Civil code 3344 doesn't apply for two reasons (right of publicity). First it only applies without consent. Read your waivers. Guarantee you consent to your photo being taken. Second you have to prove damages. This is for John Elway to sue saying you can't use a pic of me throwing a football in your sport store advert without paying me. Not for joe blow MOP athlete to say you can't take my picture on a public street

aaaah . . . illegal and criminal are not synonyms (for the love of God!). patentattorney gives the best run down on the law so I won't repeat that to you.

This thread has some of the craziest logic I have ever seen, and as a lawyer I see a lot!!

---

David
* Ironman for Life! (Blog) * IM Everyday Hero Video * Daggett Shuler Law *
Disclaimer: I have personal and professional relationships with many athletes, vendors, and organizations in the triathlon world.

3344 “compliments” a common law right of action for any of the torts falling within the right of privacy, it is not the exclusive means of stating a claim.

“Consent” depends on the parties to the waiver and what the waiver says. Obviously. I doubt photographers retain all their rights after being hired by MarathonFoto, although I have no information on the details of those relationships, it seems a fair assumption that MarathonFoto is the owner of the rights.

I also doubt that the waivers say literally anyone who snaps your photo on the course can start using the in any manner they choose simply because you were in public when the photo was taken. That’s the point.

Generally replying to you, not specifically.

This thread has done what so many threads on ST end of doing - it has completely moved pasted the originally post and intent. I feel like I'm sitting in a disciplinary meeting with the union and they are deflecting the discussion every time management makes a statement.

Now off to another topic:

The company taking the pictures at IM Chattanooga this year is charging $15 for a 5x7 print. This was my wife's first IM and it was a very big deal to her, so I'm building her a shadow box and we needed pictures of her in the 3 disciplines. I took a picture of her with my S5 at swim in and had Walgreens print it for $2.50. It looks just as good as the 2 pictures for $30 total that I have already purchased.

I understand that the employees of the company have to earn a living, and they did something that I would probably not have the resources to do, but based on economy of scale my gut tells me I'm getting ripped off, and I have little choice but to pay.

That doesn't justify posting a watermarked picture on Facebook, but I certainly see why people resort to doing just that.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Honestly I think race photography has run its course with the quality of new cameras and phones.

And then thread? Yup.

Surely, as a lawyer you deal with enough situations on a daily basis to know that!

As near as I can tell, the sense of entitlement to "all things digital" (photos, movies, music, computer software, etc) is RAMPANT and unfettered. Even the MPAA/RIAA with all their efforts have only had limited success in some large scale instances. But, the world of movie and music piracy is alive and thriving regardless of those efforts. I'm aware of several PROFESSIONAL people who crack&rip every DVD/BLURAY they rent from Redbox---100s of movies.

As a friend and I used to say, "Capital D" (Doomed). Or, to quote another STer sig, "We are so fucked!"

Just commenting on that point...that's a pretty myopic view of what it costs to get a human being in the right place at the right time with the right gear, the skills to use it, and then the resources to process, archive, and distribute said photo to the right customer. Saying it costs cents to produce is like arguing that a doctor's time is only worth the electricity to keep the lights on in the exam room for the few minutes he/she visited you.

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

We're lucky here because we have 3-4 decent photographers (a couple are pretty darn good) that take pictures at some of the smaller races (bike races, trail runs, and small tris) for free. They do it for fun, knowing that it will make people they know in the community happy, as well as the race directors. All of them are current or former athletes that participate, or have participated in these type of events.

They generally post up 40-120 of the 500-1500 or so pictures they take. Some of them watermark them, but only in the lower corner and offer high res and edited pictures without the watermark for a small fee, but in general they post them up on FB and tell people to tag yourself or others and use them as you please.

The flip side though is that I've seen them get more business for actual photo shoots of weddings, graduations, family photo shoots, etc. Lots of people use their watermarked photos as profile pictures or cover photos for free advertising. And because they are free, most of the time the people are willing to post the picture with a "PC: Photographer Name" and link to their FB page which further networks the advertising to friends and family who may not know who they are.

Everyone wins this way. Athletes, race directors, photographers. Granted, these are for small races where everyone kind of knows everyone. I don't think this would work at a large race, with tons of people, especially when those people may be from out of town and have no intention to throw more business to the photographer.

Remember this one?

https://www.dpreview.com/...inst-bride-and-groom

https://withoutbullshit.com/...uestions-groundswell

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Never heard of that story till now. But not sure how it applies to my comments.

Your race experience sorta validates why it’s $15 a picture.

you were able to only get 1 of the 3 segment photos and processed etc. So that $15 is paying for the photographer, equipment, time and placing of photographers to get all pics needed.

So yes they play on this being a “big deal race” in the same light WTC is, expos are etc etc.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Maybe it doesn't, I dunno

If I remember correctly [which is always iffy, at best] the couple were posting the watermarked pix on social media, and wanted to post the hi-rez's as well [for free], thinking that only physical pix had to be paid for and ALL the digitals were free ... then they had the hissy fit and started trashing the photographer

But did they delete the digital proofs? nope. Them, they still kept

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

  

Well I am a lawyer and I can tell you, categorically, that it is copyright infringement to do this. Slam dunk 100%. It's both a legal and a moral wrong.

Just because it's not tangible (i.e. something that can be grabbed) doesn't mean it's not theft. It's still theft. The photographer has taken time, effort and spent money (lots of it, travelling and on very expensive equipment) taking those photographs with a view to making money out of them. It is their property. No less than if I owned land, spent time and money growing vegetables on it with a view to selling them. If they're crap vegetables they either don't sell, or I get a low price for them. If the photos are rubbish then they don't sell, or I don't get the money I want for them.

And they way a court would look at this is that if a person goes to the effort of using the photo on Facebook, for example, they clearly liked it enough that they saw some value in the photograph. The fact that that person may not want to pay the full price being asked is irrelevant. I don't want to pay the full price for an Aston Martin, doesn't mean I can just take it and then argue that I don't think it's worth what Aston Martin are asking for it. The photographer has lost the "fee" they would have received had the person paid for it normally. That is what the court would say.

So it is copyright infringement and is a really sh**ty thing to do.[/quote]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think that being a lawyer gives you any special expertise to state authoritatively what is morally wrong. If fact, as a lawyer myself, I am certain it does not.

But here is a question you may be able to answer. If I take the screen shot and post it to my FB page while in North Korea, is that illegal if I am a resident of Florida?

You need not even have a copyright, name, or company on an Internet image to have the image covered under international copyright law. It would be pretty dumb to not at least to put contact info in the form of © along w/name and/or company so people could at least ask for permission. The issue we pro photographers & companies face is how to enforce the law and get compensation.

I would get photo THIEVES steal my company thumbnails with a huge 24font © in the middle and use it for a Facebook profile photo. Absolutely no shame or guilt. I'd ask them to take it down, no response. No laws need to be in place for this to be anything but THEFT. I think this is due in large part because of these ridiculous forum topics started to make arguments for this THEFT to be be somehow OK.

When a company pays for traveling photographers who have invested at least $15,000 into lenses, bodies, etc (usually more like $30-50k) into taking your photos and you then STEAL, the hiring company will not be able to continue giving them those assignments due to lower sell through.

The small & medium size companies worldwide are almost all gone now. I had to sell mine after 3-years of loses and the photos were better than ever.

This topic is worn out for years now. The THEFT will go on until there is no more speculative post event sales at any event.

enduro