Circuit copyright

[redshoes]

I've been running a website full of photos for a good few years now. I'd never previously advertised anything for sale but would occasionally get emails from people asking about buying prints, normally from drivers or their family, so earlier this year I set up an on-line ordering facility. Since then I've only sold a small handful of pics.

Over the weekend I got an email from one of the circuits. I'll edit out the name of the circuit for now.

"It has been brought to our attention that photographs taken at ***** race meetings are being offered for sale on your website.
This expressly contravenes our copyright, as detailed in our race programmes, and we request that you remove all ***** pictures from your site forthwith."

For those who've never bothered it the back of the ticket states that "photography, cine-film, video film, sound.. causing or permitting to be seen or heard in public, broadcasting, diffusing, selling, renting, exchanging, lending, using for gain or otherwise dealing with.. is strictly prohibited". I'll be honest and admit that I knew that was the case. In fact I even knew it was on the back of the ticket not in the programme as the email states.

What I could tell you is whether the issue here is the fact that the pictures were available for purchase or that they were on a website. Arguably being on a website is "causing or permitting to be seen in public". The email seems to imply that they want the pictures removed from site rather than simply removed from sale.

I know I'm not the only person doing this. There's plenty of motorsport picture websites and know a few selling pictures. Is this the start of a clampdown on such sites or was I just unlucky. I'm not going to pretend what I'm doing is right, I'm just curious if anyone else has had a similar experience.

[vwpilot]

Well, this is something that can happen. I have had issues with a certain track as well. But the issue is generally sales to the general public.

In my case I was told by the track as long as I made it clear on my site that the photos from that track were not for sale to the general public (drivers and teams ok), then I could post them.

I would actually talk to them and find out for sure what the problem is and do what they ask. I dont see how they can keep you from posting them, there is no commercial gain in that case, but I can see them keeping you from selling them.

[brickkicker]

Can I guess that the pictures were taken at Mallory?

[Kelvin]

Are you going to do ask they ask, or stick it out to see what they do about it? Despite what it says on programmes etc. I would like to see this tested in the courts, though I dont think I would be brave enough to take the circuits on, and I think that is what they are hoping!

Photographers are not making huge sums of money (if any) I really dont know what the circuits think they can gain!

I think I've said this before, it would be good if ALL race photographers stood firm togehter for a few weeks and did not submit anything, to anywhere. Motorsport benefits greatly from both the pro and amatuer and its time the circuits realised it!

I was recently paid £80 from a magazine for 4 pics. I travelled from Cambridge to Croft and had stayed overnight near Croft. I can assure you my wallet for the weekend showed a deficit,not a profit, but I'm pleased that my efforts help to report the racing to a readership of many 1000's.

Kelv.

[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.

[Kelvin]

Yes Andrew I know what there issue is, but the point I'm trying to get across is that there is little money to be made, at the circuits fom racers or race fans. It not like they are loosing millions of pounds of revenue like say the music industry does with counterfeit CDs. Even if a photographer has a legitimate job with a magazine, he has to be allowed to at least try and recoup
some costs. You openly promote your paintings from time to time and have a website, should you be stopped from selling your skills?

Maybe artists will be on the next hit list!

[Andrew Kitson]

Some of the F1 teams can be touchy about their cars appearing in paintings but not (as yet) the circuits.
I look on it that the drivers, teams, sponsors and circuits are getting free exposure/publicity, so long as I paint the subject accurately.
I agree though, you snappers have a living to make and you won't do that just supplying the printed press.

[redshoes]

Originally posted by Andrew Kitson
I look on it that the drivers, teams, sponsors and circuits are getting free exposure/publicity, so long as I paint the subject accurately.

Surely the same is true of photography. You could argue that you are producing a recording of an event, even if it's not an exact reproduction in the way that a photo is. (I mean that in the sence that you are producing a represention of an event, not meaning that your work isn't accurate.

