Copyright ownership question
flyingpylon
Registered Users Posts: 260 Major grins
I often take photos at a local, privately-owned sports venue that allows photography. I'm a fan... I do not have media credentials. On the back of the ticket, there is language stating that the venue owns the copyright to all photos, audio, video, etc., basically anything you could think of.
I understand that as a privately-owned venue they have the right to restrict photography, but given that they don't, do they actually have the right to claim copyright of all fan photos? Is the act of buying a ticket enough to transfer copyright?
Many fans post their photos on web sites, and the venue does absolutely nothing (to my knowledge anyway) to discourage this. But I'm curious to know whether fans would have any right to sell images either as prints or for editorial purposes (it's pretty clear that commercial use i.e. advertising would be out of the question).
I'm sort of assuming that fans may not have any rights to their photos, but I haven't seen any discussion of this particular practice before (allowing photography but claiming copyright). In addition, if there were to be a problem, would there be any onus on the venue to pursue all copyright violations or none, or are they allowed to selectively pick and choose whichever violations they wish to pursue?
I realize that not many of us here are IP lawyers and the rest of the usual caveats, but I'd be interested to hear any well-informed thoughts about this.
I understand that as a privately-owned venue they have the right to restrict photography, but given that they don't, do they actually have the right to claim copyright of all fan photos? Is the act of buying a ticket enough to transfer copyright?
Many fans post their photos on web sites, and the venue does absolutely nothing (to my knowledge anyway) to discourage this. But I'm curious to know whether fans would have any right to sell images either as prints or for editorial purposes (it's pretty clear that commercial use i.e. advertising would be out of the question).
I'm sort of assuming that fans may not have any rights to their photos, but I haven't seen any discussion of this particular practice before (allowing photography but claiming copyright). In addition, if there were to be a problem, would there be any onus on the venue to pursue all copyright violations or none, or are they allowed to selectively pick and choose whichever violations they wish to pursue?
I realize that not many of us here are IP lawyers and the rest of the usual caveats, but I'd be interested to hear any well-informed thoughts about this.
0
Comments
In the abstract it would mean no one is allowed to profit from the commercial marketing of images obtained while at the venue.
Can you please copy the exact language as it appears on the ticket ?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
That definitely sounds weird...but I guess it could be like when an engineer who works for a company and creates something, it's part of that's company's rights to patents. for instance, my great grandfather revvolutionized quite a few machines for his local paper mill in North Louisiana that are now used across the country...but since he created it while working for this company - he has no right to the patent. However, the difference would be that the company was paying him to do just that, the sports venue is NOT paying you - you PAID THEM to let you in...so I definitely think that's way fishy. I'd also like to see the original print...
www.rossfrazier.com/blog
My Equipment:
Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip
Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash
Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
For example, free-lance photographers own the copyrights to the images that they allow to newspapers or magazines to publish. However, absent an agreement that provides otherwise, a newspaper or magazine will own the copyright to all works that their staff journalists and photographers create as part of their job responsibilities. The same is true for art directors working in advertising agencies. The only way that the copyright could belong to the creator in these situations is if there is an assignment of the copyright. Of course, any stories, photographs or artwork created by employees on their own time, would belong to the authors of the works.
Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between an independent contractor and an employee as that term is defined by the Copyright Act. Most employment situations imply a regular, salaried employment relationship between the parties. However, there is no precise standard for determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor under the Copyright Act. A person can be an independent contractor under state law while he or she is an employee under the Copyright Act.
The copyrights to works created under written agreements as works for hire belong to the employer. The law requires that there is a written agreement between the parties. Unfortunately, work for hire agreements can be very simple documents that masquerade as invoices or receipts. Most independent artists, photographers and writers will not operate on a work for hire basis. They feel that to do so, would deprive them of their right to fully exploit their creative talents. Also, they feel they will be treated as employees without having job security or getting any employee benefits.
that is a quote from a website I found giving some basic ground rules of copyright - the full text can be found at http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
That goes over the stuff that I was saying about being paid as an employee, you have no rights to those photos as they are the right of the company or business that you work for. But it sounds like free lance photographers have the copyright to the work the moment that it is created (the moment your shutter clicks) I find it hard to believe that that sporting place can claim the rights.
www.rossfrazier.com/blog
My Equipment:
Canon EOS 5D w/ battery grip
Backup Canon EOS 30D | Canon 28 f/1.8 | Canon 24 f/1.4L Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DI Macro | Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L | Canon 580 EX II Flash and Canon 550 EX Flash
Apple MacBook Pro with dual 24" monitors
Domke F-802 bag and a Shootsac by Jessica Claire
Infiniti QX4
The way I read the U.S. Copyright law, no.
It wouldn't mean they don't try, though, either out of ignorance or otherwise. I've seen way too many places use "copyright" as a scapegoat in trying to restrict things, and most times it's because they don't know any better. (and the wording being used (to intentionally mislead, it seems) by the music & movie distibution lawyers doesn't help any)
I agree with Angelo, we need to see the exact wording on the tickets.
my words, my "pro"pictures, my "fun" pictures, my videos.
Wouldn't this be the same thing? They could restrict me from using the photographs for advertisement or selling them for commercial use, but if I want to sell a picture then I have the right to.
Good questions here! Looking forward to seeing the answers! (If this should be in a new post I understand, I just figured my question was pretty much the same as the OP just a slightly different situation)
I got this from the DCI website. The part in bold I think is what would concern people like me. Is this legal?
As it turns out, the ticket just says "All rights to broadcast, record, photograph, repeat, reproduce or recreate the event are reserved by [venue name]. The ticket holder agrees not to take any action, or cause others to take any action, which would infringe on the rights of [venue name] or its designees."
However, prior to the event it's possible to purchase a "credential" that allows access to the area where teams prepare for the event. The credential just allows access, it is not specifically a photo credential or media credential. When making the purchase, you have to sign a liability waiver, and it is there that I believe the copyright language I mentioned earlier can be found. Of course, I 'm not able to find a copy of that form anywhere right now.
I'll need to see if I can track down that form somehow before I take this any further. I appreciate the replies and apologize for making the error.
They can restrict your selling of photos (i.e. you're not licensed to use images of their event for "commercial" purposes, though there's always a debate about what exactly constitutes "commercial"), but I don't think there's any way they can legally restrict you from posting photos you take in a public venue. That'd be a good question for a copyright lawyer.
that's a fairly standard sort of thing, they're covering themselves because they may hire or license a particular photographer or company and that company doesn't want you undercutting them.
Strictly speaking, it means that you can't take any pictures (video, etc) without a permit. Normally most "non-professionals" (again, whatever that means, since there's no tatoo-on-the-forehead that identifies someone as being a "pro") aren't bothered. That's the case, often mentioned here, where the security or ushers will tell you that you can't take pictures "with that pro camera" but let the guy next to you with a P&S shoot all he wants.
my words, my "pro"pictures, my "fun" pictures, my videos.
First off, I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, but this is how I see the situation.
The act of buying a ticket is essentially the act of entering into a contract between you and the venue. You pay them $ they allow you entry into the venue. Depending on how the terms on the ticket are written it could be interpreted as a contract assigning the copyright for all images to the venue. At his point it your agreement to this contract is implicit, in that a reasonable person doesn't need to read the back of the ticket when entering the venue in order to be admitted, and in many cases the venue would probably have a hard time getting any damages out of the photographer beyond requiring the photographer take down any photos and turn over any money that the photographer has recieved in exchange for the photo.
When the photographer takes it a step farther and signs a piece of paper that includes a liability waiver and some additional copyright verbage there is an explicit agreement between the photographer and the venue, and if there was language that assigned the copyright to the venue, or in some way restricted the photographer's use of the photos then the venue has a stronger leg to stand on if the venue decides to go after the photographer.
I think what they mean is something along the lines of San Diego Zoo that they allow private photography for personal use but not for commercial use.
The language may be off on their ticket.
If they own the venue where they shot, and it's something recognizeable, they own the right to allow you to shoot it and profit off of it. the proft from it is the key.
In my very first photo class, our teacher was sued because an image he sold of a front door to a house was purchased by Pepsi and they used it in an ad. It was recognized by the owner of the house (can you imagine that - on television in an ad?) and they sued him.
They had the right to limit what was shot - it was their property. You always need a release for what you shoot and sell if it's recognized in public - be it person, building, etc. you can own the copyright but if you profit from that image, you'd better have the owner's permission to shoot it!
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Not if it's visible from a public street
true but with clarification (see below)
Ahhhh, he sold it to a third party for commercial use; advertising. For that he needed permission, signed releases and most usually fees are paid to, in this case, the homeowner.
Selling prints of people, places or things, as art pieces would generally not have the same consequence.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Yes, you are right - but from inside the sports stadium, where a fan would be seated, it's not visible from the street, you cannot sell those images especially with the ticket clause. Also, if it isn't for the press, or personal use, you can't make art of it to sell - the ball club or venue gets the rights to it!
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
That may or may not be true based on convoluted legaleze appearing on a ticket.
But if I go to a baseball game and I'm allowed to bring my camera I'll be damned if I let the team owner claim rights to my images or my freedom to sell them as prints.
They certainly can stop me from selling images to Kellogg's to put on boxes of Wheaties...
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots