Who owns the rights to photographs taken at an auto race

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by inlina

Right, just read more on the definition of commercial use and I see where the confusion is. I am talking about the commercial use of the photo by the photographer. If a photographer sells a photo to an end user, then that is commercial use of the photo...in a business sense, but not in a publishing sense. You are talking in and 'end user' publishing sense, which I agree and you are correct from that end. Sorry, it's the business/manager in me that looks at it from a different perspective.

I'm talking in the legal "I'm going to sue your pants off" sense. As far as the courts are concerned, commercial use of an image is only advertising, regardless of whether or not a publisher is a commercial entity.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by inlina

No...ANY trasnaction where money changes hands is a commercial transaction.

This is not true for the usage of "commercial" that we're interesed in with regards to photography. There are three broad groups: commerical, editorial, and retail. Selling photos or prints individually is retail use, not commercial.

[Jamzano]

Originally Posted by garys427

Hi All,
I have been going to Watkins Glen in upstate NY since the early 60's for Formula One and other series and have literally thousands of photographs taken there. I was on the WG forums and somebody asked the question as to who owns the rights to the photographs. The answer was:
That's a good question and one that we get every so often.

We (WGI) own the rights to any photo taken here at the track. This applies to basically any photo dating back to when the track opened in 1957. There is no problem displaying them on a website simply to show other people but you need a licensing agreement with us and our parent company (ISC) in order to sell them or use them for promotional purposes. If this is something you would like to explore further please send us an email at racing@theglen.com.

Hope you find this helpful.

-WGI Moderator

That just doesn't sound correct to me. There is nothing in print on the order form, brochure or the tickets stating anything to that effect. I'm wondering just what your thoughts are. Thanks,
Gary

Gary - I was at the IRL race over the 4th and I am the one who posted the question on the WGI forum about who owns the rights to the photos taken at Watkins Glen. If I had checked the forum prior to heading up we could have met up. We BBQed at our campsite with a bottle of the Dinosaur BBQ Sauce. Good stuff!

My efforts to get a definitive answer to this question have been extremely frustrating. I have exchanged emails with the Watkins Glen forum moderator who told me that I need to get permission and a licensing agreement from International Speedway Corp to sell my photos. I asked for more information on doing this and I have yet to get an answer.

On this forum and other photography forums I have gotten responses saying everything from if I took the photo from a non restricted public place then I own the photo and can do with it what I want to if I bought a ticket to get into the event then I have agreed to their rules and ISC owns the rights.

Someone mentioned that the fine print on the ticket or a sign at the gate would state what rights a photographer has but at least for the IRL event and the Bobby Rahal vintage event there wasn’t anything on the ticket or a sign at the gate.

I was at the Bobby Rahal Vintage Racing event at The Glen in June and there was a photographer set up in the souvenir area who sells photographs that he has taken at historic events all over the country and he also offers to photograph your car on the track at the event. I was hoping to talk to him but every time I stopped by his tent he wasn’t around his helper was there manning things. My assumption is that he has a deal with the event organizers for access and copyrights which supersedes any copyright claims that the track makes.

I don’t have the means to get an attorney so it looks like a definitive answer is still to come.

[nokiN]

Originally Posted by Jamzano

Gary - I was at the IRL race over the 4th and I am the one who posted the question on the WGI forum about who owns the rights to the photos taken at Watkins Glen. If I had checked the forum prior to heading up we could have met up. We BBQed at our campsite with a bottle of the Dinosaur BBQ Sauce. Good stuff!

My efforts to get a definitive answer to this question have been extremely frustrating. I have exchanged emails with the Watkins Glen forum moderator who told me that I need to get permission and a licensing agreement from International Speedway Corp to sell my photos. I asked for more information on doing this and I have yet to get an answer.

On this forum and other photography forums I have gotten responses saying everything from if I took the photo from a non restricted public place then I own the photo and can do with it what I want to if I bought a ticket to get into the event then I have agreed to their rules and ISC owns the rights.

Someone mentioned that the fine print on the ticket or a sign at the gate would state what rights a photographer has but at least for the IRL event and the Bobby Rahal vintage event there wasn’t anything on the ticket or a sign at the gate.

I was at the Bobby Rahal Vintage Racing event at The Glen in June and there was a photographer set up in the souvenir area who sells photographs that he has taken at historic events all over the country and he also offers to photograph your car on the track at the event. I was hoping to talk to him but every time I stopped by his tent he wasn’t around his helper was there manning things. My assumption is that he has a deal with the event organizers for access and copyrights which supersedes any copyright claims that the track makes.

I don’t have the means to get an attorney so it looks like a definitive answer is still to come.

A good reference book on this stuff is :

A Digital Photographers Guide to Model Releases by Dan Heller. Dan also covers property release issues.

Selling individual photos to individuals is not a commerical use.
In that instance the photos are considered 'art', which is why he can sell at the historic events.
However, if you start distributing those individual photos by the thousands you've crossed a line and now it's commercial.

What the whole thread has really been about is Model and property releases, not copyright.

Model and property release law varies by state and is not very cut and dried. Essentially, a release protects the publisher, and the model or property owner, not the photographer. There are situations where the photographer is also the publisher of an image.

The photographer can sell his images to anyone, but many commercial buyers won't buy if the image(s) they want to use if the photographer cannot also supply properly executed releases.

Property releases are much less commonly required than model releases .

Someone stated earlier that you own copyright as soon as you release the shutter. Not really. The image has to be recorded in/on a tangible medium before you own copyright, so when the photo is written to the memory card is when it becomes a copyrighted work.

[kirbinster]

I have a problem with this. Let's say I go up in my airplane and take pictures of the track - I am not on their property. I believe I can use those pictures anyway I see fit. It is really no different than Google taking a picture of my house and then making money from it on the web. It would be a totally different story if I took the picture on their property.

Any way, there is no such thing as the law. The law is what one particular judge decides the law is on any given day.