×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'The Color Run' Violates Agreement With College Photographer, Then Sues Him

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the how-not-to-attribute-photos dept.

Businesses 218

An anonymous reader writes "Photographer Maxwell Jackson went to an event called The Color Run and took some pictures. He was approached by the organization to share some of his photos on Facebook, and he agreed. Later, he found they were being used without attribution in promotional materials such as flyers and signs. When he contacted The Color Run over the misuse of his photos, they sued him. As a professional freelance photographer for a local college and a hobbyist code junky, I'm intrigued by this story and how it should be a warning for members of either trade. There is a good lesson to be learned here about taking for granted the legal implications of the manner in which you exchange your own intellectual property with anyone."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

218 comments

Of course (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250013)

Of course they sued him. You contact anyone and cite legal concerns (i.e., if not threaten to sue, imply that there are potential grounds for a suit), that's the automatic response. Especially if they're guilty - get lawyers involved right away.

Surprised you're intrigued by this - it's pretty much par for the course.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 2 months ago | (#46250153)

that's the automatic response.

Failing to make a reasonable attempt to settle disputes before going to the courts isn't a good way to get a judge on your side, especially when you're clearly the belligerent party.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

hax4bux (209237) | about 2 months ago | (#46250163)

Agreed. This is the automatic response (note I didn't say the good or fair response) on the theory your opponent cannot afford a defense and will simply capitulate. Almost no attorney will accept the defense on contingency, you will have to pay up front. Depending upon where you live, probably $20K just to get to "show cause" and more during "discovery" and even more during the "trial". This would be a great time to consider what those pictures are worth to you because law != justice and participation is not optional.

Re:Of course (2)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 months ago | (#46251309)

Actually willful infringement is worth quite a bit in the court of law. Its well within his interests to pursue this and if he doesn't it sets the example that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

Trademark powers? (2)

rhazz (2853871) | about 2 months ago | (#46250021)

... they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them.

Is that true that there is a level of entitlement if your trademark is photographed in a public place? I recall that the IoC have successfully forced take-downs of videos that happened to have the olympic rings in the background of them, citing trademark protection even though the video had nothing to do with the Olympics.

Re:Trademark powers? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#46250095)

The NFL is also huge on this to the point where most radio stations, sports bars and the likes can't even use "Superbowl" (or sometimes even "The Big Game") when advertising Superbowl-related events.

I'm helping them out (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250269)

I'm doing my best to help them, and that other big sporting event in Russia, maintain their trademark by not watching or discussing it with anybody.

Re:Trademark powers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250295)

The NFL is also huge on this to the point where most radio stations, sports bars and the likes can't even use "Superbowl" (or sometimes even "The Big Game") when advertising Superbowl-related events.

But they can use Superb Owl.

Re:Trademark powers? (4, Funny)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46250543)

Yes, but the Superb Owl has better things to do than watch a bunch of hairless bipedal apes chase a ball around the field. I mean they don't even eat the thing after they catch it!

Re:Trademark powers? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#46251029)

Any radio or tv ad during this period talking about "the big game" is in exactly this boat. But the NFL gets paid a lot by Doritos to be the official chip or snack or some damned thing, so some other chip company using "Superbowl" is intruding on, and, let's be honest, trying to make additional sales via ad hoc association.

Re:Trademark powers? (4, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 2 months ago | (#46250225)

Congress has granted the IOC special trademark privileges for exclusive use any linked ring motif and the word Olympic (other than areas related to the Olympic mountains). Their ruthless execution of that power isn't typical of normal trademark enforcement which must demonstrate marketplace confusion and potential harm to business.

Re:Trademark powers? (3, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 2 months ago | (#46250299)

Same with London Olympics. A new law was made for this purpose, the 'London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006'.

Re:Trademark powers? (2)

ChrisMaple (607946) | about 2 months ago | (#46250369)

Congress has granted the IOC special trademark privileges for exclusive use any linked ring motif

That must be really irritating to Audi, and also the maker of Ballantine's beer.

Re:Trademark powers? (2)

ottothecow (600101) | about 2 months ago | (#46250725)

The [fake, unfortunately] Audi advertisement in response to the opening ceremony ring failure was pretty funny:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/brilliant-audi-ad-mocking-sochi-olympic-rings-fail-is-probably-fake/ [mediaite.com]

Re:Trademark powers? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 2 months ago | (#46250857)

I wouldn't really call that a fake advertisement. It sure is an actual advertisement for Audi. It didn't come from Audi, though.

Re:Trademark powers? (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 2 months ago | (#46251143)

As I recall Michael Geist gave examples of documentary film makers who had incidentally gotten shots with snippets of copyrighted music or video incidentally in the background. [citation needed]

They showed the documentary at film festivals, got good reviews, and got offers to distribute nationally and show on TV.

When the distributors' lawyers looked at it, they said they had to get permission from the copyright owners to use the snippets. The copyright owners asked an exorbitant fee, and they couldn't use it.

Geist said that some of the examples were clearly fair use, and they had a legal right to use it, but it would cost even more in legal fees than the copyright owners' exorbitant demands.

The Olympics are a special case. They had a copyright law written just for them.

Wow.... (5, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | about 2 months ago | (#46250039)

From the summary of this article, I was just trying to wrap my head around how this college student could have gotten himself into this predicament. My first suspicion was he didn't read the terms and conditions carefully enough when he was asked for permission to share some of his photos. (I figured, "Ok... maybe he just saw the part about them wanting to put them on their Facebook page and didn't notice some fine print releasing the photos for all promotional uses?")

But unless there's more to this story than what's being told? "The Color Run" is simply owned by a guy who's being a complete asshole. Receiving a letter asking to be fairly compensated for the use of photographs in commercial material, after you *only* received permission to share them on Facebook, is hardly "extortion"!

And trying to add on additional charges against the student seeking just compensation, by claiming he owes them for trademark infringement because the "Color Run" name and logo showed up in some of the photos?! Yeah.... I think not, buddy.

Re:Wow.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250237)

The Color Run also has a dispute with Victoria's Secret over terms of an agreement:

  http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2013/07/victorias-secret-seeing-red-over.html?page=all

Re:Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250267)

Please post the owner's address so I can send him a photo of my butthole. And don't ask why I have photos of my butthole...

Re:Wow.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250321)

Please post the owner's address so I can send him a photo of my butthole. And don't ask why I have photos of my butthole...

I already sent him a copy of your photo of your butthole. Don't ask why I have photos of your butthole.

Re:Wow.... (3, Funny)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | about 2 months ago | (#46250279)

Hey, Color Run, shouldn't you be suing Slashdot for pointing out that you are complete assholes? After all, you have big pockets for attorneys, so you're allowed to steal.

Re:Wow.... (5, Informative)

evendiagram (2789803) | about 2 months ago | (#46250355)

Jackson wrote that instead, he was "requesting compensation as follows: $100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account, additionally to be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Internationally) for the remainder of its existence, my Logo to be added in sponsors section next to Chevy on the bottom of your web pages. My name to read at the bottom of any photo's used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photogrph by Max Jackson." He warned "if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action." Source [browardpalmbeach.com]

The kid should be compensated but this is borderline extortion.

Re: Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250573)

Wow. Smart-ass kid talks to his bigshot dad and decides to lawyer up because he thinks his photos were worth six figures. Yeah, no. I totally can understand why the guy on the receiving end of that load of horseshit decided to return fire with fier.

Also, he seems confused about what a "sponsor" is. A sponsor is someone who donates money, goods, or services in exchange for the publicity they receive. He is asking them to pay him. He isn't a sponsor. Full stop.

Re: Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46251009)

Multiple photos for world-wide use in marketing via several types of media, including big prints, for multiple years, and sublicensing - tripled for retroactive licensing, and you think he can not get $100.000?

Re: Wow.... (1)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 months ago | (#46251331)

$100,000 is a good ballpark figure. Infringement is punished with severe financial penalties to discourage it.

Re:Wow.... (2)

iamhassi (659463) | about 2 months ago | (#46250611)

actually that doesn't sound unreasonable, you have to figure they got at least $100,000 of use from the photos and the rest is essentially free, putting him down as a sponsor, putting his name on the photos he took.... all sounds like reasonable requests. And that $100,000 provides royal free usage of all photos he has provided the color run from now until eternity, I would think that's a great deal for the color run.

Re:Wow.... (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 2 months ago | (#46250739)

$100k for that use is too high.

In store advertisements don't pay like that. It might be a reasonable price for full rights to all photos, but not to license an image for use in an advertisement (which is what you would have to sue them for).

Re:Wow.... (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46250661)

IF true that's a pretty lousy opening correspondence - the kind usually reserved for patent trolls and others with an overblown sense of entitlement and enough lawyers to back it up. Without the lawyers it's just smack talk and deserves nothing more than to get smacked back.

I agree the kid deserves compensation, and the company deserves to be slapped hard as an example to others, but I *seriously* doubt $100,000 is the going rate for a single image by even a top-tier professional photographer.

Re:Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250899)

I buy stock photography for about 10 dollar (it varies a bit) per photo per use from iStockPhoto.

For 100.000 dollar they could have hired dozens of photographers for the day with full rights to their material. Asking $100.000 means the kid doesn't understand the pricing of photographs. At all.

Re:Wow.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46251079)

They could have hired a bunch of photographers, but they didn't. Professional marketing photography isn't cheap, certainly not comparable to stock photography. The going rate for retroactive licensing (without a lawsuit) is three times the normal price. They got their pick of many people's photos. Professional prices are in order.

Re:Wow.... (1)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 months ago | (#46251363)

Actually you don't understand pricing of photographs at all. Companies routinely spend $10,000 and more to hire a photographer for just one day. 100,000 also accounting for damages. The maximum amount you can sue for is 30,000 per instance.

Re:Wow.... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#46250943)

I agree the kid deserves compensation, and the company deserves to be slapped hard as an example to others, but I *seriously* doubt $100,000 is the going rate for a single image by even a top-tier professional photographer.

Well, technically it could be future licensing fees PLUS copyright infringement fees.

Remember, as photographer, he owns the copyright to the photos. The fact that the photos were pirated does entitle him to claim copyright infringement. Especially since they were used in ways to make profit.

Re:Wow.... (1)

davmoo (63521) | about 2 months ago | (#46251055)

But...if he did not register the copyrighted photos, he can only go for actual damages. He cannot get anything "punitive".

No Compensation Needed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46251145)

Step back for a moment and consider the situation. Mr. Jackson posted the pictures in question on Facebook. Their terms specifically state:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Game over dude! You were foolish enough to use Facebook. Next time read the terms of service.

Re:No Compensation Needed (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | about 2 months ago | (#46251315)

Don't be an idiot. This isn't about Facebook using his photos, it's about a third party using them. Nothing about allowing Facebook to exhibit your photos grants a license to some OTHER party for commercial use.

Re:Wow.... (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 months ago | (#46251327)

Of course even worse for the fool, he has now made a name for himself as someone not to touch with a barge pole when it comes to commercial photography. Greed driven stupidity, one lucky chance becomes the end of a career, there is a lesson for everyone here. Oh yes and trying to scam slashdot with the bullshit plea whilst not declaring the original claim really pretty shitty.

Where the photographer erred... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250465)

If he'd have registered his copyrights, he'd have a cut and dried case against everyone who used them. Handshake? Sorry, no signature, no deal. Pay up.

But you have to register before you can sue,

What terms and conditions? (1)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 2 months ago | (#46250641)

@King_TJ: "I was just trying to wrap my head around how this college student could have gotten himself into this predicament. My first suspicion was he didn't read the terms and conditions carefully enough when he was asked for permission to share some of his photos."

Winn contacted Jackson and was asked if the Color Run web site could use some of his (Jacksons) images on the Color Run website. Jackson was given an undertaking that Winn would receive full credit for his own images on the the Color Run web site: eg and quoting: " We'll link back to your work in the album ". This Winn failed to do. Not only that, Jacksons images also started to appear on flyers and on other sites such as U.S. News, Baltimore Sun Times, and Coca-Cola. When Jackson contacted the company seeking compensation, the Color Run promptly sued him in a court of law.

Logic (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#46250057)

"they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them"

Just wait until Apple or Coca-Cola hears about this. They'll suddenly own so many movies in which their logo appears they won't know what to do with them.

Re:Logic (1)

Mente (219525) | about 2 months ago | (#46250149)

Nah, Apple and Coke pay to have their brands seen in movies and TV.

Re:Logic (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 months ago | (#46250185)

Apple does not.

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple... [dailytech.com]

"Apple won't pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads and iPhones," said Gavin Polone, producer of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm. "It's kind of a graft situation."

Re:Logic (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46250967)

Yes, it is clear to anyone that watches movies that 90% of all computers in the world are Macs.
Conversely, it is clear to anyone that has a job that 90% of all computers in the world are PCs.

I think you're forgetting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250179)

About a little thing called "product placement." :) They pay for that kind of advertising in movies. ;)

Re:I think you're forgetting (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#46250233)

Not always, a lot of times they (Apple in particular) just gives the product away, or an indie producer might put the product in hoping to get the attention of that company.

Re: I think you're forgetting (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250367)

First, stop upvoting your own comments.

Secondly, we both know that the vast majority of product placement is paid. Don't be purposely obtuse.

Lastly, Apple does pay for product placement, but not in broadcast programming. They only pay for it in movies. How do I know? I'm a production accountant in the movie industry, and I see them writing checks for this all the time.

Morley (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46251261)

Actually many directors and producers shy away from product placing since the advertiser wants to influence the movie when you do this. The product needs to be visible in a certain way, they even want changes to the plot to shed a positive light on a product.

This is why many directors and producers use Hollywood brand names and trademarks, such as Morley Cigarettes.

But some movies do indeed do product placement for some extra cash injections.

Re:Logic (2)

Nemesisghost (1720424) | about 2 months ago | (#46250239)

To add what others say, when product placement isn't paid for you'll notice the logos are always blanked out. You can usually see this with cars, the heroes are always driving the sponsored cars & the villains will be driving their competitor's cars with the logos painted over. Another example is drinks & restaurants, the names will be parodies of real places, McWaldos for McDonalds.

Re:Logic (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#46250795)

There was a scene in an episode of Heroes where the cheerleader got a new car from her dad. "Dad! Is that the new [make] [model]?!" squeals the girl in delight, as the camera does a nice slow twirl around the car.

What's shameful is that I didn't even notice how blatant it was until it was pointed out on another TV show.

Here in the UK, broadcasters - at least when it comes to domestic shows - are required to display a "P" symbol at the start of any show featuring product placement.

Re:Logic (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 2 months ago | (#46251377)

You are complaining that it is unrealistic that a teenage girl would be excited about getting the exact make and model of her dreams?

Re:Logic (1)

operagost (62405) | about 2 months ago | (#46250959)

This is irritating when I watch Mythbusters and the test cars have their logos removed. I'm bothered that they had to waste time doing this when the logos will probably be flying off on their own in the inevitable crash or explosion.

Re:Logic (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#46250371)

Not to mention that any photo I took at Disney World would suddenly become properly of Walt Disney Company and I could be sued for sharing out photos of my vacations there without them giving me permission.

Re:Logic (4, Funny)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 months ago | (#46250845)

"they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them"

Just wait until Apple or Coca-Cola hears about this. They'll suddenly own so many movies in which their logo appears they won't know what to do with them.

Hmm...so if someone takes a picture of a 17 year old topless girl at a Color Run race that shows the Color Run logo, does Color Run own that photo, and are they the ones facing child pornography charges?

Well, he got a lawyer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250067)

so I guess he's not looking for advice on the internet, which is good.

I hope he didn't sign away his rights. If the Facebook request was indeed the entire basis of their agreement, then of course he can demand royalties, not just from them but from everybody they licensed the pictures to. Scumbags.

Re:Well, he got a lawyer (2)

almitydave (2452422) | about 2 months ago | (#46250363)

Exactly, it's time for him to countersue for copyright infringement. His photos are being used in many places without permission or attribution. Time to pull a page out of the ol' RIAA playbook and sue for maximum damage per instance of infringement. Unfortunately, I doubt he can afford the legal case that would take.

the end users can just say we got them from vendor (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#46250745)

the end users can just say we got them from the vendor and it's not our job to check copyrights it's there job and that will be a 20K fee for our legal time.

Re:the end users can just say we got them from ven (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250937)

Legally, that's not correct (but of course IANAL), Copyright law requires that you have a valid license. Licensing from someone who can't give you a valid license may be enough to prove that you didn't knowingly violate copyright, so punitive damages are off the table, but that's all. They all still have to pay for an actual license. Then they can sue the provider of the invalid license to cover their damages. Or, if you want a much saner arrangement, the scumbags who handed out licenses that they were not entitled to could pay for a license which allows them to sublicense the pictures. (Don't let them off cheaply: These are the most expensive licenses, especially for world-wide distribution, use in marketing, multiple media and big prints. Retroactive licensing usually triples the price. It's easy to see why they would rather spend $500.000 on lawyers instead.)

Put punative measures in your contracts (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#46250129)

If you want to insist that someone gives you attribution, get a signed contract that says failure to attribute costs the violator $100,000.

Suddenly people start being very good at attribution.

Re:Put punative measures in your contracts (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46250505)

If you want to insist that someone gives you attribution, get a signed contract that says failure to attribute costs the violator $100,000.

... Per instance.

Re:Put punative measures in your contracts (1)

St.Creed (853824) | about 2 months ago | (#46250957)

And if you want to get rich, get a contract that says you get one million dollar every time you fart.

No one will sign contracts like that. Photographers, especially college kids, are cheap and plentiful. There's no need to pay them more than beer money.

Unfortunately, this is how tort-based judiciaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250159)

When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.

Re:Unfortunately, this is how tort-based judiciari (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 2 months ago | (#46251005)

When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.

And when there IS oversight by the government, this is also what happens, only you get taxed for the privilege.

Legal system works (1)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 2 months ago | (#46250167)

Who would have thought a legal system designed by lawyers works for lawyers. Eventually a court might side with Mr. Jackson, but either way we all know who is going to be making a lot of money here: the lawyers representing both sides.

Besides that point, do you think it would bother the participants of this event that the organization running it has such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings. I have never participated (partially because I only run if there is a fire or if someone chases me) but if I did I would be upset. This organization makes money off of me and then tries to rip off another college guy just trying to do his thing? That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit. It would be appropriate if there was a boycott until the suit against Mr. Jackson is dropped.

Re:Legal system works (5, Insightful)

ProZachar (410739) | about 2 months ago | (#46250245)

"That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit."

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich while convincing the rest of the world that you're a selfless do-gooder.

Re:Legal system works (1)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 2 months ago | (#46250433)

Yeah no doubt there are a lot of organizations/people who are making a handsome living from "non-profit" work. But being a non-profit isn't really what I was thinking of when I described them as "hippy".

Reading their about page [thecolorrun.com] and the event involving a bunch of people running around like a human tie dye t-shirt is why I describe them as "hippy".

Re:Legal system works (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 2 months ago | (#46250823)

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Corporate officers can't profit either. But employees -- especially top management -- can make out like bandits. Most don't, of course, but employees of a non-profit can make $1,000,000+ salaries [charitywatch.org] quite legally.

But The Color Run is not a non-profit [wikipedia.org] .

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich

That would be difficult: you'd have to start the non-profit and then hand it over to co-conspirators who would become the trustees and hire you. And unless you're giving them a kickback (which I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is illegal), why would they?

Re:Legal system works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250907)

"That seems to be against the whole hippy color run spirit."

Nonprofit status only means there are no shareholders that profit. Nonprofit status does not imply "nobody profits".

Starting a successful nonprofit is a hip new way to become rich while convincing the rest of the world that you're a selfless do-gooder.

While The Color Run partners with charities, it is a for-profit company.

Re:Legal system works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250443)

such disregard for a college photographer? I added in the college part because the participants of these things are usually 20 somethings.

So you're attempting to influence our opinions by citing irrelevances?

Let's keep Color Run busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250171)

info@thecolorrun.com

Found via: http://www.thecolorrun.com/contact/

I actually know quite a few people who do 5Ks as my sister has been a runner since competing in college (most only do 5Ks, a perfect slice of people to mention this to).

It's about time (1)

no-body (127863) | about 2 months ago | (#46250207)

that some folks - lawyers(?) - come to their senses, maybe by giving them a strong whack left and right on their cheeks, looking straight in their eyes and telling them "you don't do this again".

If this happens enough - maybe 100 times per individual - this nonsense may change...

Any other ideas?

This isn't the only problem with Color Run (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250247)

It's a bastardized version of India's Holi festival, which draws complaints from some Indians. Also, having a lot of colored dust around while you breath heavily raises some health concerns. IIRC, there were also some really big questions about how much of the money raised goes to charity (IIRC, single digit percents). I got curious about the whole thing after I saw what I thought was a Holi celebration in Redwood City with people running. It turned out to be a Color Run. Google around, there's plenty of controversy for everybody.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run (0)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 months ago | (#46250407)

Fuck that. I suspect Holi is more than just throwing colored dust around, in which case it's as much a bastardization of Holi as people having plants is a bastardization of Christmas.

If it's like christmas in that pretty much all the boring religious traditions have been ignored in favor of the fun parts, then it's not a bastardization, it's simply spreading a fun thing to do. More power to them.

In any event, religious people whining about their traditions being bastardized can take a sharp religious icon of theirs and cram it up their asses. There's no ownership over traditions. There's certainly not any ownership over throwing colored powder at people.

"Health concerns"? Citation needed. Don't spread pointless FUD, just stick to documented douchebaggery.

As far as charity, meh, the color run doesn't seem to really hold itself out as a charity. I am not familiar with their advertising, but the appeal seems to be "Throw colors at people." Not "Run to cure breast cancer" or anything similar.

I hate to defend these assholes, but making up shit like this overshadows valid criticisms. People hear your shit and they're going to dismiss the bit about stealing photos and then using frivolous lawsuits as weapons as well.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#46250849)

Oh no, non white people chose to take offense, so we should .....what? ban things? Activities? Expression? I'm no fan of color run' s actions, but their event should not be censored just because some group chose to take offense.

Indians who aren't fans of freedom are welcome to go back to India. It takes monumental arrogance to emigrate to other countries and then demand the indigenous populations bow to your expectations.

Re:This isn't the only problem with Color Run (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 months ago | (#46250949)

Mod the parent up. I've seen that festival in India, and this scheme looks like a straight rip-off with, of course, no credit.

Scott Winn said on Facebook .. (1)

DTentilhao (3484023) | about 2 months ago | (#46250331)

Scott Winn

Hey, My name is Scott Winn and I manage the photography and videography for The Color Run. I saw that you got some awesome photos from our last race. Would you be interested in letting us use some of your photos in an album on our Facebook page?

http://www.facebook.com/thecolorrun

We'll link back to your work in the album. Our other photographs have gotton some good exposure from this. So let us know if you'd be interested. Thanks!

The Color Run

We make the happiest 5k's on the planet, donate paint, and have a hack of a lot of fun. Page: 596,940 like this ..
--

The Color Run Sues College Photographer [fstoppers.com]

Re:Scott Winn said on Facebook .. (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 2 months ago | (#46250415)

Ah yes, the old "you'll get good exposure" argument for companies not having to pay photographers for their work.

BS all around (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#46250349)

Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.

If it's in public, where anyone could have viewed it should they have been there, there shouldn't be a copyright concern. It should automatically be public domain. I'm looking at you Olympic committee.

Re:BS all around (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250459)

Yes, not only is a photograph of a public event copyrightable, it is automatically copyrighten.

Knowing where to point, what equipment to use, and when to click is an art. It is protected. It shouldn't be public domain for 25 years (I'm looking at you, Disney).

Re:BS all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250945)

7 years.

Re:BS all around (1)

javelinco (652113) | about 2 months ago | (#46250499)

I have no problem saying that public events can't claim that photos taken at the event are owned by the event sponsor, organizer, etc. HOWEVER, to say that the photographer has no rights to the photo they took is a bit crazy. I'm guessing that you have no idea how difficult it can be to actually TAKE a good photograph. I could be wrong, but seriously, if you had one hundred people take a photograph of the same thing, and one, good, professional photographer take the same shot, I guarantee the difference between those one hundred amateur photos and the one professional photo would be obvious and non-trivial.

Re:BS all around (3, Informative)

jratcliffe (208809) | about 2 months ago | (#46250747)

If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself.

Photographs of a public event are absolutely copyrightable. If you doubt this, try using photos from a newspaper without permission. Fundamentally, the photographer holds the copyright on the picture.

Re:BS all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46251001)

Photographs of a public event copyrightable? The public event itself copyrightable? It's stupid. All around. If you take a picture of ME and then want compensation when I share it with someone, you can go screw yourself. And likewise, if I'm dancing around in the park like a fool covered in chalk and I try to claim ownership over pictures you take of me, or prevent you from publishing them, I'm equally as dumb.

It may be stupid, but it's the law. I *can* prevent you from using pictures I take with you in them, and you *can* also prevent me from using the same pictures.

Re:BS all around (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#46251205)

" I *can* prevent you from using pictures I take with you in them, and you *can* also prevent me from using the same pictures."

Not in all instances you can't. I can take photos of you in public and sell them as art or to news publications and you cant do anything about it.
Now use your photo to promote a product service or event? That can be stopped but only because it is covered under a law about misrepresentation, not copyright.

As a photographer I own the copyright of any photo I take, even under contract, because I make sure that is still in there unless they pay my fee for purchasing the copyright.. and that is REALLY expensive.

Which way does the wind blow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250413)

I am bound to get confused on this, so I just need to clarify before posting. Is this one of the threads where we are pro-copyright or are we still anti-copyright and IP?

Might = right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250425)

There's a lot of discussing about who is right in legal / moral senses.

In the current legal system, might in terms of legal firepower can make a lot of "right". Loser rarely pays court costs. Court / legal fees are high. Cases drag on (and can be appealed) for an even longer time.

Having seen a few cases with someone in the let's call it simple right (nothing even as complicated as this), you STILL must evaluate - is it worth persuing. Right doesn't always matter.

For example - selling a book on ebay, getting a takedown notice saying book sale violates an agreement not to resell a book. That's well settled case law, but worth / possible to fight? No. Then getting a bill for costs of investigation into the "piracy" of the book (legally purchased). Again, do you just pay the $200 even though it's totally baseless, or do you go up against the major trade organization and law firm that wrote you the letter? Do you go against ebay through arbitration? Again, no and no, it's a totally no win situation, "right" does not matter unless you want to take a costly principled stand (few folks working to make ends meet do in reality).

Basically, with enough money and lawyers, you may be able to change the law just by you ability to "enforce" your version of it.

So less discussion of what the law says, and more on how you get funding / money to fight this, or how to give in as quickly as possible :)

Color Run owner contact info and photographer's Go (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46250471)

Color Run founder and owner -
travis@thecolorrun.com
https://www.facebook.com/travislsnyder

support photographer here

http://www.gofundme.com/thecolorrunsuedme

bleh another IP spat (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 months ago | (#46250687)

Maybe intellectual property is an unenforceable farce, even with a total-information-awareness police state backing it. Markets lacking natural scarcity arent markets at all. They are actually privileges granted by the state that encourage all kinds of petty bickering and teenage-like territorial pissings. Lawyers, and the top 1 percent rich enough to afford them, are the only ones who benefit. To the rest of us, lP throws up minefields that block potential paths of innovation.

I feel sorry for him, but if Jackson intended to profit from his images, he shouldn't have made them available until after he was paid.

They Didn't Even Humor Him with an Insulting Offer (1)

Koreantoast (527520) | about 2 months ago | (#46251049)

What makes this particular case even crazier is that they didn't bother to humor him with the sort of token, small dollar amount that most, more established companies will offer when this sort of thing arises (and in this case, the photographer might have actually accepted). Nope, they went straight for the lawsuit.

Ugh "color run" (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 months ago | (#46251185)

to a photographer these are gear destroyers. that crap gets inside the lenses and everywhere else.

And if the kid did not give them a written RELEASE spelling it out carefully, he deserves what he gets. As a photographer I will do a release for gratis for events, it requires them to sign the release that spells out exactly what hey can do and that they must give me full credit as well as links to my website, and it says that any use outside what was spelled out is a violation of the release.

They must sign it, then they get CROPPED or lower resolution photos, you never EVER give the full resolution raw files.

Re:Ugh "color run" (1)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 months ago | (#46251383)

People starting out don't see their own self value and will do anything for exposure because they think exposure will bring them work. Its a hard lesson to learn that you don't just give away work for free.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...