Interesting article about Photo Rights

[Jim Sykes]

I started this thread over on Sports Shooter and those that are members there may want to chime in on it. http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=22553

if your not a member, then its worth the read.

Its mainly focused on sports, but its directly related to what many of us deal with at the races and is directly related to what we have been dealing with in the ALMS regarding rights to sell images.

I dont necessarily want to start a thread here as well, since the more folks involved the better which is why I hope that SS members might chime in over there, but if you have any comments and arent an SS member, we can certainly discuss it here as well as it pertains to us.

[Dennis Murray]

I'm not a member of SS, so I'll give my two cents here...the University has every right to control the presentation of its property and the players in the portrait should be entitled to decide if they want to be pictured, and what compensation they receive from it.

I can't buy that he is presenting a journalistic view of events. I'm not sure where that line is - but he's somewhere past it.

I've noticed a trend with newspapers that I find disturbing. As we all know the subscription base for daily papers is growing smaller, and they look for alternate sources of income. One of the county dailies in the Atlanta area makes available for sale all of its high school sports images. This goes beyond just 1 image they use in an article - to entire sets of pictures from games. They gain entrance to the playing field by use of press passes, and then use that access to compete with shooters under contract to the schools.

As far as applicability to shooters working at ALMS/GA/CART/IRL and really, any non-NASCAR event in the US - I think the sanctioning body certainly has the ability to decide if someone they grant photographic credentials to can resell the images for non-journalistic use. However...they need to decide that well in advance and make it clear to shooters (and not change rules in midstream). This gives the shooter the ability to decide whether the event is profitable to cover.

[John Thawley]

It's very difficult to define where this is all going. As a "creator" of images... whether an interpretation of an event or a record of an event, we can be caught on both sides of the argument. We want access to record the intellectual property of others, yet we want to restict access to our own intellectual property. We seek to control everything that is ours to the point of reserving all rights including "derivitives."

I understand "entertainers and stage productions." But when it comes to sports, it seems there's a mixed message. Sports promoters want the public to know the outcome of their competitions. They want it published with widespread knowledge and, in fact, go to great lengths via television, news outlets and their own public relations efforts to reach that goal.

However, they also want to control any visual record of those events. It seems to me they want it both ways. They want the public domain to embrace their competitions and attract public interest via exploiting the results of their competitions, but they want it on their own terms.

You know what? I'm a bit fed up with it. If you want the world to treat your "property" as "news" then you give up the rights to scores, statistics, still image records and "x" minute(s) long news clips. I understand "replaying" the broadcast... but if you want to be "news," you've opened the door.

But nowadays sports has become "entertainment>" So now the leagues, teams, players etc. want to play it both ways. Cover us as news... but we're a protected entertainment property. Talk about us... but only when we say you can and how we say you can.

Tell me this... what is the difference between an unauthorized biography about a public figure and an unauthorized season recap of NASCAR? Are the box scores public record or not?

I can sit and retype the phone book and sell it as my own. I can't xerox the pages and assemble them... but I can reassemble the actual names and addresses.

Racer Magazine can publish 100 pictures of the 12 Hours of Sebring. They can even do a special issue Year In Review. Yet we are "led to believe" that we need permission to publish our own collection of images from the year.

Personally, I don't believe it. I think it's a crock... but who has the money to test it? And, when they decide I don't need a credential, how will I shoot it anyway.

Sports is currently having their cake and eating it too. And, frankly, it pisses me off.

Done. :)

JT