ok, i never thought of it that way.

 

and on the other side of it... stuntriders dont understand what it takes to take a top notch photo, time work equipment artistic ability etc.... add the newest most affordable techonolgy and its easy to see why people dont wanna pay for a good pic... heck their cousin has a 300 dollar digicam from ritz that take 5 megapixel pictures.. why would they pay 1000+ for the rights and usage of one image...

 

just put something on your tickets sayin no cameras and u are good. they cant take pics and sell them because it was illegal for him to take the pic in the first place. ask a lawyer too. i dont know **** just givin ideas that sound good to me

 

there are only a few places where its illegal to take a pic.. for the most part the ball is in the photographers court.

 

I am in total agreement here and my intent is not to push the photographer out of the picture (I had to say it...lol)..but merely protect the rider to ensure that IF there is a small pie he gets to have a slice....
I like the ticket stub idea, that could be done very easily.
Just an update but after hearing this the track owner sent them a cease and decist email and the miraculously the pics are off the website. I also just received an email from them asking to meet with me to discuss some business arrangements. Should be interesting, will keep you posted.
Cheers
SK

 

well luckly for you he isnt aware of his rights.... if you really wanna pork him.. get a "work for hire" contract signed.. no photographer in his right mind will sign it.. but sounds like this guy may, and if thats the case... all rights are then granted to you

 

As a general Legal issue the photographer owns the rights to the photo and it's sale and reproduction. But if you can clearly see the person (ie no helmet, partial helmet w/ vis. tats). the "model" has to sign a release allow the photographer to use the "models" image in the Photographers Pictures. THe problem is if you can't prove it's you because of ur helmet it doesn't matter...(it was someone else with a bike that happemed to look like yours) which sucks then you just have to not let'em in.


Here's a site regarding model releases

My as a photographer.

 

Commercial Appropiation of Another Likeness or Name

still not enough to stop the average joe from selling pics of some kid riding a stuntbike.

and while only 25 states in the US have laws for this ( Rights to Publicity ) , he is still in canada

 

heres my opinion go kill the nukka with the cam and steal his wallet take the credit card out and the loot and you end up winning in the end

 

that site has right to privacy and right to publicity all mixed up...

 

Thanks, very useful info.
Cheers
SK

 

So all of you Mad Stuntaz out there who are doing some big shows, is this not an issue? Or is it just not addressed.
Would like to hear from a few big names who are at the top of the ladder in this game.
You are the guys most likely to have your pic taken and published for profit....
Again thanks to everyone so far.
Cheers
SK

 

i have to go through this alot in my job..... the photographer owns the picture. if you are have a copyright,trademark on yourself (image, stuff like that) the photographer can't sell or reproduce the image without your permission. the only way to protect yourself is to go through that process. i would recomend , even if you are starting out, to do it. you never know how big you are goin to get... and you might be part of that million dollar picture. no one real knows how big the sport can get. look at fmx !!!! we probably protect our trademark a couple times a month... it might not bother anyone in the beginning , but if someone starts making some big bucks off of you & you don't recieve anything for it, you will get pissed pretty fast !!

 

Well I was there when no one was showing interest and I'll still be doing it if the interest dies away so this doesnt bother me one way or the other. But that doesnt mean I'll just sit idle while someone tries to take advantage of us......
SK

 

This isn't exactly accurate

Model releases are required when a model/person's image is to be used to represent a product, company or even idea. Basically, when that person's image is used in advertising or as an icon. You also need to get a release form signed when doing shoots for magazines that include a model. For example, the girl drapped over a bike in a mag will have signed a release form

However, you do not need any sort of model release form signed when you're shooting 'editorial', 'reportage' or 'photojournalist' images. This is eveything from someone jumping out of a burning building to someone pulling wheelies at their local strip to someone having a beer in a bar

So it doesn't matter if the rider is easily identifiable or not - a model release form is simply not required

If friends, family and/or work collegues can identify you in an image, then your face does not need to be visible - not that it would matter in an editorial image anyway

The only time that would matter would be if the image, or the way the image was used in conjunction with the text, misrepresented the person in the picture (one of the main reasons for model release forms in the first place)

Legally, the photographer owes Smurfkilla nothing. Morally, he's a cheeky bastard for not clearing everything with Smurfkilla before he ever stuck a roll of film or capture card in his camera

My as a working photographer

http://www.bikehouse.demon.co.uk - the pictures are at least two years old, though...

 

Not sure how well that would hold up in court after a number of large companies in Europe tried to do the same thing with their buildings, which was then challenged in court where they lost - but it would also mean magazines etc. couldn't use pictures of you or your team, either, without going through the crap of tracking down a legal representative of the team so that they can get written permission (as spoken permission wouldn't be enough) to use the images. They're not going to do it - they'll just use another shot instead. It's because of hassles like this that I don't shoot Red Bull sponsored events

As CBOdmi has said, enjoy the fact someone thinks you're worth photographing. And you never know, although this particular snapper has over stepped the mark a little by selling images without getting the permission of his subjects, one of those pictures could end up on the desk of someone who could change the rest of your life, someone who could make your dreams come true. It's not like it hasn't hapened before...

 

Why not charge the photographers more to get in?

The $5 for the regular spectators goes to the guy who owns the property but the $25 for the photographers is yours.

 

If its gay why the hell are you still responding ?? I posed a simple scenario asking for some input from riders who had maybe gone thru this. Thats all. No need to question whether or not my or the teams riding skill is worthy of such a discussion. Its quite obvious that I am not "just happy" with someone taking our photo isnt it ??
You may be an up and comer in the game but you came across like a PUNK on this one..
What ???
SK

 

well, to an extent i agree with CBO about being happy with the exposure you're getting, but for the sake of explaination, i'll go into this some:

Keep in mind this is in regards to US law...

Quoting Cornell Law School here http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html

"The Right of Publicity prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one's persona. It gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion. "

What does this mean? Well, it means that people can't legally exploit photos/video of you without your permission for commercial purposes, which means there is an intent to use in a commercial environment.

so then you say, how do the papparazzi get away with using tons of photos and video of celebrities that clearly do not want their picture taken?....simple, the papparazzi is protected under the constitution as a 'journalistic' nature....which veggie dave explained with:

what you'll all want to keep in mind though, is that when you goto any type of decent sized venue and sign off their release to get on the track, 99% of the time there is a stipulation in the release that says you release the right to your image to the track/venue. Ever notice that pretty much every racetrack/speedway/drag strip has a staff photographer on hand for events? Its because they use that aspect of the events to make more money with pictures and whatnot. So in this instance, the dispute would be between the photographers that show up to shoot from the stands without permission from the track, and the track owners themselves since they own the right to your image once you signed off on their release.

alright, this was the short version of this subject, but if you guys have more questions post 'em or message me, i know a tremendous amount about this

-tyson
WestCoast Filmworks
InsaneVideos.com

 

Cool, thanks for the reply it was well worth the read.
Cheers
SK