Copyright issues...

[MolsonBoy]

Copyright is topic that we haven't hit on yet. I was concerned about selling some of my images and having the driver, team or series come after me for infringing on their copyright.(making money from thier image)

After contacting some artist in the US, most stated that if sold in small numbers most drivers, teams or series don't seem to care, except for NASCAR. They seem to think they own the rights everything.

Now the US has different copyright laws than Canada. Under the US laws it was expressed to me that art is "freedom of expression". Canada it seems to be a little bit blurry.

I would like to hear your thoughts and experiences on this.

[paul-collins]

My understanding is that in Quebec the laws are much more favourable for the subject of the image - that is, images cannot be taken without permission. I don't know what the rules are for the rest of Canada, but I'd be surprised if the racers or teams were to come after you.

Photos trackside may, theoretically, belong to the track (depending on the conditions as printed on your ticket).

[MolsonBoy]

Canada has been slow in changing the copyright laws. They currently don't favor photographers.

[Racepictures]

Normally you should not run into trouble. Teams that run a car, know that it will be photographed. That's also what they want and they want it be used in as many magazines as possible to get the best exposure for their sponsors. It's what it generally called: editorial use.

It's different though for commercial use. E.g. selling or using the photos for advertisements. When it's for one of their sponsors and the sponsors has the contractual right to use photos of the team in advertisements, it's no problem. But otherwise, teams of course don't want to be associated with companies they don't have a relation with.

Grtz,
Marco

[Andrew Kitson]

We can too sometimes have hassles with paintings and prints, from teams and their sponsors and so on.
This was never a problem until the early/mid 90s when many , frankly awful images of Ayrton Senna were released on the market which Philip Morris (Marlboro)and the Senna Foundation did not like, especially so soon after his death. Unlike photographs which are generally a copy of what the lens sees, a painting is not as exact, although I do try to be technically and historically correct with my work.
A corporate logo for example may be painted very accurately but the proportions may be ever-so-slightly different - a bit of a grey area- is it an exact copy or not? The way I look at it is that my prints from paintings when released on the market, advertised or hanging on the wall are free advertising and publicity for the drivers, teams and their sponsors!
I once contacted Bernie Ecclestone's office to ask where I stand as an artist and he came back with a reply saying that if I was a photographer, I would be infringing on the FIA and FOCA ( now FOM) copyright by selling them, paintings he can not touch.
Good enough for me.
Other problems when releasing prints can be conflicts of interest. I painted a scene of Sato in the Jordan in Melbourne last year, for a Japanese publisher to be signed by Sato. He wanted the final corner as the scene, where the 'Orange' mobile phone ads are. Halfway through painting it, Jordan announced a sponsorship deal with Virgin Mobile. Would Sato be allowed to sign with big 'Orange' banners everywhere in the background?
After many e-mails and discussions, the go-ahead was given to paint it as originally planned and Taku signed them the day before the British GP weekend. Consideration has to be given when planning the scene. Will there be any conflicting banners or ads that
do not fit the clients interests? Artistic licence comes into play and these can be changed to something more appropriate. An example is the Damon Hill commissioned Jordan Spa print I painted in 1998. A few Marlboro banners in the background were changed to Benson & Hedges Jordan 'friendly' signs such as D2 who had no association or conflict.

[KC]

NASCAR has signed a deal with all the teams that the series itself owns all the rights to imagery and words concerning NASCAR, its drivers, its teams and cars. They have enforced this copyright in the past. It has allowed Fox to have exclusive rights to race reporting, ESPN (et al) are not allowed to show any live images of the race action without purchasing it, so you only see them outside the track interviewing the drivers as they ready to depart.

[MolsonBoy]

A corporate logo for example may be painted very accurately but the proportions may be ever-so-slightly different - a bit of a grey area - is it an exact copy or not?

So let me enlarge this grey area. Now that we are in the digital world, where does computer manipulated images come in? Going by what you stated Andrew if the original image is changed enough through manipulation then would this be considered still an exact copy?

This image, I shot
in Vancouver last year. This image may be used for a Molson Indy charity fund raiser. I know that Molson and Players had concerns regarding the Player's logos on the car. I changed the logo on the side of the car to the Maple Leaf. (It is the design that Team Players use when they are in England and Germany.)I also (not in this version) the CART logo from the old versoion to the new one. Most of these changes I did by hand on cut and paste. So would this still be considered a photo?

From what I have heard the teams, drivers and series don't care because you are not making a ton of money from these images.But if you do they may come knocking at your door.

[imagin8or]

Do the copyright issues only extend to shots of the car? I'm thinking in terms of getting candid driver shots over the Brands weekend in the paddock - since it's not the race, and it's not the car, would there be problems? It's not that I'm going out there to make money, but if I manage to take a decent shot (for about the second time in my life), it'd be nice to know where I stood. Any ideas?

[Andrew Kitson]

I would think you should be OK with this one. If they do cause a stink, offer to print off say 20 copies that they can have for sponsors and so on.
Perhaps the worst case of these sensitive drivers / management over copyright has to be Jacques Villeneuve. My good friend ( and inspiration to start painting) - artist Michael Turner- found this out a few years ago. He painted JV for one of his Christmas cards , the famous set of five cards that he has been doing for years. The JV management team did not like this and tried to get Michael to re-do it with a plain white helmet, so it wasn't obvious that is was Jacques. Similarly, one of the playstation F1 games when JV was at Williams never mentioned him, despite all of the other drivers being included. He was always referred to as 'Williams No.1 driver', again with a plain white helmet. OTT really.

[MolsonBoy]

I think it comes down to money. If you sell an image (photo or artwork) and make little money, no one will seem to care. But if you sell the same image and make lots (let say six figures) then they may want a piece of the profit.

If you sell a limited number of the same images and make a few hundred or thousand dollars they won't bother with you. At best they say nothing and at worst they ask you to stop or they sue (which I think would only be a threat).

Like Andrew said there are those who believe they own the rights to everything.

[imagin8or]

Hmm, interesting. I'm wondering about the laws in the UK, because I think they're different. Thing is, if you take a photo of someone, usually you can do what you like with it, as shown by the example of the tabloids...

[MolsonBoy]

For editorial uses you don't need permission for useage.