What if I wanted to sell my images ??

[Tim Dunlop]

Hi there,

I hope my second post manages to get more replies than my first (0 so far)

I have been taking images at some of the UK's top circuits for approx 18 months, and have recently been approached by a few people who would like to buy prints from me.

My question to this forum is where do I stand legally with regard to the sale of my images. Do I have to ask permission from the circuit, from the maker/owner of the car, from the driver or from the sponsors?
If so what are other members past experiences in relation to selling there images ?

I am not wishing to take trade away from the professional photographers, just looking to make a bit of pin money with a view to upgrading my camera equipment.

Please reply with your advice.

Regards

Tim

[F1Nut]

Hi Tim,

The photographer is always the copyright owner, so you can do what you like with it.

Just use you own judgement, as long as you don't show any company in a bad light, you will have no problem.

I have sold a number of images with no problems.

Regards, Steve.

[Ian Sowman]

F1Nut, I am not sure that is the best or most accurate advice.

Tim - I would say that the whole area is a bit of a minefield. If you haven't already done so, use the 'search forum' facility and search on "sell images". You will find enough material there to keep you going for a while, and probably utterly confuse you.

To avoid any potential pitfalls my advice would probably be to contact the circuit before selling any images from that venue.

[F1Nut]

F1Nut, I am not sure that is the best or most accurate advice.

Please read this info:

What is copyright?

Copyright is just what it sounds like - it's the right to copy. As with any commodity it can be bought, sold, given away or denied.

The basic rules are very simple. Copyright exists at the instant of creation in any written work, drawing, music or photograph. In essence, in any creative act. It's an automatic right.

That doodle you make on the back of an envelope, the tune you make up to whistle in the bath, even the words you speak on the phone. They're all YOUR copyright.

It is not possible to officially register copyright in the UK, nor is there any need to record, report or advise that copyright exists. However, many people have their work sealed and dated by a notary public or solicitor, or lodge it with their bank, in order to prove creation, ownership and possession prior to a specific date.

In the case of a photograph things are fortunately a lot simpler. The general rule is that the owner of the negative owns the copyright in the image. As a simple example, if someone uses one of our photos without permission we can prove ownership of the copyright by producing the negative on request.

Like the vast majority of photographers in the world we sell our clients copyright licences to USE our images for specific purposes. We do not sell title or ownership of the images.

Use of the © symbol

You'll have noticed that every page on our website has a Copyright notice on it. We include the international © symbol as well. None of this is actually required in law, though of course it helps in any arguments that arise later and is strongly recommended. It's well nigh impossible for someone to claim they didn't know our images are copyright.

Be aware that everything you see on any website is copyrighted to someone, somewhere and that using the images or text without authority might well lead you to problems.

When you next look for an image on an internet search engine take heed of the words printed at the top of every page. Usually something like:

"These images may be subject to copyright"

In this case it's a good plan to read "may be" as "are".

All of the prints we sell and display are labelled clearly with copyright information. The photo paper our images are printed on is indelibly marked with a warning not to copy the image as well as having our own copyright details added. This is standard commercial practice.

Do I have to ask permission from the circuit

I think they should ask you

Like I said Just use you own judgement, as long as you don't show any company in a bad light, you will have no problem.

Regards, Steve.

[redshoes]

Don't confuse "Copyright" with "Commercial Rights". You might hold the copyright to the image but that doesn't mean you have the right to use that image for commercial gain, i.e. to sell prints. If you read the terms and conditions on the back of a race ticket or in the programme it specifically states that one of the conditions of entry are that any photography is for personal use only. You are on private property so the circuit owner are well within their rights to say that.

If you're taking about things like F1 then there's even more legal complications. The commercial rights belong to the FIA and/or the team so they can and will take legal action against unauthorised use. Even media photographers are subject to more restrictions at big FIA events.

