Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I requested press credentials, for a track I've been to a couple of times previously, and this time things are a little different. This time around the track's rep is asking if they would be getting access to my pictures, for use on their website and in printed material, and if the story would be positive and something that they could use, again, in their promotions.

I heard rumours that the place has lost their on-staff photographer, but that doesn't mean they should expect an effectively free replacement, and how can anyone make assurances about the content of a story, before an event has even taken place, and have any pretense to journalism?

I've never seen the like before.

they are asking for you to pretty much work for them for free

They're asking for more than that. They're asking to know the future.

That's pretty annoying. Do you think they would deny you a press pass if you didn't agree with these inquiries? I guess it could be worse?

If that agreement was for a performance, then it looks to be pretty standard boiler plate.

I'll be finding out if they'll deny my pass. I handed it off to the editor, to see what he has to say to them. He's not exactly pleased at what amounts to a request that the story be little more than an ad for the venue and, where the picture request was concerned, advised me that I should tell them to get stuffed, but in more polite terms.

Ate My Heart Inc is a good name for a company run by the devil.

It seems like the track owner got rid of the track photographer to save money because they thought they could get the same quality photos for free. Someone hopefully a hack photograph will sign it and they will get what they paid for.

Maybe they looking for press like:

"Happy Go lucky Driver Goes Off Track And Drives Through Grandstand To Thrilled Crowds, Any Reports Of Injuries Are Highly Speculative, Most Of The Fans Seemed To Not Mind The Blood"

The problem here, is that there are quite a few pretty good through highly skilled photographers, out there, who shoot at the track. Someone likely will take them up on it.

That's certainly interesting... I am not liking the way they are handling that for sure.

If you are interested in the position, I'd enquire further into it. If they are not interested in compensating you for your work, tell them to stuff it and have a discussion with the other photographers so they are aware that they will be working for free. I think people are just uneducated about the value of their time and work. Once people are more aware that they should be paid (especially the good ones) we won't have an issue with people trying to exploit photographers.

Given that I'd be traveling rather far, I'm not interested in turning over the work for nothing. Reminds me of a situation in which a friend suggested that an organizer contact me, about shooting their event, and they thought that offering me photo credit on their website was adequate compensation for a 200 Km round trip and 10 hours of my time.

Wow, Rob. This is seriously messed up. Are you at liberty to say which track this is? I can think of two that would roughly fit that distance. Sadly, both of which I frequent in the summers for track days. Sad to hear this.

I'd rather not say, because my last previous experience with them was remarkably good. I was joking around with the owners and had complete run of the facility, because they knew, that I knew, what I was about. I'm hoping that this is just a case of a fairly new employee, who is overstepping reasonable bounds by a bit, and who will take some gentle correction without hurt feelings.

From the years I've worked in the motorsports industry, I can only conclude that it's either Calabogie or Mount Tremblant.

edit: maybe not given the clues Rob dropped. Can't see Shannonville being this big of a prick. My only other guess would be Mosport as they changed hands last year.

Why is it ok for Lady Gaga to own full copyrights of any photos you take at her concert but not ok for a private track owner to ask for usage rights of your photos?

I don't think either is correct but people only seemed concerned about the track owner...

Different type of event. The event's primary isn't the one being photographed. It's not a "performance." The Gaga contract is certainly onerous, but of the sort that can be common for top level performing artists. The risk, that they take, is that no one wants to cover the performance with those requirements placed upon the press. I wouldn't.

Look more deeply at what the track is asking for. It's not just full access and use of the images, but also positive press. These weren't stated as demands, but were soft-peddled as questions, but the implication is pretty clear. It's highly unusual in the world of Canadian motorcycle racing, where photographers make dirt to start with, to ask for free use like this. To go as far as to want what amounts to a puff piece, in racing coverage, takes it to a ridiculous level. Depending upon how the conversation goes between the editor and the track's representative, I'm likely to take a pass too.

If you read between the lines Lady Gaga and other top level performers - they are not interested in free photos - they can afford to have their own in-house photographers shooting the whole concert instead of just the first 3 songs and send out photos to the press - its about image / brand control - just like your Track guy. They could have easily asked for royalty free license rights to the photos but they asked for full copyright transfer - there is a reason for that.

By taking your copyright - they control when and where your images will be used. If your story is not a postive story - what do you think will happen to your permission to use the photos in your piece?

At the end of the day - its the same thing - they both want control over press coverage.

Lady Gaga and other top level performers are doing it in a hidden way while your track guy has just asked for it in a straight forward way.

The track isn't asking for copyright transfer, they're asking for free use and spin. I don't work for Car & Driver, and they didn't buy ad space.

... or Cayuga.

Or Grand Bend.

The 100km radius should narrow it down unless it's a red herring

The owner of the Le Circuit Mont-Tremblant has cancelled events on short notice before, one time he cancelled a race because he flew over from Britain a buddies race car wanted some fun and practice, still better then converting the course to condos

Track owner - asking for free usage and positive coverage.
Top level performer - asking for full copyright transfer.

By asking for full copyright transfer - it is implied that they will get positive coverage because if your coverage isn't positive - your permission to use the photos will be withdrawn.

Pretty much the same ask - they both want positive media coverage. Photos are a commodity - they can get them almost anywhere now.

I am not saying it is ok - just that they are the same ask.

The 100 Km radius referred to a previous situation, that didn't involve a track

Revisiting this thread, as a wrap-up. Sorry, should have done it long ago.

I responded to their email in what I felt was a reasonable and professional manner, stating that I could make shots available to them with cost based on type of use. I also stated that I couldn't comment on the content of a story that hadn't yet been written but given that our staff writer is of the opinion "Racing = Good", it was unlikely to reflect poorly on them. I did mention that I hadn't replied immediately because I hadn't ever received such a request from any other track or organization, in the past, and so was at somewhat of a loss as to how I would respond.

That, and a later follow-up email, were both met with silence by way of response.

Yesterday I received a message from a fellow track shooter, regarding an agreement that he was required to sign before shooting at Mont Tremblant for the Canadian Superbike series. As I only rarely shoot such events outside Ontario I hadn't requested credentials for this particular weekend, and so hadn't received the form. It started with the usual language that makes people like us cringe, but is actually only really meant to block publication of shots that aren't in the track's best interest. It does, however, also say that the track "I hereby acknowledge that Circuit Mont Tremblant retains a proprietary right to any photographic, video or digital images I take during track events, including those featuring spectators. Circuit Mont Tremblant retains the right to use any photographic, video or digital images in advertising and promotional materials at its sole discretion."

This friend is boycotting the event at Circuit Mont Tremblant, because of this, and hopes that all other professional motorsports photographers will do the same. It's not like there's much money in it, in the first place, so this cuts into an already lean business.

I can't see this as a real issue, could you please clarify something? To your knowledge does the track normally buy photographs for above stated purpose? Do you have to show them your photographs before publishing them or selling them? Are you required to give them a high rez image if they request?

I can see how this might be annoying to a pro photographer but from a tracks point of view you are using their track and facilities as a location to possibly make money so they might consider it as a fair trade.

Let me put it this way: I have never before been required to turn my shots over to the track, free of charge. The first time I received such a request was when I started this thread. This is the second time that I've seen it, in 10 years. I've already been accredited for the Superbike final at Canadian Tire Motorsports Park, formerly Mosport International Raceway, and have received no such request from them. I might provide a shot or two as a favour, when asked by friends who also represent a track, but because they're friends those requests are few and far between (once or twice EVER).

In this recent Mnt. Tremblant case I didn't see the requirement to turn over your work hence my questions. The right to use free of charge is obviously not the same as a forced to turn over clause. It could be as simple as lawyer covering the track's ass in case you sued them for not getting permission to use a photograph. Unlike the first case where they are after complete control there might be no cause for alarm.

The "right to publish" would be contained in any purchase agreement, made for individual images. As such there is no need to express it, unless they intend to not compensate photographers for their work. The expression "... retains a proprietary right..." is the lawyer-speak that generally covers the following expression, found immediately after the section I previously quoted.

"Circuit Mont Tremblant may prevent me from publishing any photographic, videos and digital images it considers detrimental to Circuit Mont Tremblant or offensive to the public."

And after these two incidents the folks at Canadian Tire Motorsports Park, ne Mosport International Raceway, are still doing things right. I didn't have to bring a thing, beyond myself and my gear. They fed me. They provided something to drink, from a well stocked and frequently restocked fridge, right through the three days of the event. It's always a positive pleasure to deal with these folks.