Copyrights at pro sporting events

[Jamzano]

I have a question about copyrights and professional sporting events. When a freelance photographer or just an amateur/semi-pro photographer takes photos at a sporting event, to whom do the copyrights of the photo belong? Are they the property of the event facility or corporation who owns the facility, or are they the property of the photographer to do with as he pleases?

A racetrack has told me that they hold the copyrights to every photo ever taken at an event at their facility. Additionally they say that if I wish to sell a photo taken at their facility, or use it for promotional purposes, I need a licensing agreement with the parent corporation who owns the track.

Does this sound accurate? I find it hard to believe that a freelance sports photographer doesn’t own the copyrights to his photos unless he enters into a licensing agreement with the league, the team or the facility where he is taking photos. If this is accurate, does anyone have any info on what a typical licensing agreement with a professional sports league entails? Is it simply giving the league credit or is it a huge monetary commitment?

[Jim Poor]

Since the tracks are private property, the owners can impose whatever requirements they want on photographers. You have the choice of doing it their way, or not at all basically.

The other thing that may be a factor is Trademark.

[Jamzano]

Any idea what the typical licensing agreement is like?

[OsmosisStudios]

When you shoot on location somewhere (racetrack, stadium, etc), you'll have to sign a contract. In that contract will be a section on who owns what and so on.

You can either accept that or reject it and not shoot.

[Brian Mullins]

A racetrack cannot just arbitrarily say they own the copyright to any photos. The photo always belongs to the photographer who took the picture unless they have signed an agreement otherwise. They may have something on the ticket stubs that says "any photos taken are the property of XX" but that is flimsy and would not likely stand up in court as copyright law you must specifically recieve something of value for copyright. In otherwords, he's either misinformed or trying to bully you into something.

For the stadium itself being in photos, you cannot trademark a building as it is in the public domain. Please see the case wher the precendent was set here: Gentile Photography

Now, if you were to photograph their trademarked logo and sell it purposefully to capitalize on their logo then yes, they would sue you an win. It's important to note here that they can sue you for anything actually which is why knowing your rights as a photographer is so important.

HOWEVER - if you need their permission to photograph then you will likely need to sign your rights away. Since you asked about semi pro/amateur photographers though I assumed you'd be there as a fan and not "working" as a photographer.

[OsmosisStudios]

Brian, there are so many things here that are wrong.

1: Racetracks can claim that they own copyright to any images. They all require an indemnification release ("if you get run over, we're not liable) and in that I've seen quite a few have copyright limitations. It's never a 100% grab, but there is always something in there about it. Furthermore, copyright can be attributed without an exchange of any kind.

2: Buildings CAN be COPYRIGHTED, but not trademarked (trademarks dont apply to that kind of thing). Most "famous" buildings are. The Sydney Opera House, Eiffel Tower, Guggenheim NYC. They're all supposed to have a copyright release, assuming you bothered. The big one in this case is the Eiffel Tower. When lit up at night, all images are technically (C) the City of Paris.

[Brian Mullins]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Brian, there are so many things here that are wrong.

1: Racetracks can claim that they own copyright to any images. They all require an indemnification release ("if you get run over, we're not liable) and in that I've seen quite a few have copyright limitations. It's never a 100% grab, but there is always something in there about it. Furthermore, copyright can be attributed without an exchange of any kind.

2: Buildings CAN be COPYRIGHTED, but not trademarked (trademarks dont apply to that kind of thing). Most "famous" buildings are. The Sydney Opera House, Eiffel Tower, Guggenheim NYC. They're all supposed to have a copyright release, assuming you bothered. The big one in this case is the Eiffel Tower. When lit up at night, all images are technically (C) the City of Paris.

Not sure where "so many things are wrong" here as I am stating the written laws and case law in the US. To clarify we are talking about US copyright law which doesn't apply internationally (obviously). Perhaps I am not describing it in the manner which you would like, but I certainly welcome you to correct me if I am not correct.

In response:

1 - Again, if you are SIGNING something then yes, they can put a rights grab in but they cannot just arbitrarily say they own copyright without a signature from you, the photographer, saying so. It was not mentioned that anything was signed as last time I went to a racetrack, I did not have to sign a thing and I certainly wouldn't of signed something giving away my rights to my photos. In a copyright transfer, there generally should be benefit for both sides... I don't see that here which is why I brought it up.

2 - Actually, per Title 17 section 120 of US copyright law, you cannot copyright a building to prevent it from being photographed. However a trademark that is on a building (which is what I was referring to) cannot be used without permission if it is a "selling" point (Like trying to sell a photo of a coke logo).

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Brian Mullins

1 - Again, if you are SIGNING something then yes, they can put a rights grab in but they cannot just arbitrarily say they own copyright without a signature from you, the photographer, saying so. It was not mentioned that anything was signed as last time I went to a racetrack, I did not have to sign a thing and I certainly wouldn't of signed something giving away my rights to my photos. In a copyright transfer, there generally should be benefit for both sides... I don't see that here which is why I brought it up.

2 - Actually, per Title 17 section 120 of US copyright law, you cannot copyright a building to prevent it from being photographed. However a trademark that is on a building (which is what I was referring to) cannot be used without permission if it is a "selling" point (Like trying to sell a photo of a coke logo).

1: Whatever racetrack you were at was gambling with their insurance policy. ALL racetracks I've been to (or heard of) have required a liability waiver. That's just risky.

2: Your definition of "trademark" is similar/identical to that of "copyright" in most other circles. The situation is the same however: for iconic buildings, a property release is often required or at very least recommended.

[Brian Mullins]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

1: Whatever racetrack you were at was gambling with their insurance policy. ALL racetracks I've been to (or heard of) have required a liability waiver. That's just risky.

2: Your definition of "trademark" is similar/identical to that of "copyright" in most other circles. The situation is the same however: for iconic buildings, a property release is often required or at very least recommended.

When I attended races as a spectator, I have never signed anything (but its been a few years and it was smaller racetracks) but, regardless of that, if you are working an event then yes, signing something is mandatory (I have to do it all the time with my commercial work).

Trademark is most often a "symbol" followed by a TM or SM. A copyright refers to a protected work (painting, picture, etc) whereas a trademark helps identify a source of goods and services.

Are you by chance referring to Canadian copyright law? I am assuming the OP is in the US and I know copyright law is different in the US then in Canada. In the US, you simply cannot copyright a building that would prevent a photographer from using it - the trademarked logo, however, is much different. If you shoot it from a public area, and sell it, there is not much that can be done (Please read Title 17 section 120 of US copyright law that explicitly states that). Again, I know Canadian law is different so we may be comparing apples to tires here.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Brian Mullins

Are you by chance referring to Canadian copyright law? I am assuming the OP is in the US and I know copyright law is different in the US then in Canada. In the US, you simply cannot copyright a building that would prevent a photographer from using it - the trademarked logo, however, is much different. If you shoot it from a public area, and sell it, there is not much that can be done (Please read Title 17 section 120 of US copyright law that explicitly states that). Again, I know Canadian law is different so we may be comparing apples to tires here.

In most countries, "iconic" buildings are protected from being the subject of commercial work without the express consent of the building owner. Keep in mind, this isn't just any building: i'm talking things that are clearly one-of-a-kind and well known (I listed a few in my first post). What it's called is irrelevant.