ESPN, NHRA and YouTube are really cracking down (1 Viewer)

[.]

Irrelevant. There is a thing called property rights and you cannot use video or photographs of someone else's property without a signed release from them. The racing that takes place on the track is NHRA's property and the only organization that they assign the rights to is ESPN.

It's an event open to the public, which makes it a "newsworthy event" and perfectly legal for me or anybody else to take pictures or video all day (as long as the track lets in cameras). The NHRA and the tracks willingly let people onto the grounds to take photos and video. I'm not sneaking in equipment that they say I can't. I can then share those pictures or video with anybody I choose or post them on a website for anybody to see. ESPN, NHRA and/or the track does not own the copyright to my photos or video. I am the copyright holder, not anybody else. You and Friar need to do a little more reading up on copyright laws as it applies to photography, especially in public places. I've got several websites bookmarked and a few .pdf files handy if you'd like to read them. I can also recommend you a couple good books for you to read if you're so inclined. I'm not an expert but I'm a lot more familiar with this than the average bear since I've been heavily involved with photography for 20 years. I also learned a lot from my journalism teacher in HS while I was a photographer for the student newspaper and the yearbook. So before you go talking out of your rear-end I suggest you pick up a book or three about photography and copyright law before you tell me what I can and can't do with my images that I own the copyright.

 

[clwill]

It is not an "event open to the public". You buy a ticket. If you don't agree with the terms of the ticket you can turn the ticket in at the box office before entering and get your money back (and not enter). Same is true of concerts, movies, baseball games, etc., etc.

 

[.]

It is not an "event open to the public". You buy a ticket. If you don't agree with the terms of the ticket you can turn the ticket in at the box office before entering and get your money back (and not enter). Same is true of concerts, movies, baseball games, etc., etc.

Yes, it is open to the public. The public is there, right? Or are those all just ghosts walking around that look like people. The fact remains that the person who took the photos is the copyright owner. As the copyright owner I can share the photos with whoever I want and I can post them anywhere I want. They let in cameras and camcorders, do they not? I'm pretty certain the answer is yes. That means they're allowing me to take pictures or video. I'm not selling anything. There's a big difference between selling the pictures and sharing them with others either by posting them on a website, sending them through an email or printing them out and giving them away. Do some reading before running your mouth.

 

[Jim]

It's an event open to the public, which makes it a "newsworthy event" and perfectly legal for me or anybody else to take pictures or video all day (as long as the track lets in cameras). The NHRA and the tracks willingly let people onto the grounds to take photos and video.

A race is not an event pen to the public. It is an event held on private propety and open only to those who purchase tickets. As for it being a "newsworthy" event, it is the use of the image to which the term "newsworthy" applies, not the event. For example, if I take a photo of Hillary Will at the track, I can use it in news coverage of the race without a release. But I cannot later use that same image in a a brochure or an advertisement without getting a signed release from her. Same event - different usage.

NHRA lets you take cameras into the event for personal use only. They have not given you the rights to do anything with those images other than personal use.

I can then share those pictures or video with anybody I choose or post them on a website for anybody to see.

No, you cannot. You cannot distribute photographs or videos of another party's property without there permission. The events on the track are the property of NHRA and they control the use.

ESPN, NHRA and/or the track does not own the copyright to my photos or video. I am the copyright holder, not anybody else.

Yes, you hold the copyright to those images. But they hold the rights to what is on those images. You can't do anything with those images without their permission. In the same way, you can't take a photograph of John Force at the track and distribute copies of it without a release.

You and Friar need to do a little more reading up on copyright laws as it applies to photography, especially in public places.

1. I really don't need to do any more reading as my day job involves the use of print and video images. I know the copyright laws because I work with them nearly every day.

2. The race track is not a public place. It is private property.

So before you go talking out of your rear-end I suggest you pick up a book or three about photography and copyright law before you tell me what I can and can't do with my images that I own the copyright.

I suggest you do the same. I suggest you start with reading about personal releases and property releases. I also suggest that you learn the difference between image copyrights and subject rights. They are different.

Jim

 

[Jim]

Same is true of concerts, movies, baseball games, etc., etc.

One difference is that there are very few concerts and movies that you can take a camera or camcorder into now. Their solution to dealing with the problem of unauthorized use was just to ban cameras altogether.

Jim

 

[Jim]

There's a big difference between selling the pictures and sharing them with others either by posting them on a website, sending them through an email or printing them out and giving them away. Do some reading before running your mouth.

