliation of the trademark owner to the image. If consumers are likely to mistakenly believe that a photograph was sponsored by the trademark owner, then there may be trademark infringement.

This does not mean that a person/company can not attempt to find or hold you lible for copyright infringement. There are many forms of infringement with regards to copyright laws and infringement. In the case of McCool Junction which started this portion of this discussion they have significantly more rights than say Knoxville Raceway. McCool Junction is I believe on private property and Knoxville is on Public Property.

Like I said, if you were required to obtain a release for all elements of a photograph in order to publically sell the photograph, there would be no photos anywhere. There have been lawsuits with regard to trademark infringement and photographs and the results can be found by searching the internet. Most often these cases do not make it to court or are dismissed under fair use acts of the United States copyright law as found in Title 17.

Sorry if your opinion differs from mine.

All that being said, less than 5% of my sales are to Joe Public.

I'm not pissed off by the way... Just a figure of speach, I rarely get mad...

Anyways, obtaining a release from Jesus is on my list of things to do eventually... lol

I sold a lot of licenses to photos to be used in this national commercial:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fOysP4pyh2Q

Why did I have to provide a signed releases, contact information, and address of said drivers apearing in each of the photos? Why were all recognizable logos removed from each photo?

Dirt track racing in regards to photography is light years behind the curve. The reason you see photos of cars x y z in form of racing 1 2 3 in advertisments a b c is because those sanctioning bodies have written in their contracts with teh drivers and teams that by competing in these series all recognizable trademarks are released. However, the photographer still needs permission from the sanctioning body then to sell photos...

You refer to copyright of original artwork ie (you cant take a photo of the Mona Lisa and copyright the Mona Lisa) this is true, but it goes against your explanation of the law. All of those logos on the car, is art work, owned by that respective company. You're reproducing that artwork in your photos. Why back in the day you'd get those baseball/football/basketball cards in boxes of cereal and all the teams had their logos edited off the jerseys... Why do you have to get permission from the MLB/NFL/NBA/NASCAR player associations in order to produce artwork or anything with players in it? Why do these agencies exist?

Pretend Photographer...
www.figzphoto.com

This is the main reason for wanting to control who you let in the DANGER zone, for free to take photos and sell them and the track gets nothing.Also if that person gets hurts, it could cost the track owner MILLIONS of dollars if this person of no value gets hurt. And if anyone is going to Knoxville,I hope you filled out the large application to get in this year, most freelance photogs won't be there.

NO, what this means is you need a purpose to get in the DANGER zone. Not there to take photos of your BUDDY. If you are doing photos for a Newspaper or trade paper or magazine,you are giving the RED CARPET treatment.

Regarding the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is a work of art. Taking a photo of it by itself and selling copies is infringement on the copyright because it is art.

Logos used by companies are trademarks. You can call them art but the U.S. copyright office does not see it that way. As trademarks they fall in an entirely different catagory.

And yes, I have sold reproductive license of photographs (that included reconizable persons and logos) to national media outlets and have never provided a single signed release.

Alex - I am glad you are not pissed. I would hate to think I pissed someone off with my opinion. Suffice it to say that we differ on interpretation of the copyright law. We could argue our opinions all day but we are probably both too old to change our minds on it. So I will just let it go at that.

By the way, I do agree with allowing only those who have a purpose in the "danger zone" to shoot photos. I hold media credentials from two sanctioning bodies and a couple of print publications as well as being a member of the Motorsports Press Association. That being said, what media credentials are considered to be purposeful to the sport of sprint car racing or beneficial to the track? Should the local newspaper sports editor have access? What about someone shooting for an article in a non-racing magazine? Associated Press? I ask because I don't think those folks should be there but yet receive media credentials at some of the biggest events. Most often they have not been to any kind of race and have no understanding of the situations or danger that they may be involved in.

My personal opinion is anyone wanting to shoot motorsports photography should be mentored by someone with experience (in dirt motorsports photography) first. This includes being sponsored into an event by that person. It would not be the only profession to do it. My only fear about doing it this way is who gets to decide who the "experienced professionals" are.

After all then you would have people like Nelligan mentoring folks and who wants that?

Just kidding Mike!

H2H; LOVES THE DARK SIDE ! !

Brian 

"TURN AROUND; MATE !"

The whole copyright thing is as much a scare tactic as it is anything else. I sold thousands and thousands of NASCAR photos in very public places like the Knoxville Nationals, Chili Bowl and auto trade shows for over a decade and never had a single person say a word to me, I certainly wasn't hiding either. Heck, I sold photos to a minor league hockey team who then sold them to the public when they brought in NASCAR drivers to their games, easiest money I ever made.

The only man that tried to give me a tough time was Ted Johnson and when I pointed out that more than half of his regulars had MY Decal on their cars and it was bigger than his, that faded away quickly. He was trying to stop me from selling at his shows, like a photo is the same thing as a T-Shirt, huh? He did manage to hurt me for a while by inventing a rule that said you had to be a 'weekly vendor' at the track they appeared at or you weren't allowed to sell there. Ted must of thought I had quite a few twin brothers as track photogs around the country because I still set-up and sold in many, many places. Chico, CA; Lake Odessa, MI; Terre Haute, IN; Beaver Dam, WI are a few of the places I continued to do a nice business at.

As a photographer it is important to promote the places you go as much as you can, especially with the racefan, he's number 1 to each and every promoter, or should be. Contribute to their program with your work, make sure they get Victory Lane shots (especially if they are in them, lol) and give them your feedback on the show and share any thoughts you have picked up from past experiences in your travels. Promoters like to hear how other tracks operate and from a neutral source like you the photog is a good place for this info. Take care of those that take care of you, it will come back tenfold, Take It Easy....

