Now we are getting somewhere.

So photographers, what is an acceptable fee to have you be the exclussive photographer of an event?

Using Tom's model, podium shots and photos of the promoting team would be the property of the team. Action photos of all other riders would remain property of the photographer and current protocol would be in place.

$100.00?

There's an organization called Creative Commons that is quietly trying to provide a viable alternative to copyright law. Right now, something is either has a copyright (the author has all rights) or it doesn't. By default, everything created has a copyright.

The philosophical argument here is interesting, because the pictures of a bike race are really a collaborative product--a lot of parties have come together to make the shot interesting and valuable.

The photographer has to protect his rights, of course. He doesn't want me to download the photos and sell them myself. So, he's got to copyright and them and protect them. He may be sympathetic to one person's desire to have his own photo, but has to consider his overall business.

CC (which is at http://www.creativecommons.org) is a sort of medium-strength copyright method, which recognizes the inherent collaborative nature of works, especially in a digital age.

Maybe photographers can check CC out? It may provide a reasonable alternative.

How about this possible solution - hire the photographer to get the shots you want - you will own the rights, photographer gets compensated for his/her time/talent - all parties gain in the transaction. That way you can arrange the type and style pf photo you might want for your individual purposes - podium, finish line showing over head banner with sponsors, density of crowds at specific locations, closeups or bunch displays - whatever you want because you're paying for it. It becomes another budget line item to include every year like officials, permits, staff lunches, equipment, PA system, etc.

Tom Simpson
Pilarcitos Cyclesports

Hmm, at first I thought this was an curious topic - none of these photographers are getting rich off shooting our little bike races, they're investing considerable time and trouble to try and make a bit of small change off our tendency as bike racers to be vain bastards. :lol:

However, I've come to see what you're getting at, Ron, so here's another idea-
What about the photographers donating podium shots to the promoters and riders? The promoter and pictured riders get rights to those pics, as long as they are properly credited. That seems like an equitable exchange that works well on several levels:
-Promoters get value for their sponsors, who can have banners etc, behind the podium.
-Teams and riders get face time for their sponsors.
-Photographers get publicity in the form of a photo credit that will reach a wider audience since they can be on team/sponsor/promoter websites.

Win-win-win, the main problem I can see is a logistical one regarding multiple flights of riders and finish times. If podium shots are too complicated for this reason, maybe finish line shots could be substituted? But podium (or milkcrates, or wobbly plywood cubes like at Wente) pics are certainly preferrable since they have the best opportunity for sponsor logos to be visible.

VRD,
It is different because the promoter had to purchase insurance and get a permit to run the race. Permits from the city, permission from the residents or property owners. In some cases that means assuring that there are no "Retail" activities so that the promoter does not have to provide workers comp. insurance. In addition the promoter had to incur all of the other expenses involved in putting on the event.

With that in mind there are several areas of potential liability that are created by photographers.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, it is not perhaps legal issue of who has what rights to what, but more of an ethical one.

Why? Because the photographers are not there to take photos of the streets (which are public) they are there taking photos of an event that exists on the back of other's labor and expenses.

I am not suggesting that there be any fees or any direct monetary compensation, but perhaps there can be a more "official" arrangement made between the photographers and the promoters.

I was hoping to get people to think and use some creativity on that one, but here is one possible idea, it's just a thought: The photographers often take photos at events promoted by clubs, how about tossing the promoting club a bone in the form of photos of their riders? Not every rider all year long, but how about a credit of a certain value.

I think that shows respect and a little honor to those who work hard to make the events happen.

I'm sorry that you "fail misserably [sic] to see how these two are even remotely interchangeable," but the Golden Gate Bridge is public property, just as bike races are (to a great extent) held on public property. People do not pay admission to spectate at these events and any passer-by is free to photograph these events for that reason. Just as any passer-by is free to photograph the Golden Gate Bridge. And once again, the ownership is that of the photographer.

I believe promoters can assert the rights to photographs but most in the US don't because very few races draw enough media attention to warrant it. In other words, there's no money in it... they'd be fighting over crumbs.

