Photography from public areas and selling photos

[medius]

Curious question and I'd like to know your thoughts.

I've been taking photos from spectator areas for a couple of years now, and getting to the point where drivers/friends and family of the competitors think they are worth selling. So I have a page setup on Facebook which I put low-res watermarked images up with a caption saying that if you want better resolution ones, without a watermark, to get in touch. I don't sell the images I take, I just let people tag and share them.

Is this ''right'', considering the risks taken by the professional photographers to be on the dangerous side of the fence to do a similar job? I have seen a lot of professional photographers' websites who are ''attached'' to various championships (not mentioning names), how are they allowed to sell images from race meetings when they are shooting from a certain perspective i.e. media for a website/championship etc?

Secondly, same situation where I pop along to a trackday and do the same thing (its free to get in and you can get a lot of practice in during open pitlane days), and the photographer employed by the TD company isn't happy that I'm (in his words) "taking away his business" by being there, taking my own photos from the spectator areas. Is he ''right'' that I'm taking his business?

I am working towards gaining media accreditation in the next couple of years by working with a racing club, supplying images for their club magazine where I can and building a body of published work, so its not like I'm some Billy with a Bridge camera looking to make a quick quid as I'm not selling the photos.

Genuinely curious and quite concerned as its an angle I've never thought of until now.

[Miguel]

Uuuuh... Just ignore that nonsense. If anyone has a problem with you getting some monies for your work, let them step up their game. This is no turf war. You have nothing to worry about. The only damage you can do, any photographer can do, is by giving your work away for free. That has been going on for a while now at the Nürburgring and is the reason why most teams don't pay, some even just stealing photographs because there will always be some ****** who will give them photos for free.

[Miguel]

Also, show me your work yo!

[Alfaholic]

Quoted from the terms and conditions on the back of Silverstone's tickets (essentially the same T&Cs as for all circuits)...
04: you must note create, store, record or transmit any kind of sound recording/visual footage/audio-visual footage/information/other data...Still image cameras and telephones are permitted provided that any image, film, recording or data created , recorded or stored thereon is used for personal, private or non-commercial purposes.
05: You assign copyright in any image/film/recording you make at the event to SCL and agree that such image/film/recording shall not be used for advertisement, commercial gain or any other purpose (except private enjoyment) without SCL's prior written consent.
(SCL being Silverstone Circuits Limited)

So basically - no you can't.

[bella]

there's no harm in taking the photos, and sharing them for private enjoyment - whether that private is between friends on facebook or twitter, who's to say? and if your friends happen to be competitors... i don't see how that would be against the regulations on the back of the ticket.

as long as you don't take payment for the images it's fine morally, imo. or supply them on a regular basis to an individual competitor. in that case you really would be taking revenue away from a pro photographer.

as for the trackday guy getting arsey, i think from his point of view it's valid unless he knows what you do with them. in that situation i'd probably say it's unfair to give the images to those taking part at least in the short to mid-term because more than likely they'd have given him money instead of take them off you for nothing.

[leonidas]

Originally Posted by bella

as long as you don't take payment for the images it's fine morally, imo. or supply them on a regular basis to an individual competitor. in that case you really would be taking revenue away from a pro photographer.

Isn't that just protectionism? If a ordinary joe can produce better photographs than a professional shouldn't he be allowed to do so?

It is not so much about general copyright law as restrictive access covenants attached to circuit entry.

The law on copyright is supposed to protect creative or intellectual property, not the visual qualities of land / circuits. For example if I take a picture of a mountain in the Lake District, I wouldn't have to ask permission of the landowner providing I could access the view from a public place.

[medius]

Thanks for the input, all taken on board. Slightly different train of thought, if I was commissioned by a competitor to take photos solely of him or her on a trackday or race meeting, would I need permission from the venue if its a race meeting, or both venue and trackday organiser?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by leonidas

For example if I take a picture of a mountain in the Lake District, I wouldn't have to ask permission of the landowner providing I could access the view from a public place.

True - but a circuit isn't a public place, it's private property that you have been granted access to based on a number of conditions (such as not being able to sell photos).

Originally Posted by medius

Thanks for the input, all taken on board. Slightly different train of thought, if I was commissioned by a competitor to take photos solely of him or her on a trackday or race meeting, would I need permission from the venue if its a race meeting, or both venue and trackday organiser?

In theory yes - if you're getting any sort of financial reward then you need the circuits permission.

