Selling track images prohibited?!? We need our own "SEMA"

[Wes Duenkel]

I just received a "credential confirmation." This was stated in the e-mail:

"Rights: Only editorial use of photographs is permitted. ANY commercial use or sale of images is strictly prohibited without prior permission."

This brings up an important point which comes up frequently: most media outlets (at least the ones I work for, anyway) don't pay enough to cover the expenses of traveling to a race, so the only way to "make ends meet" is through licensing images to teams. Up to this point, I understand we photographers have skirted this issue with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. However, I personally can't sleep well at night waiting for that first letter from a track or sanctioning body.

Something's gotta give. From this point forward, I see two options:

1) Continue with the status quo, and hope I don't get my hand slapped.

2) Stop traveling to races unless the media outlet agrees to cover expenses in addition to a fee.

My background is in the automotive aftermarket, and they have a very powerful organization called "SEMA." I feel we are in need of such organization that is able to "fight for our rights" as photographers. I envision this organization would negotiate an arrangement with tracks and sanctioning bodies to allow member photographers to sell images in addition to fulfilling their media requirements. Perhaps this could be arranged in exchange for a membership fee (with which the organization pays the track), or in exchange for promotional image rights for the tracks and sanctioning bodies. Additional benefits could include seminars, conventions, discounts on health insurance when injured "in the line of duty."

To my knowledge, no such organization exists. Thoughts?

[Dennis Murray]

To what end are you licensing images to teams? Team press releases fall under the umbrella of editorial.

Commercial release for the team to use in their sponsor packets and other publications should be easily granted by the track.

I think their concern is more third party licensing.

The problem with your SEMA proposal is the fact there is a horde of people willing to sign anything and give away all of their rights to be able to shoot inside the fences.

[Wes Duenkel]

To what end are you licensing images to teams? Team press releases fall under the umbrella of editorial.

Thanks for the response, Dennis!
I license them for web use...which includes press releases, but also use in a team website "photo gallery." Since the teams pay for this use (albeit a modest amount), that probably counts as a "sale," which is strictly prohibited according to the disclaimer.

I think their concern is more third party licensing.

Hmmm...what would be an example of this? Photographer selling to a team, and a team selling to a sponsor?

The problem with your SEMA proposal is the fact there is a horde of people willing to sign anything and give away all of their rights to be able to shoot inside the fences.

Perhaps, but such shooters could be strongly encouraged to join the organization...or such tracks could be "boycotted" by the organization's members, so the track would be encouraged to only allow XYZ organization's members inside the fences. Just a thought, of course...

[Jacob Leveton]

third party = you selling to some calender company who wants a 'cool shot of a racecar' for their next monthly calender, which sits next to the 'birds of the rainforest' callender and the 'waterfalls' calender.

[Brent Smith]

What kind of track did this come from? Nationally known oval/road course or a local weekend bullring?

[Wes Duenkel]

What kind of track did this come from? Nationally known oval/road course or a local weekend bullring?
A top-level national road course that hosts pro racing. It is was not my intent to chastise the facility, but rather to use it as an example for the need for a broad agreement between photographers and tracks.

[Dennis Murray]

Team's web photo gallery could be construed as editorial. Caption the photos and they become news items and thus editorial.

Editorial isn't limited to publications.

[Rob Latta]

Hey Wes. I was there at the same track and got the media pass for the gt live event. And I was wondering the same thing. I got a few pics that are not for the magazine I was there shooting for. That were useable and was kinda stumped when it said specifically you cannot sell the photos on your smug mug account ect. without paying a vendor fee.

[Wes Duenkel]

Hey Wes. I was there at the same track and got the media pass for the gt live event. And I was wondering the same thing. I got a few pics that are not for the magazine I was there shooting for. That were useable and was kinda stumped when it said specifically you cannot sell the photos on your smug mug account ect. without paying a vendor fee.
I think this is just the beginning...I expect to see more of this from other tracks...

[John Thawley]

Slow down.

A: How are you applying for the credential? If you're applying for editorial... then that's what you get. If you are shooting for a team, manufacturer etc. Then you have no worries, per se`.

B: Typically, the issues is the calendar or commercial use that servers as nothing but a profit center hence violating the use of the promoter's intellectual property. It's their show, just like it's Madonna's show. YOU can't sell a product that profits from it without a license.

C: You will find that there is no problem selling images to "stake holders" and or partners in the league. In other words, when I sell images to Audi, or Acura, Mazda, Kumho, ... a series partner, there's no issue. If I sold images for commercial use to a company that is not a participant... the risk to the series is that this company is trying to give the impression of being a "sponsor" or "partner." Obviously, this would circumvent the Series' efforts of trying to sell sponsorships or attract partners. "Why should I participate... I can just put photos on my packaging and people will think I'm a sponsor."

