DSLRUsers.com

Hi everyone,
I need some input in regards to an issue that came up on the weekend. Here's the story:
In november last year I was contacted by the chairman of the National Agility Trial committee to ask me if I want to cover the National Dog Agility Trials in Sydney, along with another photographer they already contracted. I said yes.
The event was this weekend and I arrived in Sydney on thursday (I live in WA). On saturday, the first day of the event, I go to the grounds to setup. A few minutes before the event starts I am approached by the chairman and another person and they tell me that the "official photographer" has complained about me being there and they said I couldn't sell my photos, as they have one official photographer. This blew me away! According to my email conversation with the chairman I was supposed to be one of several "official photographers" and I hadn't heard anything to say otherwise. I covered the event anyway (since I'm already there and have nothing else to do).
My question is:
Can I sell my photos from this event (which was a public outdoors event) or do I risk being sued if I do? I have no idea if there was a written contract between the "official photographer" and the committee that guaranteed exclusive selling rights. There was nothing anywhere to say that commercial photography was prohibited.
To say I'm pissed about this is an understatement.
Any input is welcome!

Did you sign any contract with them?
Do you have an emil trail from them asking you to photograph the event?

I would say unless you have a written agreement to the contrary and you have an invitation from them, then sell your photos.

If you do not feel like selling the photos then I would consider contacting the association to recompense you for the weekend and your time, loss of income and expenses for inviting you under false pretenses.

I get the feeling you have pinged off one of the officials who had invited a mate to do the photos.

When the chairman contacted you was there any discussion of why you would travel to Sydney to take the photos?

Do you have in writing that you intend to sell the photos?

Dug wrote:Did you sign any contract with them?
Do you have an emil trail from them asking you to photograph the event?

No contract was signed, it was an invitation via email that I accepted. Yes I still have the email asking me if I was interested to come over to cover the event.

Dug wrote:I would say unless you have a written agreement to the contrary and you have an invitation from them, then sell your photos.
If you do not feel like selling the photos then I would consider contacting the association to recompense you for the weekend and your time, loss of income and expenses for inviting you under false pretenses.

I lean towards selling the photos, because it was a huge event with 8 rings going concurrently and over 2000 runs. I covered a lot of runs that the "official photographer" missed due to the sheer size of the event (unless you can be in 8 places at once it's impossible to cover everything). A lot of people there have asked me about my photos since their runs weren't covered by anyone else.

Dug wrote:I get the feeling you have pinged off one of the officials who had invited a mate to do the photos.

The other photographer is the usual person who takes photos at the events over there. I reckon she got wind of another photographer coming over there and was trying to shut me out of the business by insisting she be the only "official photographer" allowed to sell photos.
Why she would do that I have no idea, since I'm not taking away her business, just complementing her coverage. She can't sell photos she hasn't taken! She already had signs and ads all over the place, so I have no idea why the shut me out.

Dug wrote:When the chairman contacted you was there any discussion of why you would travel to Sydney to take the photos?

My wife was competing at the event and they assumed I was accompanying her (which I told them straight away wasn't the case). However I would not have gone if they had told me beforehand that I wasn't allowed to sell photos.

Dug wrote:Do you have in writing that you intend to sell the photos?

Not sure what you mean...?

In your email exchange have you or they mentioned the intention to sell the photos?

cawdor wrote:.

Dug wrote:I get the feeling you have pinged off one of the officials who had invited a mate to do the photos.

The other photographer is the usual person who takes photos at the events over there. I reckon she got wind of another photographer coming over there and was trying to shut me out of the business by insisting she be the only "official photographer" allowed to sell photos.
Why she would do that I have no idea, since I'm not taking away her business, just complementing her coverage. She can't sell photos she hasn't taken! She already had signs and ads all over the place, so I have no idea why the shut me out.

Just plain bitchy I think the phrase is

If you have nothing in writing asking you not to sell your photos then sell them, if they object ask them to put the request in writing and the reasons.

Then take the reason to your lawyers

Dug wrote:In your email exchange have you or they mentioned the intention to sell the photos?

Yes, in my first reply I mentioned selling photos to offset my expenses.

Dug wrote:If you have nothing in writing asking you not to sell your photos then sell them, if they object ask them to put the request in writing and the reasons.
Then take the reason to your lawyers

Generally speaking, I would imagine that if there is some sort of exclusivity deal in regards to photos of an event, that there would need to be some sort of mention that commercial photography is prohibited. Nothing of the sort was there at all. And I saw at least 4 other people there with professional gear.

Dug wrote:
In your email exchange have you or they mentioned the intention to sell the photos?


Yes, in my first reply I mentioned selling photos to offset my expenses.
_________________

then no problems sell away

You have stated your intent in writing, they have not objected in writing.

You have outlaid money to cover the event, they either let you sell or compensate you.

You have them on toast.

This involves two questions.
1 Can I legally sell photos from this event?
2 If I do is there a risk of being sued.

Lets start with No.2 There is always a risk of being sued. And in every court case there is a winner and loser, so just being right doesn’t mean you are risk free. Overall you need to weigh up the risk of litigation. When people ask me if they are likely to be sued I usually ask "are you taking money from someone else’s pocket?" In this case you are selling in competition to someone, who perhaps quite reasonably (because of what they have been told by the committee), thinks they had exclusive rights to shoot the show. This may well be due to the committee screwing up, so the "official" photographer may have a point. However in this case it would be up to the “official” photographer to assert their rights, and they would need to prove exclusivity. Can you disprove this?. Unless there are sheep stations involved or the official photographer is a serial litigant, I would think you are probably ok. Litigation costs many 10’s of thousands of dollars if not more.
So, in the absence of an experienced litigant, and if you have good reason to support your position, the risk is probably low.
Point No.1. Can I sell photos? If you have emails asking you to take photos and giving you permission (hopefully explicit) to sell the shots, then you are probably fine. This is provided there is no express withdrawal or other agreement stating that you still need written permission to shoot (i.e. subject to final approval). Also if it was public land then you are also likely to be ok.
Ultimately it is up to you but if it was me I would ignore the threats. However you aren’t me!
If you decide to proceed, make sure you get records to support your position. Have emails printed out and stored so you can prove your position. If you are contacted, a straight up reply with a copy of your permission (even if informal) will usually stop a lot of problems. Of course your wife may never win anything again!

skyva wrote:When people ask me if they are likely to be sued I usually ask "are you taking money from someone else’s pocket?"

And in my case there is no definite answer. Like I said, the event was huge and for the most time we were shooting different rings. So in those cases there is no money lost for her - she can't sell a photo she wasn't there to take. There were times we were both covering the same ring (from different positions), but just because I have taken some photos doesn't automatically mean she has lost money.

skyva wrote:However in this case it would be up to the “official” photographer to assert their rights, and they would need to prove exclusivity. Can you disprove this?

I have no idea if her contract states exclusivity (I'm not even sure if there is an official contract or if it was done verbally). If it does, I should have been made aware of that prior to my arrival.

This incident has definitely opened my eyes and in the future I will insist on getting a written, signed permission to shoot and sell. I think the reason I was so relaxed about this is that in 2 years doing this kind of work there has never been a problem like this, even at events where several photographers were present. Usually we get along fine - like I said before - we complement each other and don't really compete against each other because we cover different things at the same event. Of course the minute I leave WA and go to a different state, the shit hits the fan.
I was surprised about the nastiness of it - there was no willingness to listen to reasoning or negotiation.
Does anyone from WA know where I could go for "proper" legal advice should I need it? Don't really want to pick one out of the yellowpages.

Was the event open to the public and did members of the public have cameras....if yes then you should be able to sell them. This is not a legal opinion, by the way. It's an attitude.

Ah, the old dual-exclusivity trick... that's the second time it's cropped up on this board this year! The thing is to remember is that there is no contract between the photographers, so you have no rights to assert against each other. If fact, both of you are in the same boat. The rogue is, as so often is the case, in the middle: the chairman. In the event that the chairman takes action against you, he is going to have a hard time proving much loss unless the other photographer has a good contract with him. You'll probably have more luck claiming the cost of your airfare! As you say, it's not sheep stations so I doubt anyone will bother.

Of far greater concern is the following:

cawdor wrote:I was contacted by the chairman of the National Agility Trial committee to ask me if I want to cover the National Dog Agility Trials

cawdow wrote:My wife was competing at the event

thaddeus

thaddeus wrote:Ah, the old dual-exclusivity trick...
....
You'll probably have more luck claiming the cost of your airfare!

There was no dual exclusivity. Only one person apparently had an exclusivity deal - the other photographer. I like to let customers choose my photos on their quality, not have them buy them because they are the only ones. And I'm not looking to claim the airfare - all I want is to sell my photos without being hassled.

thaddeus wrote:Of far greater concern is the following:

Why is that a problem?

Tim,

thaddeus was inserting some humour in the end , you have to get used to the sense of humour of various members around here

good luck with your photos and I hope you get to post a couple in the images section. Having been at a few dog trials, I'd love to see some.

Cheers,

André

cawdor wrote:

thaddeus wrote:Of far greater concern is the following:

Why is that a problem?

Politics ...



Getting back to the point, any deal between the organisers and the other photographer is exactly that: between those two parties, and none of your business.

If the organisers gave you permission to make images and sell them, as it appears they may have done, then that is that, and any issues that any other photographer may raise needs to be raised with the organisers, not with you.

So, if you're comfy selling images (and to take Thaddeus's point) as long as your wife is comfy that your selling of any images won't have any detrimental effect upon her competing (successfully) in any future eveny, then by all means, do as you see fit.

its sounds like the offical photographer is worried that your moving into their turf and outselling them. if their work is of a professional level, than they'll have customers coming back.

Thanks for all the replies guys, much appreciated

Oops you're right, it wasn't the old dual-exclusivity trick, it was the even older single exclusivity trick with a half twist!

I'm looking forward to seeing the photos!

thaddeus wrote:Ah, the old dual-exclusivity trick... that's the second time it's cropped up on this board this year!

Not sure whether you are referring to my post earlier this year where a "pro" got the shits with me for taking photos at a showjumping event because he had paid the organisers $400 to shoot the same event. Anyway to keep the peace I put the camera (and more to the point the 70 - 200 VR) away...anyway back to now... Last weekend I took some photos at a car rally. Anyone with a physically long lens who wanted close access to the course was asked for a "media pass". Since I had the 28 - 200 G on instead of the 70 - 200 VR I was classed with the P&S crowd and could do as I please.

I don't think you have a problem. But....KEEP YOUR EMAILS!! and store them in a safe dry place, you MAY need them. If you were there taking photos because you were invited to the event by an official it then becomes the officials problem to "deal with the heat" not yours. Your email could then become an important item.

Hope all turns out well for you!