Sporting events in the public domain - Right exclusive?
Travis
Registered Users Posts: 1,472 Major grins
First some background... For the last several years, I have been running in local races (5ks, 10ks, half-marathons, etc.) and serving as mentor for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Team-in-Training (TNT). Last year I had to have foot surgery and since I couldn't race, I decided to take the opportunity to photograph the events, some of which have up to 25,000 participants. Because of my ties with TNT, my main focus was on their participants while also capturing some of the other runners when gaps existed between TNT'ers on the course. For the last few races, I posted the photos for sale and donated the proceeds back to LLS.
Most of these events are also photographed by Brightroom. For those of unfamiliar with Brightroom, they contract photographers of various skill levels (amateur to pro) to shoot at various places along the course. As I understand it, the photographers have to shoot a minimum number of photos although I'm not positive on their requirements. Brightroom then provides a link to the photos from the official race website for the participants to purchase.
A couple of weeks ago I shot a marathon and posted the images on my page. Same deal as before where the proceeds are donated to LLS. The TNT participants love the images. I do a moderate level of post processing (straightening horizons, color correcting, and some cropping). In total I post approximately 600 images compared to the thousands posted by Brightroom. For your usual TNT participant, this is their first race and huge achievement. They really appreciate having a high caliber image of themselves as a souvenir and also being able to give back to a cause that they have worked hard to support.
Last night I received an email from the race director stating that they had a strict contract with Brightroom for their race images and requested that I remove the galleries. I know the race director personally and complied with the request, not wanting to cause any trouble for her or myself.
It did bring up an interesting question though. When a sporting event is in the public domain like the open roads of a city and not in a private stadium, race track, etc., does a photography organization maintain exclusive rights to sell photos of the event? This applies to any sport in a public space such as surfing, running, off-road motorsports, skate contests, etc. What has been your experience with this? Does this apply to selling the photos for editorial purposes like a newspaper as well?
As an added note, last summer I had a friend (and fellow smuggie) get a similar warning from a bikini manufacturer for images that he captured of the bikini contest while he was photographing a surfing championship of which he was the official photographer. I apologize for the long-winded post, but I'm curious if others have ran into this issue before. This is not intended to be a slight on Brightroom or similar companies. I understand that they do provide a valuable service for the host organization and need to protect their market share. It got me thinking about what are the rights of the other photographers in this situation.
Thanks!
Most of these events are also photographed by Brightroom. For those of unfamiliar with Brightroom, they contract photographers of various skill levels (amateur to pro) to shoot at various places along the course. As I understand it, the photographers have to shoot a minimum number of photos although I'm not positive on their requirements. Brightroom then provides a link to the photos from the official race website for the participants to purchase.
A couple of weeks ago I shot a marathon and posted the images on my page. Same deal as before where the proceeds are donated to LLS. The TNT participants love the images. I do a moderate level of post processing (straightening horizons, color correcting, and some cropping). In total I post approximately 600 images compared to the thousands posted by Brightroom. For your usual TNT participant, this is their first race and huge achievement. They really appreciate having a high caliber image of themselves as a souvenir and also being able to give back to a cause that they have worked hard to support.
Last night I received an email from the race director stating that they had a strict contract with Brightroom for their race images and requested that I remove the galleries. I know the race director personally and complied with the request, not wanting to cause any trouble for her or myself.
It did bring up an interesting question though. When a sporting event is in the public domain like the open roads of a city and not in a private stadium, race track, etc., does a photography organization maintain exclusive rights to sell photos of the event? This applies to any sport in a public space such as surfing, running, off-road motorsports, skate contests, etc. What has been your experience with this? Does this apply to selling the photos for editorial purposes like a newspaper as well?
As an added note, last summer I had a friend (and fellow smuggie) get a similar warning from a bikini manufacturer for images that he captured of the bikini contest while he was photographing a surfing championship of which he was the official photographer. I apologize for the long-winded post, but I'm curious if others have ran into this issue before. This is not intended to be a slight on Brightroom or similar companies. I understand that they do provide a valuable service for the host organization and need to protect their market share. It got me thinking about what are the rights of the other photographers in this situation.
Thanks!
0
Comments
Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1)
Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play
Autocross and Track junkie
tonyp.smugmug.com
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Events (especially sports) have very specific ideas on what they believe they have the right to do.
You can challenge this belief.
Of course they have the option of suing you. Despite all the free legal advice that you will find on the internet, some sporting organizers like to protect the brand that they built.
This particular organization have already sent you a message about what they believe their right is. I would suggest that you ask your attorney legal advice as they are going to be the ones defending that advice.
Website
You absolutely have the right to take the images, however, you are selling those images. What you choose to do with the proceeds are irrelevant.
If you want to take pictures for your pleasure, no one will have a problem with that. If you want to bid for this contract, no one will have a problem with that.
The fact that you knew another company was contracted to take and sell these images and you chose to step on their toes is just bad business. You never take food off another man's plate while he is eating.
Website
Good points. You're right about the proceeds. It doesn't matter if I was selling the photos to buy me a new lens or if I was giving them away to charity. Selling images is selling images. It wasn't my intention to make it sound that just because I was doing it non-profit, it was any better than doing it for profit. As far as a bad business practice, it was unintentional (of course ignorance is not an excuse). I knew the company was contracted to provide photos for the race but didn't realize the exclusive nature of contract. I made the assumption that it was ok to sell the photos. The assumption was obviously wrong and I corrected it. It was my first time running into this and I figured an open discussion would benefit anyone that is thinking of doing something similar as well as help me better understand the rights and wrongs of doing this in order to avoid repeating a mistake again. I appreciate your input.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
I also do not buy the idea that you are squashing another photographer's business. I can understand in a private event, such as a wedding how there can be exclusivity, but I am not sure how there can be exclusivity on a public non gated function. If there were such rules of exclusivity then that same race could not be covered by the local newspaper photographer for instance.
It is entirely my opinion but I think it comes down to this, can their lawyers beat up your lawyers? Is it worth the fight? I think it is pretty petty of Brighthouse but then again I also think the prices they charge are stupid high for the pictures you get. I haven't purchased any in years.
I would say that providing pics to TNT of their members that TNT could then sell them might be an interesting middle ground that even Brighthouse would agree to.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Yeah sure, I'll bet that someone could sue you for passing wind in public but the question is not really one of legalities it's one of risk management and and potential gain and cost. Virtually every big business in the world today does illegal things because they know the cost of suing them and the chances of success make it a good economic business decision.
Not right or fair or moral but it is undeniably the way of the world.
some may want to take the moral high ground, others like me might be happy to keep the playing field level when it means I don't loose any sleep at night or hurt anyone.
No doubt indignat comments and insults will ensure from those statements.
The advise of checking the situation with a laywer is the only dependable legal advise that can be offered.
That said, Where I am there is nothing at all to stop you shooting and SELLING any picture you can take from a location you are legally allowed to access. If worlds greatest celebrity is nude sunbaking in next doors back yard and you have a perfect vantage point from the stepladder placed in your backyard, nothing anyone can do. Put a foot on THEIR property however and your SOL.
I am confident that this would apply in the greatest magority of western countries.
I have put this to the test on numerous occasions in my career and never been proven wrong yet. I have been tried to be removed from a number of sporting events on public property, cops and local govt officials have been called and not ever have they even spoken to me let alone tried to remove me.
In my experience, people, particularly businesses larger than yourself will come up with all sorts of creative reasons, laws, contracts and other BS they will spin in order to get their own way. Nothing counts except the law of the land and a company or person can't over ride that no matter what sort of a song and dance they put on.
I researched the legalities of this in my area and now carry printed information with mye i can give out to the aggrieved or cite the relevant leglislation to officials or cops. Amazingly, since i started carrying this info I haven't had to use it once but if I ever meet up with some hothead indignant official or whoever in the future, I can present them with the relevant laws and walk away. If the cops are called and do ever botehr to speak to me, I have the info to defend myself with them as well.
Now, the real crux of the issue generally comes down to your own cost and benifit. Will doing what you are doing have repercussions for you further down the line such as can the association ban you from competeing or in other ways take revenge against you that you will regret?
If so, is doing what you want to do worth that cost? If you are ( unfortunately) an aggro barstool like me that dosen't like being pushed around and having vested interests pull the wool over your eyes for their own benifit, then it may be worth it to show these people can't get away with what suits them or stop you from doing what you are legaly entitled to do ( if that is indeed the case).
The chances of you bing sued IMHO are next to nothing. Firstly it's not worth thier time and trouble and probably more importantly, its certainly not worth the bad PR and NEVER underestimate the power of that.