PS John my old friend, I have sold virtually every piece of equipment I ever had save for some Norman stuff I have around which I will someday get to Nebraska to another friend. I also sold 99.999 of all negs I ever shot and have about a dozen left in Toledo, OH. The only time I regret this move is at the horse races where I spend a lot of time these days.....

Yeah we can piss and moan about it all we want... When it comes to dirt track stuff nobody cares... period... my other work, ill play it safe and do as my lawyer advices...

I like the idea of having someone mentor them, in the end I think it would fail, because shitty photographer A teaches n00b photographer B, once all is said and done, we have 2 shitty photographers...

Pretend Photographer...
www.figzphoto.com

Actually, many of us should be thanking Mike for paving the road in more ways than one for us. And although it wasn't my first published photo, it was because of Mike that I had my first photo published in Sprint Car and Midget over 10 years ago.

I do agree, treat the promoter/track right and they will treat you right.  For those that don't it is just easier to not go back.  They can continue to rely on back gate pit fees instead of the potential folks in the stand your media can provide.

Every track I go to I try to bring a 1/2 dozen or more photos for the announcer to give away to fans during down times or intermission. 

Mike - email me about that Norman stuff if your looking for a home for it.

John, it already has a home, it was back up stuff for what I sold to IBRACN last year. I will get it to him some time this summer. Heck, a letter sent in a hurry to the US costs about $15 you can imagine what the Norman parts would cost.

Doing things for a promoter comes back many times more your way and establishing relationships with any track heirarchy is not only rewarding in a business sense but most of these folks are top shelf and great people to know. Take It Easy.....

If you have been around Dirt Racing for over 35 years you will know who helps and who uses. And you can never contribute enough. Its just like the big races, NASCAR-NHRA-IRL and many more, if you sell those photos on your web site, You won't be going back with photo credintials ever again.

I don't know about that. It has been several years since I had them on there but I used to sell all three on my site. And with the exception of one track ( and I have gone back there as a credentialed photog ) asking that I remove the paypal buttons I never had a complaint. When I first started I was asked by NASCAR if I would like to be officially licensed and use the NASCAR trademark. When I told them my volume they told me nevermind it would not be worth it. Grant you this was in 1996 and a lot has changed since then but they were on my site up until 2003.

Sorry, I have not been around 35 years though which only makes me a rank amatuer. I have been around motorsports my entire life even racing a bit at the end of high school. I have only been doing the photography thing since 1995 and did not have a business license until 1998. As for what I contribute, I have a section of my subscription section to my site with photos large enough to print to 5x7. Every track I visit has free access to the nearly 50,000 photos in there. The same goes for most PR reps for drivers, sanctioning bodies, publications, a couple of graphics designers and one kick ass t-shirt designer. I also usually send a disc of everything I shoot to the track, although I have been chastised by other 'veteran' photographers for doing this.

And that is a good reason why there is a lack of good dirt track photography... most people are giving shit away...

Most photographers skip over dirt track racing becasue everyone wants everything for free... You should watch the video about the writer again, and again, and again.... I'm not trying to be an asshole really and I appologize if it comes off that way... 50,000 photos... at $1.00 a piece = $50,000. 50,000 photos at $0.00 = $0... No thank you!

Pretend Photographer...
www.figzphoto.com

I don't think your being an asshole about it. I feel giving back to the promoters/tracks and Publications that help me is the least I can do. Call it contributing to the sport or free shit. And your right, everyone does want everything for free. They use these photos for their programs or websites. The graphics guys use them on their websites and the t-shirt guy. Well he is just a really good friend who I would give the shirt off my back to if he needed it. In most cases those same people generate income for me through referals. In many cases the link back to my site provides me with a paying customer that not only buys a photo or two but continues to come back and tells their friends. Most all of them are assciated in some way with a race team. Some of those folks visit my advertisers and purchase things from them keeping the advertisers happy. In the end those free subscriptions generate more income than the membership would.

Right now there are 41 free memberships and 87 paid memberships. So far I have only had PR person abuse it. I talked to them about it and they have stopped. Perhaps there are others that I have not caught yet but I doubt it.

In previous posts you complain about those that do nothing to help the sport or give back. Your last post did seem to be contrary to that. Maybe I am just a little thick.

Actually, I went back and read everything I wrote. I never once said anything about people should be giving back to the sport. I've only knowingly given something away one time and that was to the National Sprint Car Hall of Fame and Museum for their Salute to Shooters exhibit.

So no, I didn't say anything contradicting my stance, you must be a little thick...

So what you're saying is, you like to do a lot of work for people for free, so they can definately make money off of you, and in return you get the possibility that someone will buy something from you?

A

Pretend Photographer...
www.figzphoto.com

I went back and looked and it is possible I had a few or photomans posts confused with yours. Maybe you are one of those that do not beleive in giving back to the sport. More power to you. We are getting to a point though were if you don't help out the promoter or track you won't be getting your credentials renewed. I am not saying you personally but in general.

It is not just a possibility that I sell photos from the "free stuff" it is a reality. And yes promoters make money off my images when they use them in their programs. Each of the PR guys that use my photos on their sites send business my way as well. Do they make money off the "free stuff" I give them? Not directly. Do I make money off the teams they represent. YES! In fact that is where a good 80% of my income comes from. The teams. They buy a lot of photos from me and keep me in business. Nothing wrong with helping them out with photos for their site. Helping the promoters who allow you access to their tracks at no cost is also something I don't have a problem with. Especially when that tracks is kind enough to advertise my name in their programs everytime they use one of my photos sending yet another person to my website increasing traffic.........

In the end it is not giving away as much as I am looking for a return. There are a couple of folks I won't provide photos to for their websites because when presented with photos to purchase they have made it clear they will never purchase photos.