BUT... at the end of the day, if you show up to shoot editorial, why shouldn't they limit your use? It's not their responsibility to see you stay employed or be profitable. Their obligation is to their bottom line and preserving their intellectual property.

JT

[Wes Duenkel]

Thanks for the feedback!

Slow down.
I guess two weeks between my last post and today's is too quick :p

C: You will find that there is no problem selling images to "stake holders" and or partners in the league. In other words, when I sell images to Audi, or Acura, Mazda, Kumho, ... a series partner, there's no issue. If I sold images for commercial use to a company that is not a participant... the risk to the series is that this company is trying to give the impression of being a "sponsor" or "partner." Obviously, this would circumvent the Series' efforts of trying to sell sponsorships or attract partners. "Why should I participate... I can just put photos on my packaging and people will think I'm a sponsor."

Agreed, however the way I read it, "selling is selling." While what you describe may be "generally accepted practice," my reading of that statment didn't seem to allow it.

BUT... at the end of the day, if you show up to shoot editorial, why shouldn't they limit your use? It's not their responsibility to see you stay employed or be profitable. Their obligation is to their bottom line and preserving their intellectual property.

Agreed, which is precisely why I brought up this issue as a segway to the idea of an organization that helps us negotiate with venues so we may "stay employed and be profitable." Simply a thought...but I think this is something that needs to be addressed on a broader scale. Your mileage may vary...

[John Thawley]

Selling is selling is not correct. Series partners and stake holders are a specific and identifiable group. There's nothing "gray" about it. The are Series participants. I am authorized to be a vendor of my services (and products) to those participants. It's pretty clear cut. Acuar/Lowes are partners. I can't run off selling a whole series of images to Home Depot for them to use in a motorsports advertising campaign that's going to imply they're also a participant in the ALMS. After all, the ALMS has an obligation to Lowes to preserve the value of their participation. It's very clear. And pretty logical.

That's not to say I can't go to the Series, advise them of a potential opportunity and get them to sign off. Canon had printer boxes with the Champion Audi R8 on the side (Regis Lefebure) - while I'm sure the Series would like to see a few bucks license for use of that image, I'm sure they also weighed the value of the exposure. Canon was not trying to imply they were a series sponsor.. (though they were on the R8 on occasion) they were using a great colorful photo on the side of a photo printer box. No harm no foul and probably easy to assess a value to the Series.

As far as "ogranizing" believe me, this has been discussed at length.. for many issues we face as a group. And, not to sound like a nay sayer of someone who says "shucks it just won't work," here's the problem.... I could pull in the top 15 sports car photographers in North America... to stand firm against things we feel are injustices... (fill in the blank) - The problem? There are 30 wannabes ready to jump in and scab. Sadly... no one would care. Sure, we have clients that speak up and go to bat for us when necessary... but the fact is, if the ALMS wanted us to wear pink photo vests with Victoria's Secret stamped on the back, I'd really have no choice.

For every serious shooter out there, there are 50 waiting to fill that spot. Hell, look how many people give stuff away ...

[Jacob Leveton]

You'd look good in pink, John! j/k ;)

You speak the truth about the 'scabs'. Which is also why many photographers are so 'secretive' about their tools and tiips of the trade

[John Brooks]

but the fact is, if the ALMS wanted us to wear pink photo vests with Victoria's Secret stamped on the back, I'd really have no choice.:eek:

Now the sight of Dole, Regis, Thawley, Jimmy and all the other doyens of the ALMS scene wearing such vests and other appropriate and relevant garments from Victoria's Secret would be worth paying to see........also would give the crowd something to entertain them during full course yellows.........would give a whole new meaning to Trading Pinks............ :o

[John Thawley]

but the fact is, if the ALMS wanted us to wear pink photo vests with Victoria's Secret stamped on the back, I'd really have no choice.:eek:

Now the sight of Dole, Regis, Thawley, Jimmy and all the other doyens of the ALMS scene wearing such vests and other appropriate and relevant garments from Victoria's Secret would be worth paying to see........also would give the crowd something to entertain them during full course yellows.........would give a whole new meaning to Trading Pinks............ :o

You just keep those 1/2 pound notes in your pocket there, Stud. Kind of would give new meaning to that Christmas classic... "don we now our gay apparel, though, wouldn't it?

JT

[Jim Sykes]

I've already forwarded the Victoria's Secret idea to Bob Dickinson as an idea to help keep out any of the wankers next year. I mean, you gonna really NEED to be there working to wear that getup.

[John Thawley]

I've already forwarded the Victoria's Secret idea to Bob Dickinson as an idea to help keep out any of the wankers next year. I mean, you gonna really NEED to be there working to wear that getup.

You're just looking for ONE MORE excuse to run around in your leopard skin thong. Say... did that come free with your new operating system? :eek: