Toronto Photography Meetup Group

We're you in Quebec?

Because there's a whole different set of legal issues there and they may be right.

You are mostly correct but to be clear, at least in Canada the issue of them being in a public place has nothing to do with anything either way.

I was in Ontario.

So far all this has done is cause alot of physical upset to my health and the sad part is in one case they had tried to scan some of my prints to make enlargements before.

But now they claim according to their lawyer I have to ask everyones permission to take their photos, but I believe that falls under a clause called undue burden.

Yet they never complained one bit when I had done race articles that appeared in magazines with their photo included.

I am not following what you are driving at here?

Please elaborate.

Which series was this that you're having issues with?

Snowcross

And its about three families in particular.

There really isn't a difference between your IP/copyrights as photographer and the subject's publicity/moral rights between a photo taken in a private place and one take in a public place.

You don't gain any additional rights because you and/or your subject are in public and conversely your subject does not lose any.

So then are you saying I have to ask their permission to photograph them, even if is for an editorial purpose?

No quite the opposite, it's my untrained opinion that the lawyer in this case is "talking out of his dorsal orifice".

The general legal opinion is that you as photographer have broad charter protections of your right to TAKE just about any photo you want and that subjects have almost no legal right of privacy against being photographed (I'm assuming here that we're not crossing the boundaries into criminal voyeurism).

The subject's rights only impact what uses you may make of that photo once you've taken it, you have more freedoms for editorial uses than you do for commercial uses.

There is really nothing in Canadian law that requires a photographer to get permission before taking a photo. Permission before publishing? THat's different and depends on the situation, editorial or not, Quebec or the ROC etc.

This might be a moot point if they signed a document with either the organizers or the venue, that included the possibility of being photographed. They would then have already provided a release. What their lawyer says at that point is immaterial.

It's also immaterial that they make such a claim if they're attempting to use your intellectual property themselves, without license. Without release you would not have the ability to use their likenesses for profit. Without license they would not be able to publicly use your images, period.

We are talking about taking photos at a racetrack, that is open to the public for veiwing here. I don't even take any shots around the trailers, despite having people cry I should. (I can't be in two places at once). There are lalways people taking photos from the spectator viewing areas and god only knows what happens with them?

These photos I take are not even published on a website, save for a few favs of my close friends that make it onto facebook.

I think they figured if they came at me with a "Our lawyer said" I would just drop the subject, and they would get away with it.

I pointed out that if I sell a racers image to a company for use in an advertisement, that there must be releases signed and they kept harping about how another racer had one of my images on the back of his trailer with my name on it.

I pointed out that they appraoached me to use an image, and got the file for that use, and they did not scan a photo to do it.

They seem to fail to understand who owns the actual image, and that when they buy a print, all they own is that piece of paper and nothing more.

You mean they're being "wilfully obtuse", as I generally refer to it. They don't understand because they don't WANT to understand. They see the image as a concrete thing that they purchase all rights to, rather than as a single use license. Boy, would they ever be surprised if they read the licenses on music and software that they"purchased"!

This might come in handy: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointern ... 00506.html

I think you have hit the nail right on the head.

I have the link bookmarked in an ever growing folder on this topic.

This is why I only show proofs as flashed based thumbnails and low res larger screen images on request. Before any images is sent to anyone including long standing regular clients I have them sign a new and very clear agreement on the ownership and usage of rights.

Do not ever under any circumstances (unless paid properly) provide images without an agreement and an agreement that indicates that you and only own rights to the image and it's reproduction, sale and distribution. Another point I have in my contracts is I do not deliver finals until a deposit of 50% is paid. This easy weeds out those that inevitably going to disappear at payment time anyways.

As someone said before, it's better to have quality clients than quantity.

he's got a hole in his back????

caudal may be more appropriate

As a lawyer I have to disagree. SOMETIMES one of the clients win, but not always. The scenario you want to avoid is one where YOU are the one lawyerless.
Sadly lawyers are essential because law is written by and for lawyers. Law is administered by lawyers and judges (ex-lawyers). Laws are complex and often contradictory - sadly lawyers are the only ones able to navigate this morass. Sorry.

I agree 100%. You do not want to be the Lawyer-less one as you will NOT get what you expect.

Bosscat, I recently discovered that a motorcycle performance shop was using some of my shots for their newsletter, and possibly their calendar, as early as 2 years ago. Now I have to go after them also. I was searching for information on a particular rider and just stumbled across the shots on this company's website.