Sea Otter however is big enough to assert their rights and here's what their website says:

"Photography Rights

All rights to still photographs taken at the Sea Otter Classic are the property of Sea Otter Classic LLC.
Photographers are permitted to provide pictures for editorial or commercial use to publications, teams or companies without any specific permission.
Retail photography rights at the 2006 Sea Otter Classic have been purchased and are no longer available. 'Retail' means selling to members of the public outside of specific agreements with a team, business or other commercial entity.
Members of the public may take pictures for personal, non-commercial use."

While the organizer/promoter may be responsible for the event normally the venue where the event is being held is normally are public streets paid for and maintained by taxpayer money.

Yea a promoter could set up special events on private property ( like a meet the rider's type affair if any of the riders participating are of a high enough caliber. Then the promoter could charge a rights fee in order for photographers to get in and shoot at the event that is in a private location. Of course the promoter would have to balance the value of the free PR vs an possible profit by only allowing photographers who have paid a fee to get into the private portion to shoot.

The portion of the race that is held on public property ( ie the parts accessible to the general public) is open to anyone and if a photographer wants to come by and snap a few shots I can't see how the promoter could prevent this or expect some kind of fee since the event is taking place on public property that the general public has assess to.

I always love how people try to over simplify a topic by substituting one element with another that is completely different all together.

Bridge = Fixed object paid for by taxes and becomes a permanent part of the scape.

Bike Race = Event promoted and financed by an organization, person, or company for the purpose of fund raising, profit, or other. Sometimes at a loss.

I fail misserably to see how these two are even remotely interchangeable.

The elements of the topic are not interchangeable, and so under your model, NO the concept/logic doesn't work.

So by that logic, if I take a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge and sell it for a profit, then I owe proceeds to the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District?

It just doesn't work that way.

Hans,
Thank you, that is very informative information.

One question (going out to everyone) in regards to our particular setting, and this may be more of a question of personal opinion on ethics than a legal one.

Since the promoters are providing the canvas by which the artist (aka photographer) paints (snaps pictures), are the photographers sharing proceeds of the sale of that art with the promoters?

Look at it from this perspective for a second, without the promoters providing a venue the photographer would not have a key element in the manufacturing of the product they are copyrighting. No race means no racers. Remove the races from the photo and all you have is the surrounding scenery and for sure a smaller market interested in the photo. You would still have a photo, but it would be absent the content that makes it sellable. Right?

In essence the photographers are providing the media by which they deliver the content provided by the promoter.

Perhaps I am way off base, so take this with a grain of salt and just something to ponder on.

Ron

Mad Axeman wrote:I have one peice of feedback though: If someone buys a photo from you, that purchase should also include the rights to that photo. If I purchase a photo of myself, it is usually to send to a sponsor or to use on the team's website. There is often a good chance that they would like to use that photo, but I find it a bit complicated to get everything arranged.
After all, it's my face in the photo.

Ah, you are delving into the tricky world of copyright laws and licensing of photos. Here's a good link regarding this:

http://www.morningstarmultimedia.com/html/2004/05/licensing-photography-...

Here's an important part from the above article:

Quote:Legally, the person who holds the copyright to a photo has the absolute right to tell you how you can and can't use it. When you license a photo through one of the above methods, you are doing simply that - licensing it. There is no transfer of copyright involved. Therefore, you are subject to the licensing agreement that comes with the picture. If you steal an image from a website or use an image in a way that is inconsistent with its terms of agreement, you are infringing on the owner's copyright.

As a parallel think about music. You purchase a copyrighted music CD which you download to your iPod. You listen and realize it's perfect interval training music and your teammates should have it. You bought the CD and you own it so you should be able to make copies, right? Nope. Legally you are not allowed to make copies and give them away.

Your comment about the photo subject matter being your own image treads into another legal world. Let me offer another link to an article:

http://www.kantor.com/blog/2005/12/legal_rights_of_photographers.shtml

Hope this helps.

FWIW - INAL and I'm not a professional photographer.