Question of Photo Use Ethics...

[saroy]

Just had something happen to me that I'm a little unsure of, and wanted to hear any opinions.

I run a lot of local road races, and have gotten in the habit of copying the photos taken of me by the race photographers from the web (i.e. a very low-res, unprintable version) and putting them up in the photo gallery on my personal website (i.e. not distributing or selling, just sharing). I really only put the pics there so that family and friends could view them, and when the photos were watermarked, I just left it there because of course the pictures aren't mine -- they were taken by the race photographer. I'd want any of my family/friends viewing them to know that.

I received an email from one of the race photographers today asking me to either remove the pictures or pay for them. I immediately understood the photog's concern -- major lapse in judgment on my part for not thinking about it earlier -- and removed the photos. I'm currently talking with the photographer to see if we can work something out, because I really do enjoy having them there for friends/family and would like to be able to put them back up if at all possible.

The race photographer does sell the full high-res photo if desired, but I don't want that, and don't need it, and quite honestly the price ($20 per photo) puts it out of my range. All I want to do is display a low-res web version in a personal photo gallery. But in the meantime...

I guess my question is more about the ethics of the situation. My photoblog (listed below) is *not* my personal site where I had the race photos. I don't put images on my photoblog that don't belong to me. However, I'd have no problem with other people posting my images online at no cost to them as long as 1) they credit me and 2) they're not using them commercially.

So, on one hand, I can *definitely* understand the race photographer's concern, and will no longer be posting any of their photos unless I work out an agreement with them. But on the other hand, I hadn't thought I was doing anything wrong by posting them, with watermark and copyright present on the photo, without any intent to distribute or print (because they are low-res, saved from the web versions, it would be impossible to do that anyway).

I'm really curious to know what others think about issues like this...

[Craig Wilkins]

saroy Said "I run a lot of local road races, and have gotten in the habit of copying the photos taken of me by the race photographers from the web (i.e. a very low-res, unprintable version) and putting them up in the photo gallery on my personal website (i.e. not distributing or selling, just sharing). I really only put the pics there so that family and friends could view them, and when the photos were watermarked, I just left it there because of course the pictures aren't mine -- they were taken by the race photographer. I'd want any of my family/friends viewing them to know that. "


Hmmm, Sounds like He may be in the wrong
First of all, if it's an Image of you & your property did he Have you sign a model release giving him the rights /Permissions to sell and or distibute his photos of you & your property???

if not where does he get the nerve to sell your image for profit then complain when you use an image of you & your property???

Maybe I'm wrong But as far as I understand you could turn the Tables on him if he wants to get stupid with this issue.

But if you gave him a release etc maybe you should read it Very carefully

[Aoide]

I think that the copyright law is pretty much that those are his pictures and he has the right to do with them what he likes, including refusing to allow people to post them to their sites without his knowledge or permission. Is there a contract or paperwork for the races? It might say in there that a photographer has been contracted to photograph the race. Is there a disclaimer on the website somewhere?

I see his point especially if this is his livelihood. Allowing you to put up a low res version is the loss of a sale for him. Because his thinking is if you really wanted the picture for your site you would purchase it.

This is why the Creative Commons License has a niche. It is for people who don't mind their work being used or displayed (some rights reserved). But I would expect someone who is a professional phtoographer to keel all rights reserved. Sorry Sarah, I have to side with the photographer.

[TheObiJuan]

were the photos taken in a public place, where you do not have to consent to photogs snapping away?
otherwise, he should have asked. was he there as an official photog for the people hosting the event?

[saroy]

I'm not sure if I signed a release, but I don't think it's necessary -- the photos were taken in a public place, and the race photographer was there in an official capacity. As far as I know, they have every right to take my picture, and I don't have a problem with them doing so.

I'm trying to look back in retrospect, since I haven't really thought about this until now... I guess my thinking was that I wasn't taking any income away from the photographer. I wouldn't buy most of the photos in printed or hi-res form. In the past, there have been a couple times when I've liked the photo and wanted a copy, and in those cases I bought a print through the photographer's website just as they intended. That's what I'll continue to do if I want a print or full-res "negative." If I can't work out a deal for the low-res collection, I just won't have them anymore, at least not anywhere beyond my personal hard drive, because I can't afford the price per high-res digital copy for the number (probably ~40) of shots that I had up in low-res watermarked form.

I haven't done any research into copyright law, but my suspicion if anyone is in the wrong, it's me...which is why I immediately removed the photos without complaint. I'm just interested if anyone knows for sure...