Imagine ( and don't be afraid to mention to the race organisers or blightgloom) the sort of public opinion that would stem from a news article on how a Company sued a guy for taking pictures of a race held on public roads which he was selling to competitors and donating to charity because they were worried about them losing sales.
If you feel strongly enough that this is worth fighting for and you are doing nothing wrong, then confirm that with your legal advisor and fight for it.
If the cost ine whatever way is going to be too high or not worth the trouble to you, then you have your answer right there.
Now a big test of mine in most things is to put the shoe on the other foot.
What if my company had the contract and there is some other guy taking pics of the event I am contracted to? What is my position going to be?
Well basically this happens all teh time and there is either noting I can do about it or it's not worthwhile doing anything about it. It has on a number of occasions definately worked to my advantage.
In this case my position would be that if we were doing our job right, why would the other people be any opposition to us?
I would feel that if we put the time and effort into marketing and promotion of our own business, we'd be a lot better off that worrying about some single guy doing what i would feel he was perfectly within his rights to do anyway.
Hell, I'd be checking his work out and if I liked it i'd be getting in touch to see if we could reach some sort of deal to work together. Done that with the opposition before and was talking to someone about this excact thing just over a fortnight ago.
I became interested in a market this guy is working. He is a single shooter with a camera and a website and I have the biggest onsite viewing and printing setup around. Could have gone head to head and no doubt won easily but I liked the guys work and though there may be more value for both of us in working together rather than competeing. Talking to the guy who was a real nice fella and very open made me decide that there wasn't enough in the market for me to be bothered with and he gave me a heads up on some things I had not considered. I gave the guy some info on how he might be able to better his own return from the work he's doing and left it at that. Everyone benifited.
Myself though, I am never easily put off by someone claiming to have contracts or rights or whatever until such time as I can verify those claims are actually valid ( which in 100% of my experience they have not been) and then I have no problems in exercising my legal rights to take every opportunity to make the most return from my business as I can.
If other people have different ideas and values, that's their decision but I have found success comes from effort and pusing ahead not lying down and being walked over.
Maybe you didn't notice the original poster stated this:
"Last night I received an email from the race director stating that they had a strict contract with Brightroom for their race images and requested that I remove the galleries."
Granted some larger companies may put up with someone stepping on their toes a thousand times. Some like to make an example of people who step on their toes.
A lot of people love to claim what they would do, but when push comes to shove there is a lot of talk on the internet.
First, it is bad business to step on another photographers toes, especially if you know it.
Second, you should be careful on the toes you step on, because some step back.
I highly doubt that the people who choose to give all this free legal advice are going to be paying the lawyer fees of a person who is being made an example of for following this internet advice.
Now maybe things are different where you live, but here in the states, lawsuits get filed every single day over the dumbest of reasons. One fact remains true, lawsuits take time and money whether you are right or wrong.
Website
So i take your position to be that because the race director said they had a strict contract that it must be absoloutley legal and enforcable and whatever they say is law?
Ya!
If you want to believe that everything you are told is infalliable and run your business on that premise, that's great.
Like I said, I have been told a lot of bullchit by people over the years so I like to check it out for myself.
Each to their own I guess.
Yeah, I have seen the endles warnings people parrot about being sued on every forum on every topic i have ever read where someone asks a question with any sort of legality about it.
What I have NEVER seen however is an actual FIRST hand account from a person that was sued for some thing stupid and of little to no monetary value.
Seems amazing to me that with all these people getting sued left right and centre, there never seems to be an account from a single person that has actually been there themselves.
There are endless second hand accounts though from reports in papers and friends of friends etc. but where are the people it actually happened to? You think they would be the ones spouting all the warnings from personal experience.
Someone must get sued but it just seems to me the warnings always outweigh the actual first hand accounts of it happening by about a Million to one.
Or more.
And as far as competition to the exclusive photographer, I think that's a crock too. To me it seems they are intimidating others because they think they can get away with it. Competition is intended to be good for the whole industry. And IMHO, anything taken in a public venue is fair game. Also IMHO, if pics were taken in a public environment, I think the only ones with a legitimate right to ask that pictures not be posted/sold online would be the individual participants themselves. The photography company would probably have rights within an enclosed and managed area away from public access. But for them to assume that everyone in general public areas are bound by a contract they haven't seen, read or accepted, is ludicrous. If the vendor is loosing sales to someone else who had open and unobstructed public access, the answer is to improve their own work, and not intimidate with BS.
But as mentioned, an attorney is the only legitimate source of legal advice.
Canon 50D, 30D and Digital Rebel (plus some old friends - FTB and AE1)
Long-time amateur.....wishing for more time to play
Autocross and Track junkie
tonyp.smugmug.com
First, congrats on being a volunteer for a worthy cause.
I think you did the right thing, to maintain a relationship. And despite our rights inherent or legal or both, relationships are what keep us in the clear.
I do think the overall questions are interesting, as well as the answers.
A thought: Since you would need a model release to shoot my image and use it for monetary gain, I see it no different if you shoot me in my home or on the street, as long as it is me alone, I am recognizable and the image is solely about me AND I haven't given you express permission to publish.
You may find info here: http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php
and here: http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
Because they purchase a ticket I suppose the team could restrict them but they don't which is fine by me.
Another example I participated in a fund raiser where the participants get sponsors and then jump into a frozen lake, they had an Photographer that had exclusive rights all it did was gave them the ability to photograph from a prime location. I brought a friend to photograph my jump and as long as they were in the public viewing area they were just fine.
I would think it would be the same for the race photos Brighthouse would exclusive rights to anyplace controlled by the race organizers, but not any areas that are public accessible.
This is not in any way to be considered legal advice just my experience.
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
Exactly!
If one were to espouse that a person could not take pics and sell them to the competitors from a public vantage point, then it would also follow that they could not take the shots and GIVE them to the competitors either. Try telling people that one!
Your point reminds me of another experience i had when some bozo shooters tried kicking me out of a public park because they were the contracted shooters.
They tried it on the year before and failed but I was prepared for a bit of sleight of hand the next year.
I rang the local council months before the event and found that ANY commercial activity on council grounds had to be approved by the council and those hiring venues such as the association also had to notify the council in the hiring agreement of all 3rd party vendors and get written approval for them and any equipment or facilities they wanted to bring on site. This included a photographer with an event trailer who was deemed an agent or subcontractor of the hirer of the venue.
So.... I went through the hoops and paid my paltry application fees, submitted my insurance documents and just managed to get approval doucments the week of the tournament. Took about 7 weeks all up. The councils approval department don't move too quick here.
Of course, as entirely expected, the hero with a camera is in my face by 10:30 on the first morning puffing, blowing and ranting that I can't take pics of my own kid or his team mates. Seems every otehr parent in the park with a camera is OK but I'm not. What a surprise.
I don't even waste my time trying to be polite and tell him to take a long walk off a short plank. He makes a suggestion of physical Violence but declines my invitation to walk behind some nearby bushes out of the sight of the kids and discuss the matter further and goes off to get the tournament director still ranting about contracts etc.
Equally impolite Officialdom shows up a while later in number as what i took to be some sort of standover tactic and rant about contracts and rights etc. So... I produce MY approval to conduct business at the venue and ask to see same from blowhard shooter which has to be produced to any member of the public and displayed for the duration of the time they are on teh ground. I'm told it's not needed and I suggest they might like to take that up with the council officer ( whos name I and number I have made sure to get) and -I- have already warned there may be an unauthourised shooter operating on the grounds that weekend and have been told to let the guy know if they do show up as heavy fines can be imposed for trading without council approval on council property.
I also ask head official if he has notified Council that the blowhard shooter is operating there and has got the required written approval for his van and and if blowhard has also supplied council required electrical saftey documentation and insurance documentation.
Of course, despite more puffing and blowing, they haven't. That's an offence under the public health and saftey and public liability laws of the state.
So basically I put it to them, if they don't get the hell out of my face for the weekend and let me take the pics i want of my son and his mates and do whatever the hell i want with them including selling them right beside bozo's trailer if I want, I"LL be the one ringing the council ranger and complaining that blowhard is not authourised to be there and I'll ask for him to be removed.
I add if they think i'm full of it to either ring the council and get the guy down there themselves or just get in my face again and we'll put it to the test to see who gets put out on their backside and who gets to play shooter for the weekend. I remind blowhard that i'm not there to make money so I have nothing to loose, is he going to put his weekend money where his mouth is or shut up?
Of course I was avoided like the plauge for the rest of the event.
Now I'm not generally that much of a barstool ( well I am really) but it certainly goes to show that just because someone CLAIMS to have rights and contracts etc does not gaurantee in any way that they do in fact have any legal rights and are not breaching any laws themselves.
It also dosen't take much digging to find out what the real rules are or ask who has followed procedure and is really authourised to be there and who isn't.
This could be a route the OP might like to take if so motivated.
When people start throwing around talk of laws and contracts and rights, they better make damn sure they have complied with them themselves rather than just made up what suits them.
As for stepping on other shooters toes, I have no problem with "Step on mine and I'll run over yours with the heaviest thing I can get hold of."
I actually had this happen to me with a benefit event, golf tourney, the organizer gave her husband exclusive rights to shoot the event and market instant 4x5 "portraits" of the kids with a certain celeb.......I would shoot the golfers as they teed off from hole 7 and some of the antics I got on film was great....then I would give those to the golfers the next year.....I already had a rapport with a few of the celebs from shooting their concerts........she, the organizer, came screaming out on the golf tee area that her husband was the exclusive, official photog........when the main celeb that the tourney was named after, stepped up and said "but he is not selling anything, HE IS GIVING AWAY what he took last year and the big pictures are of my wife and I taken away from this part of town and paid for by check last month...we asked him to deliver our packages here....do you have a problem with that" ....he later announced that he felt it was a conflict of interest for her to name her husband as the official photog and that as long as he was a part of the event anyone would be allowed to take photos at all the events related to the benefit.............
Again this was on a public golf course and I used it as a spring board for getting concert work.......but without knowing it I had shoot the main celeb with a boy who had died a couple of months after the benefit and his parents had been looking for me to see about getting a larger pic and she had asked the organizer where the really nice photographer was and the lady pointed to her husband and the lady said no not him he was not nice at all ...the guy with the beard and tie dyed shirt........
I now carry the Photogs rights with me and have even given them out in foreign countries, luckily, the aggressors, in foreign countries have backed down with out any problem......I only have english versions of it.......now they may be a little more enlightened and realize the photog rights are really only good in the US......
You are right, but then the organizer came and talked to the OP, that is relevant. He does have the right to take those photos. but the contract the organizer has with BW will be the question in court.
I understand Glort wants to know if a contract is enforceble, but only our courts can answer that if someone chooses to Sue you in a tort action.
Personally if I were an exclusively contracted photog for an event, I'd understand others taking photos. But I wouldn't want them selling to my potential clients.
I take it overall Travis wishes not to hurt his relationship with the organizer. he's been a participant in the past, and he's making a very human effort at supporting them. I would suspect that he'd have to go through lots of court time to make his point and win the day. Barring that I also suspect his relationship with the organizer would never recover and that might be bad for him, his rep. or his business.
Very true Tom. I am not and never planned of pursue this further with either group. I have a good relationship with the organizer and a tremendous respect for what they do. Likewise, it was not my intention to step on BR's toes. I have nothing to gain from a fight with them. Even if I hypothetically did, I have no where near the resources to follow it through. I also respect the service they provide. Honestly, the shear scale of the job they perform is something that as single individual I couldn't support nor even really want too. Like all areas of this forum, though, I saw this discussion as a learning experience for all photographers, especially those of us newer to the business side. This as been a very informative discussion for me and I appreciate everyone's input. Thank you all for the candid responses. This has helped me better understand not only my approach to this particular event but also others "public" events that I have covered in the past. Even as a small player in the field, there are best practices that many of us have not considered. This has been very enlightening. I am thankful for a community like dgrin to openly discuss these things. Y'all are awesome.
So what would I do different if I were to do this again? First would be to gain a true understanding of what is included in the contractual agreement between the organizer and the host company. Second would be to discuss my intentions with the organizer and host company in advance to see if they were open to a subcontract to allow for the sales of a limited portion of the event for charitable donations. And then make sure that I stuck to that particular agreement.
With the thousands of races, contests, etc. that take place across the nation, I'm sure that I'm not the only photographer that inadvertently crossed the line. Regardless of the relative size of our operations or our intention with the proceeds, I believe that we do have a responsibility to the community to do the right thing. Thanks again.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures
Normally an exclusive rights contract includes wording that the corp. will take all reasonable steps to insure the exclusivity for the contracted photographer. The issue here would be the corp's right to prevent other photographers from selling pictures of their event that were taken on public property. One issue would be model releases. Usually with an exclusive right contract the corp will have waivers signed by the events participants allowing pictures taken of them at the event to be sold by the contracted photographer. If you haven't obtained model releases that could be a problem for you if the case ever went into formal legal proceedings.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Pure mythology related in the present! It is my belief that it is the loss of our mythologies, that has led us to the present situation we find ourselves in. That situation is played out every day in the newspapers. It is rare and even nice to know or understand the laws of our land. But many many laws are unnecessary if we do as you suggest: and do the right thing!
What is equally relevant is if the contract is even valid and enforceable. For example, can't keep someone from shooting on public grounds. Period. Regardless of contract.
I once had a contract with a local (defunct) kart track as the sole photographer, period. In comes a touring series (Stars of Tomorrow) who has their own travelling photographer under contract. Whose contract wins there? Things are NOT always so simple, even when contracts are involved.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
How would you in equal circumstances as the OP, propose to ascertain that?
I want to scream......”WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!”
Travis, You or any other third party can not be bound by a contact between two separate parties. The contract only applies to the parties signing the contract.
You are free to make any decision you want with regard to this matter. If you feel the relationship between you and the organizer is important to you and you don't wish to ruffle any feathers, then so be it. But please understand you have not crossed any line. You are not a bad little boy. You have violated no laws.
I understand what Brightroom is doing. They are a business. They are not artists. The cost for them to show up and shoot an event is substantially higher than you or I showing up and snapping a few shots.
They need to insure to the extent that they are able that they are the only official photographers. Official photographer generally means access. Access to areas and locations not permitted to the general public. It also means the organizer is prohibited from contracting with any other photographers and the granting of this access. They have no ability to prevent you or anyone else from photographing the event from public property. They also have no ability to determine what you do with those photographs.
Steve Posted:
“First, it is bad business to step on another photographers toes, especially if you know it.
Second, you should be careful on the toes you step on, because some step back.”
I guess I would need to understand the definition of stepping on another photographers toes, and what the heck stepping back means.
Tom posted:
“A thought: Since you would need a model release to shoot my image and use it for monetary gain, I see it no different if you shoot me in my home or on the street, as long as it is me alone, I am recognizable and the image is solely about me AND I haven't given you express permission to publish.”
Way wrong Tom.
Tom again:
“You are right, but then the organizer came and talked to the OP, that is relevant. He does have the right to take those photos. but the contract the organizer has with BW will be the question in court.“
The contract is only germane with reference to the parties who signed it. It has absolutely no bearing on what a third party does, or doesn't do.
Tony posted:
“But as mentioned, an attorney is the only legitimate source of legal advice. “
Yikes!! I understand the thought behind this but if you ask a hundred lawyers their opinion you are liable to get any number of differing answers. We have a supreme court who as a group can rarely agree on what the definition of “is” is.
Travis posted:
“So what would I do different if I were to do this again? First would be to gain a true understanding of what is included in the contractual agreement between the organizer and the host company. Second would be to discuss my intentions with the organizer and host company in advance to see if they were open to a subcontract to allow for the sales of a limited portion of the event for charitable donations. And then make sure that I stuck to that particular agreement.”
Travis, I understand your good intentions but you have no right to see or be informed of a contract between Brightroom and the race organizer. As for being open to a subcontract.............I will go out a limb hear and wager a goodly portion of nearly worthless American money the answer would most likely resemble NO.
My main goal here is to say.......KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! After that you can choose to give them up or not for any reason you want. But to give up your rights without even understanding you are doing so is very sad.
Let the flames begin.
Sam
Geez, You didn't take me to task over anything i said.
I think i should be worried about that!
Sorry Glort.....................the next time I have time to read War and Peace I will put it aside and read your posts.
Sam
www.jonbakerphotography.com
If I was trying to adress the lowest common denominators i guess i could try and make my posts 4 lines or less so they could manage them but who are you trying to kid?
If you can't manage one of my posts, you sure as hell don't have the comprehension and concerntration skills to read a magazine let alone war and peace!!.
Take THAT Sam! (But at least you can spell.)
I too skimmed Glort's posts. Why? 'Cause he's from Oz. Once a discussion starts about rights & contracts & whatnot, I tend to ignore postings from jurisidctions foriegn to that of the original poster. The devil is in the details. Different jurisdictions have different laws.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
― Edward Weston