[davyboy]

Guys, as some have alluded to above, the commercial exploitation of images that you've taken isn't as straightforward as you might think. There are two key elements that you need to secure before you can license your image - a model release(s) [where the image contains recognizable people] and property release(s) [where the image depicts private property]. Depending on the level of exposure, there may also be issues with certain objects in your photo - e.g. Apple have problems with their logo appearing in certain situations and Getty Images were in litigation with Le Corbusier over the appearance of one of their designs in a commercially used photo.

It's nothing to do with moral issues - it's actually a legal matter - and you run the risk of a lawsuit if you haven't got these elements sorted out BEFORE you promote or license your photography.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by medius

Thanks for the input, all taken on board. Slightly different train of thought, if I was commissioned by a competitor to take photos solely of him or her on a trackday or race meeting, would I need permission from the venue if its a race meeting, or both venue and trackday organiser?

It doesn't matter whether it's a race or track day, you will be taking photos depicting private property, so if you are commercially exploiting them - i.e. licensing them in return for payment - then you will need a property release from the property owner.

[bella]

Originally Posted by leonidas

Isn't that just protectionism? If a ordinary joe can produce better photographs than a professional shouldn't he be allowed to do so?

i don't think it is protectionism, no. not when there's a clear framework of accreditation. that's there for multiple reasons.

[Gilles lives!]

I have been photographing for a local kart circuit this past year or two, I supply them with a set of photos for their website at the end of their monthly event, in addition I also send a set to the local online sports news, in return for this I am allowed to sell images to competitors.
However I find it hard to sell due to others giving their images away free on Facebook/Flickr, I'm not sure why folk do this when some take over 400+ images that they then upload (which frankly must take up a lot of their spare time editing ? ) for no return. The majority of the shots are garbage and really give photographers a bad name and yet they advertise them as being 'free downloads' and 'no copyright to worry about'. It is bad enough having competitors who expect free shots, some even message me asking 'Can you send me my pictures'. If it isn't that then they copy them, even with a big watermark through the shot and then use them as their profile pictures .

Like the Op I am eventually aiming to apply for media accreditation at car events, this when I have gained enough experience trackside, as I would want to do a damn good job, but I know I am never going to profit much from it, in the end it's just a hobby isn't it ?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Gilles lives!

However I find it hard to sell due to others giving their images away free on Facebook/Flickr

You're not alone in this - I suspect the same is true for most 'pro' photographers.

Originally Posted by Gilles lives!

...some take over 400+ images that they then upload (which frankly must take up a lot of their spare time editing ? ) for no return. The majority of the shots are garbage

Agreed - some people just seem to dump the entire contents of their memory card onto flickr or wherever without any sort of quality control at all. I often buy images of events we've done - but again that does depend on what I'm getting and at what price. For example - I'm not interested in buying a print, I want a decent sized digital image - but not at a ridiculous price. To be fair most of the time a deal can be made that works for both parties but some photographers do seem to ask ludicrous prices for their images - and in those cases people will look for alternatives (even if the quality takes a bit of a hit).

[marc sproule]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

You're not alone in this - I suspect the same is true for most 'pro' photographers.



Agreed - some people just seem to dump the entire contents of their memory card onto flickr or wherever without any sort of quality control at all. I often buy images of events we've done - but again that does depend on what I'm getting and at what price. For example - I'm not interested in buying a print, I want a decent sized digital image - but not at a ridiculous price. To be fair most of the time a deal can be made that works for both parties but some photographers do seem to ask ludicrous prices for their images - and in those cases people will look for alternatives (even if the quality takes a bit of a hit).

i'm curious as to what you consider to be a ridiculous price for a digital file.

frequently i get requests for me to give someone a digital image or images for free. i don't do that.

i do have a price range that i consider fair. some people like it, some don't.

this is my stuff.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/46681980@N03/sets

[MikeHoyer]

Photography is one of those areas where there is a very blurred line between a job and a hobby. Often people are happy just to see their pictures used or "liked" on Facebook etc. Certainly I was when I was starting out. But, if you want to make a viable business from it you sometimes have to decide between what is fun to shoot, and what pays your mortgage.

Originally Posted by Gilles lives!