I can understand the likes of F1 teams being protective of their 'brand image' just as many rock bands will take action agains shoodily produced unofficial merchandise or bootleg CDs, but it's difficult to see what damage is being done here. You could argue that we are actually helping to promote the circuit.

For what it's worth I wasn't refering to Mallory and as far as I know the circuit in question doesn't have an exclusive deal with anyone.

[mwphoto]

I'm not a lawyer and I must has slept through Law 101 at school, but what law prevents one from taking a picture, painting a picture or writing an article and posting it on a web site? Even if it's just for viewing or if your work is being bought by the public or a driver or team member?

[Happy Snapper]

Most if not all circuits retain copyright of images taken and especially film or movie, I think it was octagon that specified “single” images and “continuous” images. At Le Mans you have to get written permission from the ACO to sell images of the race

[vwpilot]

It comes down to the ability to profit off of someone/something elses likeness. Here is the right of publicity.

"The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual's name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion." (source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html)

In the case of a track, it has to do with the way the track is represented and some arguments I have received in the US has to do with the liability and other stupid frivilous law ****.

They want to protect their images and make sure that anything being sold commericaially is done in a responsible way.

For instance, if you sell a shot from a track to Pepsi for a marketing campaign and the next day the track signs Coke as a major sponsor, then there becomes an issue.

In many cases if you are going to sell something, you can get the necessary permissions to do so as long as it wont represent those in the photos poorly. But in this case, having stuff up for sale gives the track no control over what and how its being sold.

I would imagine that just putting a disclaimer up saying they are not for sale to the public would solve your problems. Talk to the track, find out what their hangup is and I bet you can work something out.

Now supposedly there are some laws out there protecting the commercial sale of "fine art" and some courts have apparantly held up photography as a form of art. In this case you can sell limited prints to people for commercial gain, but you stil cannot sell for advertising or in large amounts. This would be something to look into if you want to do this. However, keep in mind that tracks are private property and even if you have the legal right to sell those photos, if the track doesnt like it, they can keep you from getting on the premesis. Especially if you ever want credentials. So even if we have the right, sometimes we still have to play by their rules.

[PaulSands]

I'll get my coat....
I would be interested in knowing which circuit it was.
Though you say it wasnt Mallory I always put the following disclaimer on my site when they are covering meetings there
"due to exclusivity rights at mallory park none of my images from this meeting can be purchased"

[StephenRae]

Surely the circuits haven't got this kind of power?
I'm not a proper photographer but I do have a camera. If for example I were to say, snap a picture of David Beckham getting his leg over Jordan during a lull in the racing at Mallory Park....probably £100,000 worth. The circuit would have no more rights to the photo than say Ford would have if they happened to be stretched over the bonnet of a Mondeo.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by StephenRae
Surely the circuits haven't got this kind of power?
I'm not a proper photographer but I do have a camera. If for example I were to say, snap a picture of David Beckham getting his leg over Jordan during a lull in the racing at Mallory Park....probably £100,000 worth. The circuit would have no more rights to the photo than say Ford would have if they happened to be stretched over the bonnet of a Mondeo.

Sounds fun but you have missed the point a little. If you sign on as "media" at a race meeting you "cannot" use the images except for “media purposes”. You should not sell those images on to "Joe public" without written consent of the Circuit owners. They have “given” you a media pass assuming you are a bona fide newsgatherer and your editor (if you have one) would have signed a letter of accreditation to specify your assignment.

If you “pay” for a ticket to the circuit you can do what you like with all forms of image still or otherwise, but that excludes you from trackside and restricts you to “public” areas.

[StephenRae]

Happy Snapper...I now understand your predicament...I did enjoy painting the picture...I thought of substituting Cliff Richard but I thoought that would have gone too far!!

[Happy Snapper]

Originally posted by StephenRae
Happy Snapper...I now understand your predicament...I did enjoy painting the picture...I thought of substituting Cliff Richard but I thoought that would have gone too far!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH thats a picture I could do without

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by StephenRae
Surely the circuits haven't got this kind of power?
I'm not a proper photographer but I do have a camera. If for example I were to say, snap a picture of David Beckham getting his leg over Jordan during a lull in the racing at Mallory Park....probably £100,000 worth. The circuit would have no more rights to the photo than say Ford would have if they happened to be stretched over the bonnet of a Mondeo.

Actually Ford would have EVERY right over your photos if they were stretched over the bonnet of a Mondeo.

Whenever there is a copyrighted or trademarked element in any photo, you cannot do what you please with it without permission. If you can recognize the track or any sponsor signs, you need permission. If you can recognize the bonnet as that of a Modeo, you better give Ford a call.

Plus, you would also need permission from Beckham as well, since his image is also a protected item.

Now here is the catch, that is ONLY if it is for commercial usage. IE advertising, posters, prints to public etc.

If you are using the photos for editorial purposes, you DO NOT need permission from anyone. So if you got that shot of Beckham you would be free to make your 100,000 pounds from the media or tabloids without any issue or permissions needed. So sell away. But if you are going to make your own posters to sell, you need permission from everyone and anything recognizable in the photo.

[vwpilot]

Originally posted by Happy Snapper
[B

If you “pay” for a ticket to the circuit you can do what you like with all forms of image still or otherwise, but that excludes you from trackside and restricts you to “public” areas. [/B]

Actually not true. If you read the back of many tickets you purchase it says that all video and photo rights remain with the track and you cannot do anything you want with them without their permission. As a matter of fact I think that is how this thread got started, the first poster wrote what was on the back of his ticket.

Plus you would still have to deal with any sponsor names, the driver and the team before you could do anything, even if you bought your ticket and the track didnt have a disclaimer on it. Hell, you cant take a photo of a team transporter going down the street and sell it for profit (apart from editorial) without the permission of the team and trademarks on it.

[Happy Snapper]

Sorry I was generalising but yes, haven’t paid for a ticket for so long I forgotten what it said on the back!

[redshoes]

Originally posted by Happy Snapper
If you sign on as "media" at a race meeting you "cannot" use the images except for “media purposes”.

If you “pay” for a ticket to the circuit you can do what you like with all forms of image still or otherwise, but that excludes you from trackside and restricts you to “public” areas.

I have signed on as media at this circuit but not this year, so the pictures for sale were taken as a memeber of the public. That said the email was sent to the address I would have used for media applications not one which is listed on the website.


There's still one question which I don't have an answer for. I know of a number of photographers who sell images via website, including a few of the big names. How do they manage to do it, especially as in most case they would have been signed on as media and therefore only able to take pictures for editorial usage.

[Happy Snapper]

Good question! I would think they have arrangements with the circuits to do so? Or the agency they do work for has, we had a discussion at Le Mans this year one of our group got a selection of images on LAT’s site so they are for sale, but she doesn’t have written permission from the ACO to do this. In the past the ACO have stopped publication of unauthorised material about Le Mans, remember last year the book that was taken of the shelf and destroyed after the written lost a court case with the ACO.

[Kelvin]

The big names manage do it cos their face fits!!

[Nordic]

Is there a time limit on images?

Most of mine are 18+ years old and I have recently been approached to supply some for a book.

I am not selling them and have no connection to the author, but the books will be on general sale.

[Piglet]

I think I'm about to raise more questions than I answer!

Nordic - if you are referring to photographs taken on film then according to the Copyright Design and Patents Act 1988 a photograph is an artistic work and as such:

(1) Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject to the following provisions of this section.

HOWEVER, there seems to be no settled law (at least according to my 2 yr old text book) as to whether a DIGITAL photograph is an artistic work or a computer generated work. If it is the latter then the copyright is 50 years from the date that the work is created (thus leaving out the author's lifetime).

BUT.....there are more questions! That deals with YOUR copyright in the photgraph but doesn't deal with the question of whether the circuit (etc.) also have image rights or other rights. It is usual to have more than one set of rights in a particular photgraph, film etc. etc. This gets complicated and I'd need to research it properly to be accurate on the subject.

[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.