[Hogleg 44]

Is there any way you could create a album on your website that is viewable by invitation only?
That ability exists for my albums at Webshots.com. But if it's possible on a personal website I don't know...But! I'll bet you could password protect an album. The guy that does our clubs "North Texas Norton Owners" website has done just that!
If so, you could put that type of picture there, and your friends and family could see them, but no one else could.

[mattchow]

what track were these pictures taken at?

[saroy]

Not track -- outdoor road races. So, all over the Houston area.

[gpgyo]

Making the site where you have the pictues posted password protected only skirts the issue and does not change whether what you are doing is right or wrong. Maybe you can include links on your site to his where you would have otherwise included the pictures. I'm not aware that a link is a copyright infringement (someone say something if it is.)

Next time you run, post a message on this board and see if anyone here will be covering the event. If so maybe that person would be nice enough to allow you the use of some of his/her pictures.

Have fun,
Greg

Edited to remove incorrect statements regarding copyright law.

[jeffkohn]

Actually he can sell prints without needing a model release, selling a print does not constitute commercial use. Commercial use would be selling the image to an advertising agency or stock agency, or using the photo to promote his business.

[Gordon]

In this case, you are taking his copyrighted images and distributing them without a license. Just because you are publishing them on a web site (and yes, you are publishing and distributing them) doesn't make it any different to say printing them out in a free local paper or a sports magazine and giving it away - you still aren't legally allowed to use pictures you don't have rights to, without the original copyright owner's consent.

Like you suspect, you don't have any rights to do anything with his images, without his permission or a license, but you are in a public place so he doesn't need a release to take, sell or distribute pictures of you (unless used for a commercial purpose, such as advertising sales to a third party) Legally, he could for example sell the picture of you to a local paper, without needing your consent or a release, but it couldn't be used by Nike to advertise their shoes.

Now the license models are typically that you pay based on the size of the image - small or web based images usually sell for a lower price than a cover image or similar - for example Texas Highways pays $15 if they use a photo on their web site (with copyright info and photographers name showing, depending on license) and they pay about $360 for a front page print cover - but they still have to pay to give it away on a web site too. There obviously is nothing to say that they have to sell you a low res version either, or charge you a price that you'd like to use them, unfortunately.

The cheap way of doing it is to buy a 4x6 print and scan it, but that is also a breach of copyright. (ask any of the wedding photographers who get their images 'reprinted' at cheap copy places at a fraction of the cost that they charge)

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a bit of time looking in to the laws around doing sports event photography.

[lscottpht]

I am sort of a pro, and I would not be happy if someone put the photos I had taken on their website, personal or not, without my permission. It is an infringement of the copyright and says so right on my websites. I would allow you to, for a personal site, if you asked first, in low res. of course. I allow a variety of ngo's to use my photos for free, but they always ask first. As far as getting your permission and model release, it is not necessary if you are in a public place. A model release would be necessary if the photos were to be used for advertising, unless that photog. was hired by the people putting on the event. As a racer, you should have been aware of that. A model release is not necessary for editorial purposes or gallery exhibits.

[Jim Victory]

AS most have indicated these shots are the photogs, and possibly the event organizers, and only he, or them, can give you permission to use them.

I assure you that when you signed up for this race you probably had a discloser statement in the entry form indicating your relinquishment of rights to any photos taken during the event or associated with the event.

I have been shooting sports for 20 years and it is standard practice for event organizers to include releases of photographic rights in entry forms from all participants. This way they can use these shots for future advertisement of the events without tracking down the participant, who were photographed, for releases.

[mattchow]

Originally Posted by saroy

Not track -- outdoor road races. So, all over the Houston area.

ok, so which road races were these taken at?

[saroy]

Thanks for all the feedback and information, everyone. I really appreciate getting the perspectives of professional photographers, since I am not a pro myself. You obviously know much more about the intricacies of copyrights than I do.

You are all correct in that I probably signed a release (don't know 100% sure, but probably did), I don't have permission to use them because they are copyrighted, they were there as an official part of the race, I was in a public place, etc.

I know all this, but only in retrospect, as the thought of copyright infringement hadn't crossed my mind until I received the photographer's email. When I did, I realized my error, and feel *incredibly* stupid for not having considered the issue earlier. I fixed things as quickly as I could by removing the photos.

I haven't heard back from the photographer yet, and honestly my biggest worry at the moment is that I have irrevocably upset/offended them. I don't know the photographer personally, but have used their service for a race that I myself was race director for, and have purchased prints from them. They do fantastic work that I obviously appreciate, and it was certainly never my intention to cause *any* harm by posting the photos.

Thanks again for the feedback, folks.