That said there are a lot of people who do sell prints and in general the circuits will turn a blind eye. The hassle of taking legal action usually outways the finance damage incured.

[Hubble]

F1nut, you need to be aware of the other issues as raised in this thread. You may own the copyright to an image, but unless the circuit licences you to sell that image, you are stuffed. Don't advise others to do what you are not certain you can do yourself.

[thebear]

Club events shoud pose no problems unless the circuit has specific disclainers/restriction on the tickets sold to the public.

Casual sale several months after an event should pose no problem in any event as long as you are not trying to restrict or forbid the usage of the image. In other words take the money (in cash) and run. Just double what it costs to make the print (more or less) and you can claim that you were merely covering your expenses. You are not a PRO, you have a regular job and no agents, accreditation or studio.

[Ian Sowman]

Of course, if you do sell images taken at race circuits it would be inadvisable to say on an internet forum that that is what you are doing

[redshoes]

Originally Posted by thebear

Club events shoud pose no problems unless the circuit has specific disclainers/restriction on the tickets sold to the public.

Every race meeting in this country, club or otherwise, does include that restriction, either on the ticket or in the programme.

Casual sale several months after an event should pose no problem in any event as long as you are not trying to restrict or forbid the usage of the image. ... You are not a PRO, you have a regular job and no agents, accreditation or studio.

Pro or not makes no difference. The disclaimer you sign for media accreditation states that images are for editorial use only. Casual sales like that do happen but don't assume that they are automatically 'ok'.

Think of it like speeding on the motorway. Lots of people do it and get away with it, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

[Piglet]

Yup - you guys who say that there is no problem need a better understanding of the many laws that apply to this area (copyright AND commercial rights) along with an understanding of the restrictions on either a normal entrance ticket or a media pass.

I can't be arsed to write it out again - use the search function - it's been discussed in detail many many times.

[thebear]

Originally Posted by redshoes

The disclaimer you sign for media accreditation states that images are for editorial use only. Casual sales like that do happen but don't assume that they are automatically 'ok'.

Tim Dunlop would appear to be an amateur `snapper' who has no accreditation and has not signed the disclaimer.

[Ian Sowman]

And therefore he is covered by what it says on the back of his ticket or in the programme...

[thebear]

Columbus took a chance and he's famous. They even named a city in Ohio after him.

[Tim Dunlop]

Yes I am an amateur snapper, my images are no where near the superb quality of the professional guys, but I still take great pride in my work.

It makes me really happy when someone asks to buy a print of one of my images, but I want to do things right in case of problems in the future.

I have read the back of one of my Silverstone tickets and it reads as follows: -

"As a condition of entry to the event you assign (by way of present assignment of future copyright) the copyright in any photographs or recordings you make at the Event to Silverstone and agree that any photographs or recordings shall not be used for any form of public advertisement or display or for any other purposes (except for the private enjoyment of the person making the film) without prior consent"

Does this make things clearer or not ????

Regards

Tim

[Piglet]

Yep - it says you give them the copyright of every photograph that you take at the event. You can only use the photographs for your own private enjoyment.

So you don't even own the copyright of the pics let alone the commercial rights relating to the "thing" that you shot.

Now, chances are you'll get away with it - but it's your choice.

the bear - As for Colombus - tell that story to the bloke the ACO made pulp an entire book run because he didn't have consent to use photo's taken at Le Mans. I'm sure he thought it was worth a punt...

This is the legal position and that's what Tim Dunlop asked for. Whether it's worth a punt or not is up to the individual.

I know of a number of people who have been contacted after offering pics for sale on their web sites and "requested" to remove them.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Yup - you guys who say that there is no problem need a better understanding of the many laws that apply to this area (copyright AND commercial rights) along with an understanding of the restrictions on either a normal entrance ticket or a media pass.

I can't be arsed to write it out again - use the search function - it's been discussed in detail many many times.