No, there is no difference. Legally, the word is distribute. It does not matter if you distribute your images for free or for a fee. Without a signed release or license agreement, you do not have the right to do so.

Jim

 

[.]

No, there is no difference. Legally, the word is distribute. It does not matter if you distribute your images for free or for a fee. Without a signed release or license agreement, you do not have the right to do so.

Jim

This statement right here shows how absolutely clueless you are about photography, copyright and release forms. I'm not even going to try to respond to your other idiotic BS above.

If it happens in a public setting, (racetrack, beach, on the street, etc.) then I can take a pic of anybody I like and post it or distribute it without getting release forms. If I sell the photo or use it for commercial purposes then I would need a signed release, unless it falls under the "newsworthy" category. As a "newsworthy" event I would not need a release. I have taken photos which ended up on every single TV station news website in the Portland, OR area, people included, and did not need a release because what I was photographing (apartment fire) was a "newsworthy" event. I have also taken some shots which ended up on CompPlus and DRO in the past. As long as the track is allowing cameras and camcorders onto the property then they are allowing me to take photos or video which I can then share them (post on a message board, host on a website, send through email, etc.) with anybody I want.

Before you run your mouth about something you obviously have no clue about why don't you pick up a copy of this book and read it first: Legal Handbook for Photographers
Read this too: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

 

[.]

NHRA lets you take cameras into the event for personal use only. They have not given you the rights to do anything with those images other than personal use.

Sharing them by putting them on a message board, hosting them on a website and sending them through email are personal use, you tool.

You cannot distribute photographs or videos of another party's property without there permission. The events on the track are the property of NHRA and they control the use.

If I was selling them that might be the case. I'm not selling them! Do you know how to read? I can take pictures of people and objects all day long at the race track (since they allowed me entry with my camera) and I can then post those pictures on a message board, on a website or share them through email or any other means I want without needing any kind of release.

Yes, you hold the copyright to those images. But they hold the rights to what is on those images. You can't do anything with those images without their permission. In the same way, you can't take a photograph of John Force at the track and distribute copies of it without a release.

Want to make a bet? As long as I'm not selling the pic or using for commercial purposes (advertising) I do not need a release! I can take a picture of you in a public area and post it on every message board I can find and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because I'm not selling the photo.

1. I really don't need to do any more reading as my day job involves the use of print and video images. I know the copyright laws because I work with them nearly every day.

Then you need to pay more attention because you've got some simple things very wrong.

2. The race track is not a public place. It is private property.

It's private property that is open to the public. As long as they're allowing personal cameras and video equipment onto the grounds they're allowing me to use them for my personal use.

 

[Jim]

Brent,

Try learning something before you post. You are just wrong on this but if you feel that strongly that you are correct, I suggest you challenge it and see how far you get.

You continue to confuse the phrase "newsworthy event" with news coverage. It is the usage that determines whether you need a release or not...not the event.

BTW, the PDF you linked to talked about shooting photographs. It did not mention anything at all about using them afterward.

Jim

 

[.]

No, there is no difference. Legally, the word is distribute. It does not matter if you distribute your images for free or for a fee. Without a signed release or license agreement, you do not have the right to do so.

Jim

That's where you're absolutely wrong! I can take pictures of you or anybody else in a public setting and I can post those pics damn near anywhere I want or share them with whoever I want. Model photographers do not need signed model release forms to post the pictures or share them. The only time they need a signed release is if they're selling the photos or using them for commercial purposes. Sharing them on a message board, hosting them on a personal website and sending them over a chat program or through email is not selling them or using them for commercial purposes, it's personal use and I don't need a signed release form!

 

[.]

Brent,

Try learning something before you post. You are just wrong on this but if you feel that strongly that you are correct, I suggest you challenge it and see how far you get.

You continue to confuse the phrase "newsworthy event" with news coverage. It is the usage that determines whether you need a release or not...not the event.

BTW, the PDF you linked to talked about shooting photographs. It did not mention anything at all about using them afterward.

Jim

I know I'm right because I've attended several photography classes where this very subject was covered in fine detail. I have also read numerous books and articles written by photography experts and copyright lawyers regarding photography, release forms, public areas, etc. Have you? Obviously you have not because you're completely wrong!

 

[Jim]

Sharing them by putting them on a message board, hosting them on a website and sending them through email are personal use, you tool.

No, putting images on a Web site that is accessible by the public is not personal use. That is exhibition.

If I was selling them that might be the case. I'm not selling them! Do you know how to read? I can take pictures of people and objects all day long at the race track (since they allowed me entry with my camera) and I can then post those pictures on a message board, on a website or share them through email or any other means I want without needing any kind of release.

Incorrect again. Selling has nothing to do with the issue. If you are distributing or exhibiting the images, you need a license or release.

I can take a picture of you in a public area and post it on every message board I can find and there's not a damn thing you can do about it because I'm not selling the photo.

Yes, there is something I can do about it. I can sue you for unauthorized use of my image. The only way that selling the image factors in is that it can affect the amount of money I can sue you for. And it is not just people. You can't even take a photograph of my house and use it without getting a release.

It's private property that is open to the public.

Incorrect. A racetrack is private property and admission is granted to everyone who purchases a ticket. Part of purchasing that ticket is agreeing to the conditions that are printed on the back of the ticket.

As long as they're allowing personal cameras and video equipment onto the grounds they're allowing me to use them for my personal use.

Personal use means you looking at them afterward. It does not mean distributing or exhibiting those photos to the public.

Model photographers do not need signed model release forms to post the pictures or share them.

They absolutely need a model release. You even need model releases from people who appear in your photographs if you are going to hang them on a gallery wall.

This is my last post on the subject as I would just be repeating myself. If you feel that strongly, try challenging NHRA on the subject.

Jim

 

[clwill]

Brent, you're just wrong on this issue, no matter how many words you put in bold. Please check the US Copyright Office website and/or talk with a competent copyright attorney. To wit:

- Producers of events can and do limit the access to the content, and what you do with images of their content. By entering the venue you agree to those terms.

- The reason why YouTube and others remove things is not because you're making money, it's because they are.

- However, it has been proven time and again that making money is not a key to violation of copyright -- check out the copyright.gov site or the latest DVDs legal terms when you run it, they explicitly talk about "whether or not for profit". It can effect damages, but not making money does not make it legal.

- Taking pictures in a public place does not automatically give you rights to those images. Many jurisdictions have limited your right to do so, for security reasons, for reasons of personal privacy, and other reasons.

- A ticketed event is NOT a public event, they can and do remove people for all kinds of reasons. Even if you purchase a ticket, you do not have a right to be there. Especially since these events occur on private property.

I've been involved with photography for 40+ years, and the simple "I took it, it's mine" is misunderstood by many/most amateurs. It really takes good legal help to handle it correctly.

This is my last word on this subject, if you want to disagree, please check copyright.gov, talk to an attorney, or challenge them in court.

 

[flash]

Whew !!! I'm exhausted just reading this thread.

 

[Suzie Q]

Whew !!! I'm exhausted just reading this thread.

AMEN Reinhard!!!

 

[__]

Regardless of the applicable laws, one would like to think people would have the common decency not to post images that would be extremely disturbing to the family, friends and fans. Unfortunately, common decency is very uncommon.

 

[nick name]

Whew !!! I'm exhausted just reading this thread.

The thread is a prime example of why fewer pros choose to post here. Just because a poster has a keyboard, access to the internet, and took a few classes does not mean that they have any grasp of the topic.

I left out the part about arguing with people who do this for a living and HAVE to know the laws.

I remember being involved in one of these threads regarding copyright. It's amazing that people who are clueless have no shame in pronouncing that fact to the world.

So to Jim Samuel, it's better that you gave this thread up. I'm not sure how you can convince anyone who took some classes, read some books, and does some part time stuff from the grandstands that gets a photo published every once in a while. Those are some pretty impenetrable qualifications.

I'm done, too.

 

[.]

It isn't just the Pro's Dan.
Look at the registrations to this place, then look at where the majority of the posts come from.

 

[gerrymack]

Brent, I think you need to come into the digital age... Good reasoning Jim

 

[Bob]

The thread is a prime example of why fewer pros choose to post here. Just because a poster has a keyboard, access to the internet, and took a few classes does not mean that they have any grasp of the topic.

I left out the part about arguing with people who do this for a living and HAVE to know the laws.

I remember being involved in one of these threads regarding copyright. It's amazing that people who are clueless have no shame in pronouncing that fact to the world.

So to Jim Samuel, it's better that you gave this thread up. I'm not sure how you can convince anyone who took some classes, read some books, and does some part time stuff from the grandstands that gets a photo published every once in a while. Those are some pretty impenetrable qualifications.

I'm done, too.

I've gone a few rounds with several people (not just here and not just Brent) concerning copyrights, and internet publishing and usage. Often, their interpretation of "newsworthy" and "free use" encompasses everything, and that just isn't the case. I think the reason they persist in those beliefs is because they themselves have never received a cease and desist order from a copyright owner's attorney.