This is really getting annoying.

I had a snowcross team lift a photo off of facebook to send out in a press release recently, so I have now stopped posting photos of anyone except for a couple teams that do pay me for my time and effort.

One of the guys who has images on the side of his trailer is now claiming they are not mine, when I asked for payment, so I have stopped pointing my camera at anyone on his team, and will be taking the time to compare the shots on the side of his trailer with my archived files. The graphics guy could easily have tweaked the angle slightly to mask the theft.

This whole scenario has totally soured on me on even going to the track. I think I will let people suffer with the crappy images the other guy takes.

Now you know why I don't have a website, but that doesn't seem to stop people.

As my father once said about the music industry, "If they don't want people to copy records, don't make tape recorders"

Maybe the dumb old farmers aren't so dumb afterall?

Cropping and tilting seem to be the favourite way to disguise photo theft. For example:

Original image:


PDF Newsletter:
http://www.amrpowersports.ca/englishfra ... olume6.pdf

In my case a web site is pretty much a necessity as I sell shots in the off-season and the National series involves racer from Victoria, to Halifax.

Utterly sickening what the world has become these days.

The funny part is people get mad at me when I go postal about what they have done, and I point out what it costs me to just go to an event in fuel and lodging, and then point out how much I have to sell just to cover those costs.

This weekend a hoetl room is $161 a night plus tax, and a 7 hour drive.

Rob, looks like you have some extra work ahead of you chasing down the offenders.

Perhaps putting a large watermark over the centre of the image would help a bit .. like they do for stock photography. Unfortunately, which the advent of digital photography this problem is getting worse and worse.

I think the problem comes from the commercials that say "Share photos easily", and people think if its on the web or where ever they can do whatever they please.

I have had some offenders claim ignorance, but I pointed out ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thats what I have had judges tell me in the past when I have been in a court room.

I presume nobody ever paid attention to the FBI warnings at the start of a rented video tape?

I've been avoiding that as I was trying to give racers downsized images for personal use, through a Creative Commons License, but was retaining commercial use control. I 'corrected' the owner of one racing shop regarding the use of my images and we came to an agreement that I would check his site every now an then, and just "send a bill for what's fair." So far, so good.

I also have a client who approaches me with a fist-full of cash, every now and then, and says, "I used a few more of your shots in a race report." I left the January bike show with $50.00 more than I got there with, for example.

I've now put up a new gallery that gives me better control so now I can post larger down-sized images and only give registered users access to them so that I can serve the good ones, while cutting off the thieves.

*EDIT* I also had a friend order a copy of their 2010 calendar for me, so that I can verify the use of my shots.

You took a different approach to this then I have just taken.

I'll no longer be shooting anything in the Powersports Industry from now on.

It's just too bush league and no longer worth my time.

I can understand your position on this and, as I said to you previously, the money is even worse in the Canadian roadracing world than in your end of it. Hell, I'm tempted to start shooting speedway and supermotard instead.

I don't do much other than roadracing, trade shows, and the odd charity event, so I'd be dropping damned near everything if I gave up on roadracing.

It wasn't easy to come to this conclusion, as there are some great people at the races that I enjoy hanging out with, but there are some that are just plain jerks that ruin the good times with bad times.

I used to do ATV racing, but one of the racers wanted his buddy in there, so after I left the guy was quick to jump in and it seemed everyone loved his stuff more then mine, since he came recommended by a fellow racer. I saw one of his shots on the side of a trailer ( same one that I mentioned starting this thread) and just laughed, as its so soft, and OOF its not funny. It should have met the delete key.

I figure if people wanna be jerks and rip me off, I'll let them suffer with crappy photos for memories.

Remember, those who do quality work, hold all the cards. It's just going to take people awhile to realize this as every new GWC comes along offering low priced and free images.

If you enjoy the atmosphere and most of the people, then you might want to make your next step be the way that I started out. Consider shooting for just one team, or just one class within the series. I started crewing and shooting for a friend. There may not exactly be money in it but it's fun, and there is far less stress.

Hell, you'd be able to wave your privates at the morons, while providing good stuff to one preferred racer; the perfect revenge

Oh, I'd love to do just that, but somedays I may end up frozen in place...until the spring thaw.....LOL

I think I'll just let everyone suffer with the official photographer

Would anyone really want this guys stuff on your garage wall or in your rec room?

http://www.cmsports.com/gallery2/main.p ... mId=210446

My feelings are its cruel and unusual punishment......but it fits the crime