I have been photographing for a local kart circuit this past year or two, I supply them with a set of photos for their website at the end of their monthly event, in addition I also send a set to the local online sports news, in return for this I am allowed to sell images to competitors.
However I find it hard to sell due to others giving their images away free on Facebook/Flickr, I'm not sure why folk do this when some take over 400+ images that they then upload (which frankly must take up a lot of their spare time editing ? ) for no return. The majority of the shots are garbage and really give photographers a bad name and yet they advertise them as being 'free downloads' and 'no copyright to worry about'. It is bad enough having competitors who expect free shots, some even message me asking 'Can you send me my pictures'. If it isn't that then they copy them, even with a big watermark through the shot and then use them as their profile pictures .

Like the Op I am eventually aiming to apply for media accreditation at car events, this when I have gained enough experience trackside, as I would want to do a damn good job, but I know I am never going to profit much from it, in the end it's just a hobby isn't it ?

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by marc sproule

i'm curious as to what you consider to be a ridiculous price for a digital file.

I usually pay between £25 and £35 for 20-25 images. I'm not paying £10 for a single image for example (unless it's us overtaking someone by leaping over them whilst on fire and battling with a lion inside the car or something equally spectacular). The images are either sent to me on a cd or I create a folder in a dropbox account and the photos are uploaded to that.

I think some of the long time pros haven't moved with the times - prints don't interest me (or the vast majority of people) and digital files need to be of a decent size so I can use them for whatever I want. Some photographers are reluctant to hand over the digital images as they lose control of the image - but the choice is sell me the digital images or you don't get any cash from me. What's better - sell 20 images for £25 or make no sale?

[bella]

that's a good point about the rights to an image changing now we're in digital not film times. i would expect, for example, a team or driver not to make the hi res image available for download, but to use a not-silly sized version on their website/facebook/twitter/instagram accounts. but i would equally accept that it would be on the internet in many places without a credit, and i can see how that would be perhaps an issue too. perhaps sometimes people are more used to selling an image several times over rather than once.

regarding pricing, i can think of two different photographers and styles that i've come across. one is the two digit fee per weekend for a cd of photos of you that the photographer admits are just documenting your participation, not with any particular artistic merit. the other end of the spectrum is the guy who was with a pr company who charged a few times more than that per weekend, but produced actual bonafide art because he was a photographer first, and a motorsports photographer second. neither really trod on each others toes.

and the treading on others toes bit is the part that some amateur photographers don't necessarily get their heads around, especially if they're not really intending to pay the mortgage with it like mike says.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I usually pay between £25 and £35 for 20-25 images. I'm not paying £10 for a single image for example (unless it's us overtaking someone by leaping over them whilst on fire and battling with a lion inside the car or something equally spectacular). The images are either sent to me on a cd or I create a folder in a dropbox account and the photos are uploaded to that.

I think some of the long time pros haven't moved with the times - prints don't interest me (or the vast majority of people) and digital files need to be of a decent size so I can use them for whatever I want. Some photographers are reluctant to hand over the digital images as they lose control of the image - but the choice is sell me the digital images or you don't get any cash from me. What's better - sell 20 images for £25 or make no sale?

So a pro with £1000's of pounds worth of equipment who then spends a day or more going to a race meeting and is then asked to receive around £1 for an image...sorry it doesn't make sense

[Gilles lives!]

Originally Posted by MikeHoyer

Photography is one of those areas where there is a very blurred line between a job and a hobby. Often people are happy just to see their pictures used or "liked" on Facebook etc. Certainly I was when I was starting out. But, if you want to make a viable business from it you sometimes have to decide between what is fun to shoot, and what pays your mortgage.

Indeed it is a very blurred line Mike, I have full respect for those that can make a living from it, especially in current times with seemingly everyone owning a DSLR .

[marc sproule]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

I usually pay between £25 and £35 for 20-25 images. I'm not paying £10 for a single image for example (unless it's us overtaking someone by leaping over them whilst on fire and battling with a lion inside the car or something equally spectacular). The images are either sent to me on a cd or I create a folder in a dropbox account and the photos are uploaded to that.

I think some of the long time pros haven't moved with the times - prints don't interest me (or the vast majority of people) and digital files need to be of a decent size so I can use them for whatever I want. Some photographers are reluctant to hand over the digital images as they lose control of the image - but the choice is sell me the digital images or you don't get any cash from me. What's better - sell 20 images for £25 or make no sale?

to say i'm rather stunned by the prices you are paying would be a massive understatement.

i'm stunned by how cheap those images are.

to me that is giving them away.

i'm glad i'm no longer have to compete against people who place so little value on their work.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

So a pro with £1000's of pounds worth of equipment who then spends a day or more going to a race meeting and is then asked to receive around £1 for an image...sorry it doesn't make sense

Originally Posted by marc sproule

to say i'm rather stunned by the prices you are paying would be a massive understatement. i'm stunned by how cheap those images are. to me that is giving them away.
i'm glad i'm no longer have to compete against people who place so little value on their work.

