Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-15-2014, 06:46 PM - 1 Like   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
They used his image for a major marketing campaign in a retail chain. That's neither inadvertent nor harmless.

02-16-2014, 04:05 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 307
Original Poster
2/15/14 UPDATE
We have been able to reach a joint agreement, that alleviates both the needs of Max Jackson Photography and The Color Run. We are happy to have avoided the drain of the legal system and look forward to continued great products from each of our companies.


I guess the internet pressure has got to do something with this.
02-16-2014, 05:39 AM   #18
Veteran Member
steve1307's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,129
I'm not really suprised that it was settled, these problem are easier to solve with money. (and less money lost to the lawyers)

Reading the original and updates from both sides, it seems they were both in the wrong in some way and the and the publicity was getting messy.


Since he didn't get remotely close to his target for expected legal costs on "GoFundMe" I can't Imagine that the amount of undisclosed settlement would be anything significant.
02-16-2014, 12:33 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,425
There is something about taking reasonable negotiating positions. The kid was not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates when they were 21.

On the other hand, I see that both SportsAuthority and Coke Cola had used the same images apparently supplied by TCR. The SportsAuthority announced that they were pulling all of their displays and advertising with the image. To be the NSA person listening in on the calls from the Copyright Attorneys from both SportsAuthority and Coke Cola would be very entertaining.

I also see that TCR sold sole sponsorship to Victoria's Secret, and then sold it again to a couple of additional companies. Victoria's Secret is suing.

It appears that there was more than enough mud around that everyone was wading in.



02-16-2014, 12:48 PM   #20
On Hiatus. Back Later.
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,430
Such a shame considering how much fun people apparently have running in these things. TCR might have been a complete, long-term franchise thing. All the TCR people had to do was play fair and print money - seems they just couldn't.
02-16-2014, 05:38 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Such a shame considering how much fun people apparently have running in these things. TCR might have been a complete, long-term franchise thing. All the TCR people had to do was play fair and print money - seems they just couldn't.
They might want to hang on to some of it for the lawsuits in 20 years from people breathing in all of that.
02-16-2014, 07:48 PM   #22
Pentaxian
K David's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,420
That's the kind of photographer who makes becoming a professional difficult. That little nimwit's unrealistic and fantasy-driven demands only show his ridiculous narcisisim, sense of entitlement, and an ego that couldn't be contained by any force in the universe. I am 100% of Color Run's side here and I hope that their agreement with the photographer included no money and everyone who works for the organization getting to kick him in the gonads. Hard.
02-16-2014, 08:51 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by K David Quote
That's the kind of photographer who makes becoming a professional difficult. That little nimwit's unrealistic and fantasy-driven demands only show his ridiculous narcisisim, sense of entitlement, and an ego that couldn't be contained by any force in the universe. I am 100% of Color Run's side here and I hope that their agreement with the photographer included no money and everyone who works for the organization getting to kick him in the gonads. Hard.
While I agree that the demands listed were ridiculous, he does have every right to be properly paid for & credited for his photo. They obtained his limited permission in order to obtain the image file. Then they used that file, uncredited & unauthorized, in a massive marketing campaign, including corporate sponsorships. Now, what information I'd like to know is what, if any, agreement did he sign when giving TCR permission to use his photo on Facebook. TCR, and its legal team, may have already had their butts covered with a broad release, which he may have signed without reading.

02-16-2014, 09:59 PM   #24
Pentaxian
K David's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by dansamy Quote
While I agree that the demands listed were ridiculous, he does have every right to be properly paid for & credited for his photo. They obtained his limited permission in order to obtain the image file. Then they used that file, uncredited & unauthorized, in a massive marketing campaign, including corporate sponsorships. Now, what information I'd like to know is what, if any, agreement did he sign when giving TCR permission to use his photo on Facebook. TCR, and its legal team, may have already had their butts covered with a broad release, which he may have signed without reading.
I concur with your point. TCR should have paid him (and probably did) some reasonable sum for using his image so much. Having had Pentax feature one of my photos on their Facebook stream, I'd be honored to see it used in marketing, but would hope they'd give me a call ahead of time and offer me some Pentax stickers or something.

My reaction to this is pretty visceral because I've tried to get paid photography gigs (architectural) and I have seen potential clients shy away from hiring a photographer because a previous one came after them for image use. Or, in one case, the tog licensed them the photos for a limited number of uses for one year and expected to have rolling income from the company every time his photo was used after that. I'm friends with the marketing manager at that firm and they won't hire me a photographer because of their past experience with one guy. That company is what I think about when I see a construction firm market itself with an un-level PnS photo that has a building that looks like its falling over. Photographres who conduct themselves poorly leave a bad taste is clients' mouths for every other photographer they could possibly ever work with.
02-18-2014, 09:46 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,443
QuoteOriginally posted by Dariusz Quote
Love it! Excellent excuse for lack of photographical talent (or opportunities)
I really hope that's a tongue in cheek attempt at humor, because it is quite snide otherwise. I completely agree with the sentiment that posting images in public forums is just asking for your image to be stolen. whether I have photographic talent or not you can debate all you want, but I also very rarely post images on public sites, including here on the forum for the exact reason oldnoob stated, I don't wish my images used without my permission. it is a very valid fear/concern and for you to dismiss this offhandedly as a lack of talent is in poor taste.


QuoteOriginally posted by K David Quote
I concur with your point. TCR should have paid him (and probably did) some reasonable sum for using his image so much. Having had Pentax feature one of my photos on their Facebook stream, I'd be honored to see it used in marketing, but would hope they'd give me a call ahead of time and offer me some Pentax stickers or something.

