I contacted my lawyer !!!

[Matt Mullarkey]

here's an email i got today..


It was brought to my attention that picture of me have been posted on your website. After being approached by several people and much to my dismay,I have found three pictures (images) of me on your site. My primary concern is that at no time did I ever give permission, verbal or written, to be photographed and/ or put on public display or otherwise. Furthermore, you indicate on the pictures that they are ''copyrighted'', which is obviously not likely. Secondly, the picture taken of me were not of the same nature as others on your site. By that I mean they are more of a ''stalker/secret admirer'' view rather than conveying any aspect of ''drag racing''.

I have consulted with my personal attorney and this will be my first and final request. Kindly remove the pictures labelled IMG_2337, IMG_2413 and IMG_2414 from your website and/ or any of your advertisment or literature, within three days of receipt of this e-mail. Moreover, I ask that you delete/destroy any and all negatives, originals or copied images and follow that up with written confirmation of the same.

people these days :( I told her she could have nicely told me she didn't feel comfortable with her images online and asked me to remove them..

not that i had to take them down... but i did anyway...

[Jacob Leveton]

was it an image from an event? (thus the 'event coverage' section)...

if so, there's an implied consent in the situation. If she shows up at an event, and you are given a press pass, you are allowed to shoot photos (for editorial purpose, of course) without any sort of model release.

[Matt Mullarkey]

yes, it was from a racing event and he had a press pass covering the event. she was standing along the fence watching the racing.

[Daniel Buck]

I'm no lawyer, but that sounds BS to me. You are covering the event, and they were in a public place where there is a photographer working. The photographer has to present credentials to shoot up close from the track side/staging area, but anyone publicly in the stands can take photos, am I right?

Having said that though, I'd have to say that I would probably do just as you did, take them down and don't complain. You never know, they are probably crazy enough to have actually contacted a lawyer, even if the case is in your favor, it's still a big hassle to deal with. Man America ticks me off sometimes. I love it here, but darn the people here can be out right annoying and self centered.

I'm sorry to hear this person is being a b*tch towards you, :-( It makes me wonder if this person does this on purpose, stands there near the photographers and then looks up on their site afterwards to see if there are any photos of them. Then sue them :-( (be it wrong, or not)

[Mark Scheuern]

It seems like if she had contacted her lawyer she would have been told how wrong she was.

[Morgan J Segal]

Depends on how it is being used on his website. If it was used as a portfolio piece that was promoting his photography business, or if the photos were up for sale, it would be considered advertising and he would need a release.
If his website was just showing pictures from the event editorially, i.e. telling the story from the event, then he probably would not need a release

[Matt Mullarkey]

it was press photos from the event.. they are for sale but it's not posted in the gallery. I've been shooting for a while now and thats the first time it's happened... maybe it was just a jealous boy friend or something.

I don't think I need a release even if I use it to promote my business or an event. Would i need one for a car shot at the event? or someone standing in the background? it's a public event. anyone can attend and she's just a "spectator".

[Daniel Buck]

it was press photos from the event.. they are for sale but it's not posted in the gallery. I've been shooting for a while now and thats the first time it's happened... maybe it was just a jealous boy friend or something.

I don't think I need a release even if I use it to promote my business or an event. Would i need one for a car shot at the event? or someone standing in the background? it's a public event. anyone can attend and she's just a "spectator".
I know drivers have to sign a release at a drag strip, but don't all the spectators have to sign a release as well? I know this release is mostly for possible injury, but maybe it says something about photography in there as well? Might be something to check, next time you go there. See if it says anything about the track photography.

In anycase, I'd probably just take the photograph down, but no way I would delete my files just because someone complained. Heck, I might even make a nice big print of it and hang it on my wall just for that :-D

[Matt Mullarkey]

i always sign a form going into the event, at the gate and one for photo/press passes. never really looked at what i was signing tho.. maybe i should read it next time.. lol

i just figured it was for accidents and injury during the event.

[Morgan J Segal]

I don't think I need a release even if I use it to promote my business or an event. .


Technically, yes you do.

Would i need one for a car shot at the event? or someone standing in the background? it's a public event. anyone can attend and she's just a "spectator"

If it is going to be used in an advertisement, yes, you do need a release if the person is identifiable. The whole public event only applies for editorial/news usage. Now, on the back of the ticket there is usually some boilerplate that acts as a release, but that usually only protects the organizers and teams.
This whole thing applies more to people, as they have a right to privacy. But if you would be wise to get one for property too if you know the shot is going to be used for an advertisement. So far, there has been no case won against a photographer for personal property being used in a shot, but do you want to be the first? ;)



And if it was not posted in the for sale gallery, how did she see it? It sounds from her letter that it was a shot of just her and that she was not just some background person


Reality is, she probably never even talked to a lawyer and only said that to scare you.

[Matt Mullarkey]

And if it was not posted in the for sale gallery, how did she see it? It sounds from her letter that it was a shot of just her and that she was not just some background person

Reality is, she probably never even talked to a lawyer and only said that to scare you.


the photos are in a gallery for event coverage.. it's not posted that the photos are for sale in the gallery.. but if someone contacts us we would sell them. not the people photos trhough.. just the car photos.

but yes, she was the only one in the photo, not in the background, but i don't think it really matters. she was at an event where press were attending and shooting photos and video.. we shoot the car racing, cars in the pits, people, pets, track employees, sunsets... everything.

[Morgan J Segal]

the photos are in a gallery for event coverage.. it's not posted that the photos are for sale in the gallery.. but if someone contacts us we would sell them. not the people photos trhough.. just the car photos.

but yes, she was the only one in the photo, not in the background, but i don't think it really matters. she was at an event where press were attending and shooting photos and video.. we shoot the car racing, cars in the pits, people, pets, track employees, sunsets... everything.


And again, unless your website is an editorial/news site, or only selling to such sites (and only providing access to them), you would need a release. if those other photographers took the same picture and put it up on a commercial website, they would need a release too. Probably, many of them are not getting releases, but that is the chance they are willing to take.
I did a fair amount of research on this when I was shooting motorsports, but I suggest you do your own research seeing how you don't seem to want to accept my answer

[John Swenson]

You need a release to sell photos of her; you don't need a release to sell the image to a publisher to be included in a book about drag racing...right?

[Matt Mullarkey]

i'll look into it..

[John Thawley]

Morgan has it right.

Your "use," as outlined in the credential agreement is for editorial. While people in the gallery and public areas are entitled to a reasonable right to privacy, walking around in public is outside that realm.

HOWEVER, if you use my likeness for anything outside editorial or that which is outlined on the back of my admission ticket, you are stepping over the line. You can not use my likeness for-profit. Editorial... yes... commercial... no. I am not your shill... we do not have an agreement between us that says I will "sell" for you. In essence, that is what someone's likeness becomes when used in the commercial sense. If you're making a poster of "drag girl at the fence"... chances are, folks will buy it cause she's hot... so, break it down. You are selling posters because she's hot. She gets to be compensated for being hot. ;)

Honestly, your whole "we sell images if you ask" concept is a little outside the lines. You need to be careful...

JT