Circuit copyright

[Piglet]

Originally posted by vwpilot
I believe that a book in print falls under the editorial umbrella which would mean that you do not need permission from the track, sponsors etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "editorial umbrella"? More importantly the copyright and image rights subsist in the photograph and the photograph cannot be published as a "literary work" without the consent of the owners of the copyright. Just because it has become part of a literary work doesn't alter the rights that attach to the photograph.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by Andrew Kitson
Yes but Kelvin I think the issue the circuits have is not with pictures appearing in the press as race reports, but being sold to individuals, especially when places like Mallory have done an exclusive deal with one specific photographer.

Yes I agree 100% any image used for "media" is OK its when other images are sold for profit and the circiuts dont get thier cut. I attend some F1 testing years back drivers would sign picture for me now they are not allowed to because the signed image is owned by the F1 marketing people!

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by vwpilot
I believe that a book in print falls under the editorial umbrella which would mean that you do not need permission from the track, sponsors etc.

A photo on film is artistic work, a photo on digital is very vague as to where it belongs from a copyright prospective and there appears to be no legal precedents to quote!
hrug: hrug: hrug:

[PaulSands]

It is actually getting very difficult to make a start in this game. More and more restrictions and exclusive agreements seem to be killing any sense of competition (isn't that illegal in the capitalist EU governed world we live in??? restriction of trade and all that).
I'm reaching the point now where I'm begining to wonder if it's worth making the investment to continue trying to make a career or just throw it all in. I think 2005 will be the make or break year for me in terms of willingness to keep feeding the habit. My attendance at certain circuits will certainly be drastically reduced the way things are looking.
Redshoes could you PM me with the name of the circuit giving you grief as I'd like to be forwarned as I'm probably in a similar situation to you...though I do provide reports and press to the media.

[Ian Sowman]

Is provision of photography services fundamentally different to the provision of catering services at a circuit? It's a rather tenuous comparison, but you wouldn't expect to be able to be able to set up a burger van at a circuit without an agreement with the circuit, so should it be an different for photos?

I don't know the answer to that, just throwing ideas into the air right now...

[Piglet]

I don't think that anything has changed legally over the last few years but it may be that in the past the circuits have either not been very aware of their rights or have chosen not to enforce them. Copyrights and image rights are very trendy right now.

If I ever get a free couple of hours I'll research this properly and advise but the long and the short of it is that the circuits own the commercial rights to all that goes on there (unless the hirer agrees differently with them as with the GP).

You agree to this when you sign on as media. Soooo the commercial rights in the pictures are owned by the circuit owner, you own the copyright in the actual picture or digital image(unless you were paid to take the pictures which CAN be different). If your pictures are published in a book the copyright in the typographical arrangement is owned by either the author or the publisher (fact dependant).

The confusion is that all these rights subsist in the same picture - commercial rights owned by the circuit, copyright in the picture owned by the photographer, rights to the arrangement owned by a publisher (etc) so there isn't just one "copyright" per picture.

It seems to me that the circuits have been aware that images to which they own the commercial rights are sold. They seem to have to some extent turned a blind eye to this. The problem comes where individuals (and this isn't a dig at anyone) make it blindingly obvious that this is going on by having payment methods etc. on their web sites. I guess its the difference between advertising porn and selling it from under the counter!!! You're much more likely to get caught with a sign in your window than a stash of brown bags under your counter......(umm we seem to be back to Jordan again - I'll stop there!!)

[PaulSands]

As an aside I have some very dirty magazines for sale at the moment

before I get canned I mean dirty as in have been stashed in a garage for 50 odd years...and yes I know its off topic but thought I needed to lighten my own mood up as much as anybody else's.

Back onto topic. I heard tale of a photographer touting his wares at Snetterton this year being collared and asked for a £100 licensing fee (that figure may or may not be correct so I'll stand corrected if it's incorrect). With him paying that money does that then give him the right to do what the heck he wants to with those images?

[PaulSands]

...and another thing, what about the photographers that accompany and are paid by certain teams to attend meetings? Are they not also treading on the same copyright minefield?

[Piglet]

Originally posted by PaulSands
As an aside I have some very dirty magazines for sale at the moment

before I get canned I mean dirty as in have been stashed in a garage for 50 odd years...and yes I know its off topic but thought I needed to lighten my own mood up as much as anybody else's.

Back onto topic. I heard tale of a photographer touting his wares at Snetterton this year being collared and asked for a £100 licensing fee (that figure may or may not be correct so I'll stand corrected if it's incorrect). With him paying that money does that then give him the right to do what the heck he wants to with those images?

I'll not comment on the dirty mags point but I'm sure Happy Snapper or Jasongore will be along soon

I guess if the photographer paid up it would give him whatever rights the contract says he gets. It might be do what you like with whatever you like or more likely the right to use the images once or something similar.

And your next post - yes I imagine the position for snappers attached to teams is the same unless the teams have done a deal with the circuit. I have no experience of how this actually works in practice. You'd want the experience of someone like 500mm for some practical advice on the subject.

[PaulSands]

just to clear my name a little the mags are Autosports from 1951 through to 1975

[Craig]

Paul - drop me a line about the Autosports, please? Private message via forum or you have my email address. Ta.

[redshoes]

Originally posted by PaulSands
Back onto topic. I heard tale of a photographer touting his wares at Snetterton this year being collared and asked for a £100 licensing fee (that figure may or may not be correct so I'll stand corrected if it's incorrect). With him paying that money does that then give him the right to do what the heck he wants to with those images?

I believe there was a thread about that a while back.

Selling AT the circuit is a slightly different issue. Selling anything within the circuit grounds is not allowed without prior approval. Same goes for distributing leaflets.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by Piglet
I'll not comment on the dirty mags point but I'm sure Happy Snapper or Jasongore will be along soon

Oh you I resemble that remark…

[jase]

So you do

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by Ian Sowman
Is provision of photography services fundamentally different to the provision of catering services at a circuit? It's a rather tenuous comparison, but you wouldn't expect to be able to be able to set up a burger van at a circuit without an agreement with the circuit, so should it be an different for photos?

I don't know the answer to that, just throwing ideas into the air right now...

Yes and no if you sell photographs at a circuit yes it’s a service to the public (competitors or spectators) and the circuits expect you to pay them! If you use your images for media no then that’s why they sent you a free media ticket.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by jasongore
So you do

less stick from you and was saying how much you picture have progressed this year

[PaulSands]

OK so I'm going to raise my head above the parapets and ask MSV directly what their policy is about photographers selling on images as a by-product of their media gathering duties. To be honest if on top of the passes there was a license fee to pay, so long as it wasnt ridculous, I would personally welcome the freedom that would bring to do what i wanted with images gathered.

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by Piglet
I'm not sure what you mean by the "editorial umbrella"? More importantly the copyright and image rights subsist in the photograph and the photograph cannot be published as a "literary work" without the consent of the owners of the copyright. Just because it has become part of a literary work doesn't alter the rights that attach to the photograph.

What you say is true, but in this case Nordic owned the photos and was inquiring about his ability to use them and my answer was in relation to that.

My answer about the editorial umbrella is that he could give them to be used in the book without permission from teams or tracks because a book is considered editorial which allows for the publication of photos without permission from those in the photo.

[Piglet]

Originally posted by vwpilot
What you say is true, but in this case Nordic owned the photos and was inquiring about his ability to use them and my answer was in relation to that.

My answer about the editorial umbrella is that he could give them to be used in the book without permission from teams or tracks because a book is considered editorial which allows for the publication of photos without permission from those in the photo.

Nordic, that's not my understanding of the Copyright Design and Patents Act. Can you point me to the section that you're referring to?

[Nordic]

Nordic, that's not my understanding of the Copyright Design and Patents Act. Can you point me to the section that you're referring to?

hrug: I know nothing, I just want to know if the police will knock on my door if some old images appear in print.

I am pretty sure that the author knows what he is doing and has all the permission he needs.

Thanks for all the help.

[Happy Snapper]

Yes thats what the guy who produced thre Le MAns book last year said when until ACO had all the copies taken off the shelf and burnt!

[Piglet]

Originally posted by Nordic
hrug: I know nothing, I just want to know if the police will knock on my door if some old images appear in print.

I am pretty sure that the author knows what he is doing and has all the permission he needs.

Thanks for all the help.

Whoops sorry, wrong name!!

[vwpilot]

Piglet,

I dont have any place to look, I said that I beleived that was the case because of what I had been told by another photographer that put together several of his own books about racing. He had books with photos from the 60s, 70s, and 80s about Mclaren, the Trans Am and some other things. Photo essay type books.

I asked him what it took to produce such a thing and if he had to go around getting permission from Andretti and other drivers, McLaren, the ACO etc. He said NO, it was pretty much just like a magazine article or anything like that which does not require permission from those in the photo because its editorial.

So I just passed the info along.

[Picturesports]

Guess where I spent this morning ... !

The excellent chap in race control called the "rights" holder who said I could not sign on, so I stood in the public areas to take my pictures (Grin: Yes they are MY pictures)

Before a circuit sells the commerical rights to images of anything more than a photograph of the tarmac, would they not first have to obtain the permission of the teams, cars manuafacturers, drivers, sponsors etc to sell their "persona" to a third party who will then commerical market the images?

Take this a step further. If I have been retained to take photographs of a team and/or driver then can I not stop the circuit from taking photographs?

I'm not seriously suggesting I'll do this I just wondering how far it goes. When a team enters an event (other than a GP) do they automatically give up the rights to their "persona". Even if the team does - did the car manufacturer? When does something enter the public domain?

I have a photograph on my wall taken at a rugby match. A certain well known Stand Off (yes I'm that old) is drop kicking the ball. In the background are some 100 or so members of the public - Has anyone asked them if their images can be reproduced?

[Kelvin]

Originally posted by Picturesports
In the background are some 100 or so members of the public - Has anyone asked them if their images can be reproduced?

schhh!!... next they will be claiming their human rights have been breached.