My reaction to this is pretty visceral because I've tried to get paid photography gigs (architectural) and I have seen potential clients shy away from hiring a photographer because a previous one came after them for image use. Or, in one case, the tog licensed them the photos for a limited number of uses for one year and expected to have rolling income from the company every time his photo was used after that. I'm friends with the marketing manager at that firm and they won't hire me a photographer because of their past experience with one guy. That company is what I think about when I see a construction firm market itself with an un-level PnS photo that has a building that looks like its falling over. Photographers who conduct themselves poorly leave a bad taste is clients' mouths for every other photographer they could possibly ever work with.
while I can empathize with your frustrations, I see no reason a photographer can't ask what he feels is fair market value for his work. in the case of the color run photo, yes 300,000 and perpetual name usage is extreme, BUT his photo WAS used in a GLOBAL advertising campaign. he should get credit and compensated for that broad scope of use AND this TCR company should have paid a "fine" for unauthorized use. in terms of your architectural firm, they are the one that signed the contract, why wouldn't the photographer offer a limited license? he has every right to. and if the firm wanted a perpetual license, then they probably would have had to pay more. it possible the firm said "we will only pay x amount for image" and the photographer said "fine you'll only get x amount of usage out of my image". I find that totally reasonable. for the firm to use it against you, just sounds like an excuse because they do not/did not perceive any value in "professional" quality images as part of a marketing campaign. that's there own lack of business sense.

our photos as pros/semi/pros/aspiring pros are the result of hours of planning and execution, why shouldn't we get paid accordingly? do we get commission on any of the business our work may draw for the company that licenses our photos? not really, and it would be nearly impossible to track, but there IS an expected rate of return on investment that ANY marketing department can give you, so if your photo is part of or IS the main component of an X dollar figure campaign, that company is expecting it to generate X dollar figure of revenue. therefore the larger the campaign budget, the more we as photographers should be entitled to.

for me personally, any photo that any company would use, I would expect adequate compensation for the time and expense I incurred to make it. a couple "pentax stickers" here and there is not sufficient for me. if that's all one needs, and they are just happy with the exposure, more power to them, but to overlay your value system of photographs on someone else's work is unfair.

maybe this color run photo was the result of many hours of scouting and perhaps a larger than average travel budget to be present at the event. maybe it was just pure luck. maybe it was something in the middle. but again, why shouldn't he get paid by a company, a multi million dollar company no less, why shouldn't he get paid for his work?

---------- Post added 02-18-2014 at 10:15 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
It's actually a pretty good situation for the photographer. My biggest photography client requests a pretty exclusive and perpetual license, but when I told them how much it would cost for them to assert copyright on the images (a full buyout contract, which I've made prohibitively expensive), they balked and took the licensing agreement. Another client, from the US, provided me with their "standard contract" which included ownership of full copyright, and I pointed out that I live in and have my business in Canada. This led to more negotiations with their legal team, and eventually a very lucrative contract to include the full buyout. I don't relinquish copyright easily!
im cross posting this comment from another thread here in the forums (I hope panoguy doesn't mind) to further illustrate my point, and to show im not alone in my opinion regarding limited and perpetual licenses. it is entirely acceptable and expected business practice to protect your copyright. I have dealt with this several times in both my photography and publishing realms. companies want to make money off you as cheaply as possible, it's up to you to get as much compensation as possible, because once you sign that contract, there's no going back. it's also why many artists will sign a licensing contract for a specific term, so that after 1,2 4 years the value of the contract can be renegotiated based on the success of the campaign

I have actually TURNED DOWN business because I felt a company was not going to compensate me fairly. I'd rather NOT sell my work than give it away below what I deem fair market value

Last edited by nomadkng; 02-18-2014 at 09:52 AM.
02-18-2014, 01:41 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Olympia, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,843
Maxie just needed to watch this lovely piece:
02-19-2014, 08:35 AM   #27
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
So he wants $100,000 for a photo that could have been taken by a smartphone.
02-19-2014, 08:47 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,450
QuoteOriginally posted by jogiba Quote
So he wants $100,000 for a photo that could have been taken by a smartphone.

No. He wants compensation for the use of his image in a major marketing campaign. If TCR wanted to use a smartphone picture, they probably could have approached another spectator.
02-19-2014, 10:56 AM   #29
On Hiatus. Back Later.
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,430
QuoteOriginally posted by dansamy Quote
No. He wants compensation for the use of his image in a major marketing campaign. If TCR wanted to use a smartphone picture, they probably could have approached another spectator.
I think it was a very dry comment about smartphone cameras, not so much about the copyright.
02-19-2014, 02:44 PM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 307
Original Poster
This one just pissed me off!!

Magazine Calls Photographer 'A**hole' and Threatens Lawsuit After Using Her Photo Without Permission
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
business, campaign, color, company, contract, copyright, firm, images, organization, photo, photo industry, photographer, photographers, photography, value
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Color Run chattphotos Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 05-11-2013 05:58 PM
The Yen has fallen 15% against the dollar in the last two months. Winder General Talk 27 02-14-2013 04:52 PM
People Color Run alohadave Post Your Photos! 4 07-16-2012 10:37 AM
The United Shapes boriscleto General Talk 2 07-10-2012 10:47 AM
Internationa Freelance Photographers Organization? PHOTOCOP General Talk 6 03-25-2008 04:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top