Piglet is correct plus most circuits now ask us media types to sign a declaration to say we will not sell images other than media without their express written consent and a suitable fee! At club meetings in UK (except for Mallory Park which has an exclusive deal with one company) nobody bothers much, I did hear a story of somebody at Snetterton being asked to pay when they were touting images around the paddock one day.

At most national or international meetings the owner of the commercial rights retains photographers who have the right to use the images commercially. For example Suttons for F1, DPPI for FIA/GT and these companies take a very dime view of anybody selling “unlicensed” images or publications. A few years back somebody produced an unofficial Le Mans book without getting authorization from the ACO they were forced after they had printer several thousand copies of the book to withdraw the book and burn all copies of it.

Another point and I haven’t checked recently copyright of a photograph covers a chemical process to produce an artistic work (i.e. film, positive or negative) not digital, which is considered from a copyright prospective as a computer programme…And just because you have a negative of an image doesn’t prove you own the copyright they have to be registered.

And yes this has been discussed many times on this and other forums.

[mark_l]

Copyright is deemed to exist when the image is created.

Trademarks have to be registered

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by mark_l

Copyright is deemed to exist when the image is created.

Trademarks have to be registered

And??!!

[C.U.Motorsport]

I am completely new to this and as such, I will not be selling my images, however if i get an awesome picture of a car crashing, or blowing up or whatever and I believe that a newspaper/mag or the car owner would benefit from publicising or owning the picture, i guess i would have to ask the car/team owner and the track management yes?

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by C.U.Motorsport

I am completely new to this and as such, I will not be selling my images, however if i get an awesome picture of a car crashing, or blowing up or whatever and I believe that a newspaper/mag or the car owner would benefit from publicising or owning the picture, i guess i would have to ask the car/team owner and the track management yes?

Use the search function and pull up the previous threads. It's complicated and to be honest I'll lose the will to live if I have to go through it all again!

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Use the search function and pull up the previous threads. It's complicated and to be honest I'll lose the will to live if I have to go through it all again!

Nurse!!! Quickly!!! VF in Art and Photography.......we're losing him......

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Hubble

Nurse!!! Quickly!!! VF in Art and Photography.......we're losing him......

her...

[JimW]

Originally Posted by Piglet

And??!!

And therefore when you create a photograph (and I believe this applies in exactly the same way to film or digital, certainly in the UK) you automatically own the copyright. Unless, of course, you have chosen to sell or give it away. (As the wording quoted above from the back of a ticket purports to do.) (Unfair contract term anyone?)

You don't have to 'register' copyright, you don't have to put © JimW on it or assert it in any other way. You might chose to, but don't have to. Copyright is (in these limited circumstances) created when the work is created.


Regards


Jim


(PS Caution. The above is a five line summary (on my screen anyway ) of a limited part of a hideously complex subject. If it's going to mean ££££s to you, go find an expert and/or a lawyer and get their opinion. I'm available at my usual consultancy rates. )

[Piglet]

Ah Ok, perhaps I get what Mark was getting at - I didn't see the relevance of trade marks to this discussion though but anyway......

Jim you make some good points (as always):

"unfair contract terms" - we had this discussion at home yesterday (we live exciting lives!) I think you'd lose the argument on this one once you sell a photograph as you are only protected by the UCT as a private individual and I think a court would consider that once you'd sold a photograph you had acted in a business capacity and and therefore didn't have the protection of the act.

But yes, copyright exists without any need to assert it (which is what I think F1Nut said), I've just double checked the CDPA and I think that it does include a digital image - I'd seen a previous definition that defined a "photograph" as requiring a chemical process but it doesn't seem to be in that Act.

The issue with Motorsport (and other sports and events) is ownership of commercial rights and it is as Jim says hideously complexed.

[redshoes]

Re "unfair contract terms", it's not a situation unique to race circuits. Go to any National Trust property, museum, wildlife park or stately home and you'll find a similarly worded notice on the conditions of entry.