Today's Exciting Copyright Infringement

[Matt Laur]

<p>"Wall Street" includes thousands of grandmas who have retirement accounts with investments in companies whose products you use every day. A lot of farmers, for example, couldn't make the food you eat without the use of heavy equipment that couldn't be made without their manufacturers being able to raise capital by selling stock in their companies. Stock markets make it possible for capital to move towards the guy with the prospect of making better combines, or a better business around selling cups of coffee. Hence my owning some shares of Starbucks, but not of their competitors. Yes, there needs to be a large, fluid industry surrounding my ability to take pictures, charge for that, and then put some of that money into stocks that I'll sell a year from now or thirty years from now. Reality.<br /><br />My ability to turn my attention to photography hinges on my having clients with businesses thriving enough to be able to pay me to do it. I'm now adding drone-based aerial stuff to my bag of tricks, and am looking very carefully at certain players that are about to be part of a huge multi-billion-dollar new chunk of the economy (people making and using flying robots). Investment banking companies will play a role in my ability to make an educated guess about which of those companies should get some of my money, in hopes of that being a lot more valuable a bit later. You know, Wall Street.<br /><br />And look, I'm still talking about photography! And yes, my stuff gets mis-used and ripped off on a regular basis. I'm adjusting my business model around that not mattering as much... but if a company like Color Runs heists some of my aerial shots, taken from public space, and uses them without permission, I'll be pretty pissed off. And they'll get a bill. And if they don't pay it, I'll make a bigger stink, and let this here social media stuff make them unhappy. <br /><br />Both parties here could have behaved a bit better, but this all goes back to Color Run(s?) reaching out about having something shared/used on Facebook. I don't care what happened next, they deliberately put those images to work well outside of any formal arrangements they made. Naughty. If they were a publicly traded company (you know, on Wall Street), the mechanism would be there to let their conduct's impact on the value of their company be expressed first thing Monday morning, in their stock price.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>Has he registered the photograph? This will be the first step of his route to compensation.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"'Wall Street' includes thousands of grandmas who have retirement accounts with investments in companies whose products you use every day."</em></p>

<p>Ha. No, it doesn't. These grandmas are not included in the decision-making or in most of the profiteering. Wall Street, at least in common parlance, refers to the suits earning and stealing the big bucks! It's those in power, not those who have a few bucks invested for their futures and who are always in jeopardy of being ripped off of their miniscule cut of the pie. </p>

[EricM]

<p>we should make an 'off topic' forum...</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Oh, no. Not again!</p>

[bobbollinger]

<p>Well, I am a lawyer, and I am mystified about what Color Run would be suing Max for--there was a link to the lawsuit but my Pacer password is at the office, so I could not look at it to see t heir cause of action. But it was in federal court (in Utah, of all places....and Max is in Florida. Going to be extra expense for Max to defend the suit.) Perhaps they are suing for some kind of declarative judgment that establishes their rights. Max can counterclaim for monetary damages I suppose, if he has his act together and has the funds to hire a Federal Court lawyer in Utah.<br>

I don't have a lot of sympathy for Max at this point, based on his apparent demand for $100K. That seems patently unreasonable to me. He should have settled this mess and learned from it when he had the chance to do so. <br>

</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>Preemptive mitigation by banning all cameras except accredited photojournalists still doesn't give that corporation or business the permission to swipe any fan/user supplied photo off their Facebook account to use without permission as promo material for their business. That's what this is about.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. That is the entire point. Often these local events are run by rank amateurs who are scared out of their wits, not the MBAs you mention. So they over-react and we all suffer. You may not like it, and I argued successfully against it but this kind of thing is happening every day. As we used to say in the Army, "do something even if it is wrong". And they do.</p>

<p>Tom. If you think that banning photographers is an idle threat think again. You and I both know that photographers are far more constrained now than they were when you and I were starting out. Far more. It is the easiest thing in the world to ban photography. A few signs at the entrances and you are done with it. Look at the back of your ticket at the San Diego Zoo. Unless they have changed, they assert rights to all photography on the grounds.<br>

All I am saying is that the heated rhetoric and threats that surround this issue have consequences. We have a law suit with very expensive consequences already and it has not even gone to court. Nobody but the lawyers win here. I totally get that maybe it is this kid's lawyer who is making all of the noise. Either way stuff like this frightens and angers people. They react. Not always reasonably.</p>

<p>I have to say though. If either of the charities with which I am involved ask me about photography I advise them to control it very carefully. One helps kids and involves hundreds of them participating in sports. You ought to see the forms the parents must sign. It is not a bad thing to be a little frightened these days. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>No one seems to have picked up on this, which I think is key (from the response by Travis Snyder of Color Run):<br>

<em>Max first came to shoot The Color Run because we granted his school class <strong>non-commercial access</strong> to come shoot the race in Miami where the photos in question were taken. After this, Max actually ended up working our events over the next year as a non-photographer and traveling and setting up with our traveling teams.</em><br>

<em>About a year later, Max first initiated questions about the use of some of the Miami photos. We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks. Our offers were declined, and met with the following demands:(language taken from legal filings)</em><br>

<em>-”$100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account” (This amount went on to be raised by Max to $300,000).</em><br /><em>-”To be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Globally) for the remainder of its existence.”</em><br /><em>-”Max Jackson Logo to be added in sponsors section on the bottom of all web pages”</em><br /><em>-”My name to read at the bottom of any TCR photo’s used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photograph by Max Jackson”</em><br /><em>-”if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action”</em><br>

In short, if the picture was taken on the clear understanding that it could not be used commercially, the photog does not have a leg to stand on. The only basis of a counterclaim would seem to be that Color Run did not say exactly what they wanted to do with the picture, but if they stand up in court and say "Hey, it was a misunderstanding, we tried to make it good but the guy's demands were totally ridiculous", I think they'll be believed and the case will be thrown out!</p>