Realistically it's either sell them cheap or don't sell them - as has been said there are usually images online taken by spectators - some of which won't be total crap. Also many of the 'hobbyists' taking photos from the spectator areas also have £1000's worth of camera gear (I've got about £800 worth of gear and I'm average at best). A lot of the time the only distinction between the pros and hobbyists is which side of the fence they're standing.

At the level I'm competing at buying photos is about 10-20% of another entry fee for an event so if the photos aren't available cheap / decent size then I won't buy (again unless there is a particularly spectacular shot) and there are many others in the same situation. At the end of the day the photos are a 'nice to have'.

[bauble]

When you can see up to a dozen photographers all taking much the same shots with a camera capable of taking hundreds of images during a race, let alone a meeting, one has to wonder how many ever see the light of day.

Even the dedicated magazines can only use so many per issue, so what happens to the bulk?

Do many 'pro's' sell to the drivers in sufficient quantity to make a living?

Do magazines pay well enough?

Just wondering.

bauble.

[MikeHoyer]

Depends how you define "pro". Certainly not everyone you see trackside is making a living from photographing races.

Originally Posted by bauble

When you can see up to a dozen photographers all taking much the same shots with a camera capable of taking hundreds of images during a race, let alone a meeting, one has to wonder how many ever see the light of day.

Even the dedicated magazines can only use so many per issue, so what happens to the bulk?

Do many 'pro's' sell to the drivers in sufficient quantity to make a living?

Do magazines pay well enough?

Just wondering.

bauble.

[David Stallard]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

Realistically it's either sell them cheap or don't sell them - as has been said there are usually images online taken by spectators - some of which won't be total crap. Also many of the 'hobbyists' taking photos from the spectator areas also have £1000's worth of camera gear (I've got about £800 worth of gear and I'm average at best). A lot of the time the only distinction between the pros and hobbyists is which side of the fence they're standing.

At the level I'm competing at buying photos is about 10-20% of another entry fee for an event so if the photos aren't available cheap / decent size then I won't buy (again unless there is a particularly spectacular shot) and there are many others in the same situation. At the end of the day the photos are a 'nice to have'.

Hobbyist photographer: Any equipment ranging from a mobile phone (yes we have seen you) to top of the market kit on auto because it looks cool, shooting on 'burst' so at least one of them should be in focus (really skillful that) - turns up at some point during the day, wanders about taking photos as and when they want to (if the weathers nice) goes home when they have had enough, quick look at the photos as they upload them to flickr or farcebook and gives them away to anyone who asks 'for a mention'

Accredited photographer: Worked for years to get accreditation, using the best gear they can afford (a very few get it supplied by a 'boss') drive all over the country in their own vehicle if they follow a series sleep in their car or get a cheap b&b / hotel - all paid for out of their own pockets, on top of that there is public liability insurance which is a must as well a camera insurance (you try and get cover for 20k's worth of gear that you basically dragging around a field).
They usually arrive before the circuit becomes live and are then 'shooting' for a good 8 > 10 hours a day in all weathers (your race in heavy rain may be over in 20 minutes but what about all the rest) and only getting back to the car when most of the drivers are in the bar or on their way home.
Once they eventually get home then they can spend 'many' hours processing the photos taken and finally uploading them.

So near on three / four days work, quite often unpaid all for some . . . person . . . to say "why should I pay a tenner for a photo off you when my mates boy's brothers girlfriend will do me a disk of photos through the fence that may be okay for a pound each" Would you work for 10 > 14 hours a day for say £50? you probably spend that much in the McDonalds on the way home.

REALLY SORRY for the rant, but over the last few years we have been hearing this more and more. Magazines and papers don't pay anymore (only to a very select few) so the majority of us rely on the few sales we do get to get us to the next event, as for replacing gear that gets broken or wears out - there is always the credit card for that 5k camera body (going to take a while to pay that one off)

DAVID. let the slagging off begin.

[David Stallard]

Originally Posted by MikeHoyer

Depends how you define "pro". Certainly not everyone you see trackside is making a living from photographing races.

Agree 100%. I have a full time day job where I have to use my holidays to cover the weekends I want to shoot, I have worked damned hard to get where I am, and I do it because I enjoy it - for now.

.DAVID.