In case you have not heard, earlier today, we published "The Color Run Sues College Photographer After He Asks for Compensation for Image" in which we shared a crazy story told by the photographer, Maxwell Jackson. To sum it up, in case you decide not to visit the link, Jackson took photos for one of the The Color Run's events in 2012 with his college group. He shared his images online and was approached by someone from The Color Run asking to use his images on Facebook, with his name attached, so he can get exposure. A few months later, Jackson sees his image on promotions in Sports Authority. Fast forward a bit, he contacts The Color Run asking for compensation for use of his images, and to point out they did not do what they said they would. Shortly after, he finds out The Color Run is suing HIM in court for posting on Facebook that he worked for them.
The Color Run's owner and founder, Travis Snyder, has reached out to the Fstoppers team and sent us a response to his side of the story.
I really recommend visiting our last post to see the entire story that he shared with us to get a full understanding of what is going on. But now, let's take a look at what Travis, owner and founder of The Color Run, has to say in response to Maxwell Jackson.
"Hi, this is Travis Snyder. I wanted to respond personally to this matter. As the founder of The Color Run, I've had the opportunity to work with many successful creative partnerships of all sizes, including amazing photographers. I respect their ability to capture the essence of our event and fully believe that they deserve attribution for their work to showcase their talents. This issue with Max is a single anomaly and quite frankly makes me sad. Max first came to shoot The Color Run because we granted his school class non-commercial access to come shoot the race in Miami where the photos in question were taken. After this, Max actually ended up working our events over the next year as a non-photographer and traveling and setting up with our traveling teams.
About a year later, Max first initiated questions about the use of some of the Miami photos. We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks. Our offers were declined, and met with the following demands:(language taken from legal filings)
- "$100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account” (This amount went on to be raised by Max to $300,000).
- "To be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Globally) for the remainder of its existence."
- "Max Jackson Logo to be added in sponsors section on the bottom of all web pages"
- "My name to read at the bottom of any TCR photo's used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photograph by Max Jackson”
- "if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action"
Understandably, these demands were quite difficult for any organization. They went far outside professional compensation and credit for photography work. We discussed other options, and ultimately when Max said he was planning to sue rather than continue a dialogue, there was little option left but to defend our rights through the legal system. I have been and will continue to be at the table to visit about how to resolve this outstanding issue.
As hard as it is to see tweets calling me a "#scumbag", I am amazed by the Internet and its ability to give everyone a voice. I also appreciate the opportunity to share more information and insight into a complex situation. My personal hope and intention has always been to get this resolved directly, amicably, and fairly.
-Travis"
![[UPDATED] The Color Run Sues College Photographer After He Asks for Compensation for Image](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Color-Run-sues-college-photographer.jpg)
Why wasn't the kid notified of MASS USAGE of his work??? This is typical answer from another multimillion dollar company looking to continue to make millions on fools backs! Predatory capitalism is what I call these folks. Take advantage of the small fish. They need to calculate usage (the mass usage), and pay up. Licensing in photography is based on circulation. The further this was circulated the greater the amount that needs to be paid, and credit needs to accompany every photo. If you didn't take it, it's not yours. If the kid didn't sign a contract that this was work for hire, this company has no right to use his works.
Do visit ASMP.org for more information on properly licensing photography. The fact that someone is a college student, a mother, a homeless person, or a lawyer does not give anyone the right to steal THEIR works.
Sadly we will have to wait for the whole case to go through to learn things like the timing of the photographers response to these offers and what the companies definition of "financial compensation" is. Did they offer him $5 and a taco because that's what they got away with offering other photographers?
This looks like a major ad campaign. 100k is possibly a little excessive, but not entirely so going by standard worldwide industry rates. The fact remains, that whether or not The Color Run find his demands excessive, they should not have used his images without permission. Looks black & white to me. If I think something is too expensive I can't just steal it, and then sue the place I stole it from because they were charging too much.
That's the thing, Mr. Snyder, when you steal someone's work and use it in advertising without permission then you lose the right to dictate terms and the price goes up.
Doesn't address the misuse in the first place, so...meh. And am I alone in finding the photo in question pretty meh as well?
So I borrow your car for the afternoon to visit my mother, but I end up using it for a week and meet lot's of new people who like my new convertible. I'm suddenly very popular because of my new car so I take it on a cross-country road trip, meeting more people, making lots of new friends, and glowing in the bask of my hot new wheels.
After a few months, I bump into you which reminds me that I still have your car. When I offer to put some gas in the tank as a thank you for using it, you point out that I'm now listed by Forbes as one of the most eligible bachelors with the 200,000 miles I put on your car, and you'd like me to pay for a new car.
I'm now rich and famous so screw you. Sure I stole your car, but you should have asked me to sign a rental agreement first. You probably won't make that mistake again so I've actually helped you learn a valuable life lesson. Time to pay the instructor...
And if I call the police and inform them of your felonious behavior, your defense will hinge upon you having that rental agreement, or maybe you can skate by with your boyishly good looks. Further, if you're found guilty of that crime, it's easier for me to recover my losses in civil court (assuming you didn't blow your money on legal expenses.)
But instead of returning the car, apologizing, and paying me a fair sum for your use, you decide to sue me ... (long dramatic pause) ... because I complained. F'ing brilliant!
AFP and Getty VS Morel ... AFP and Getty counter sued Morel for "
“antagonistic assertion of rights”
Yup ... you read that right.
We're suing him cause he said no to us!
Unfortunately, "Color Run" never secured the rights to use the photos and certainly not in the way the photographer intended.
You defrauded him when you made the "just on the website" contention, then used it in a world wide ad campaign.
You're going to lose this one.
The question is was he shooting for them and getting paid by them when that photo was taken? By offering compensation in the first place it seems like they knew they did not have the rights to the images.
Reading what the demands were though seem over the top as compensation. This has happened to many photographers in the past including myself and I have been able to work it out amicably.
FroKnows
Here's my thought: Color Run is lying their asses off to avoid paying, and to avoid looking like the douche bags they are.
He should of stopped at asking for financial compensation and image credit. If this ever goes to court I have my doubts that all of Jackson's demands (if true) will be awarded.
You stole the photo. Your response hasn't changed my opinion of you or your company.
btw your runs suck. Expect me to continue to voice my opinion on your social media feeds once you re-enable comments.
None of this even matters. The fact is Color Run used Max's photos in ways that were not explicitly permitted. Color Run can be dicks about this and dump a bunch of money into lawyers, but they will ultimately lose. The only question is what the settlement/award will be.
Where is the signed contract? Never. ever let any of your work go until you have agreed to the terms of use. Lesson learned!
Can you really print poster size prints from a facebook photo? I guess I should care about the rest of the story but honestly it seems like both sides are telling dramatically different stories so I'm in no position to say who is right since I don't have the facts.
Me thinks he sent them full res files sans his watermark, which is present on all of his photos that he's posted himself.
If you look at the poster; they watermarked OVER where his watermark was...
The SLAPP countersuit is just offensive. I agree that Max was asking for some pretty ridiculous things, but the countersuit demonstrates what is wrong with big corporations in America. And I would tend to agree with the scumbag comments.
"We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks."
In other words, we got caught stealing and thought we could dictate to the kid photographer (who should have kissed our Nike Air's just to be there) what kind of remedy he should be GRATEFUL to receive from us (if anything).
It's clear that Max's demands were "anchor demands" meant to establish some kind of bargaining position. But, regardless, the fact is that these words from CR serve as acknowledgement that they STOLE and USED images they had no right to use.
In the above response from the founder, he states "we granted his school class non-commercial access to come shoot the race in Miami"
QUESTIONS:
-If the class was granted non-commercial access to go out and photograph, why was one of the photos then used for commercial means by them?
-I have seen another poster state that a contract is used to photograph these events; does that also apply to when the company is giving 'non-commercial' access to classes to go out on these events?
-If I were allowed access to go photograph an event with non-commercial access, I would still retain copyright correct?
When the founder above mentions they tried to offer compensation, it appears they understand the photograph was used outside of its license use and were trying to set things right after-the-fact.
I may be wrong but from reading everything, it appears: they granted his class non-commercial use, he went out and took photos, they liked one of his photos and asked if ok to share it online, he gave them the ok, he later joined them as a non-photographer helping setup events, they later ending up using one of his photographs for commercial use (maybe accidently, maybe not), he confronted them, they tried to compensate him (maybe cheaply, maybe not), he denied compensation and put in writing his demands and intents, they did not like demands and possibly initiated an offense based defense, either because they believe they are in the right, or to pre-counter his offense, or to block his attemps via intimidation.
This is what appears has happened so far, but we are obviously missing out on any pre or post event contracts at this time.
You always retain copyright of your images unless the agreement SPECIFICALLY states that the company/client requires a transfer of right. Even if it's a perpetual or unlimited licensing, you still own the copyright.
Thanks for the confirmation :)
"-If the class was granted non-commercial access to go out and photograph"
This is something that actually never occurred. I know this because there was no "class" to speak of, it was 2 or 3 photographers who photographed the race and a few fellow students who actually paid to run the race (but didn't photograph it). These were students from a local photography club at a local University. I know this because I was supposed to be one of those photographers but couldn't make it and I helped get these shooters to go to the event. Snyder saying it was a class greatly distorts the reality of the matter that not only was it less than about a half-dozen people in total, most of those people PAID TCR to even be there.
Hey thanks for filling in that extra info. Since you were supposed to shoot there, do you know what contracts, if any, were signed? Did they present you with one giving up rights of all photos, or was there just one stating that you could not make commercial gain, or none at all? Thanks!
I cannot make any statements about contracts pre- or post-race only because that's information I personally do not possess. But since I've done stuff like this before it was very likely what the article says: non-commercial use and mandatory attribution with the understanding that if that agreement is breached, it will be followed up on to either compensate or remove the media. That is what my contracts that I use say, so that's all I can really comment on.
Thanks!
No problem!
I agree! The Company expect a college student to take professional images so therefore they figured it wouldn't be a big deal to have them to sign contracts. However, when they seen his pictures on Facebook were professional worthy so therefore they decided to ask could they share them on their Facebook page. The only thing that doesn't make since to me is how could the use a small JPEG to mass produce such large images unless they had the raw file? That doesn't make any since. Corporate is about making money not giving it away, so yes they are probably going to spend less getting a lawyer (even if they don't win) rather than paying him for his time, design, equipment use, travel, buying his copy rights, and of Mr. Jackson is not willing to sale his copy rights they are going to have to pay him usage whether it's local or national which is more money. Not only that if Mr. Jackson only allow them unlimited usage the can pretty much due what they want, but if he only allow them to use his image for a year or to the have to pay him to use his images after that. So they are getting over no matter how it's spun. My thoughts!
"The only thing that doesn't make since to me is how could the use a small JPEG to mass produce such large images unless they had the raw file"
I assume he emailed a larger file to them. I THOUGHT I read somewhere that he emailed them but maybe I imagined that because I can't find it now. Maybe I read it in the court doc when I was skimming it earlier but now I can't open it without paying a fee - so not sure.
I think he sent them originals and THEY posted to FB.
Yeah I just saw from his blog post that he gave them a link to google drive with the photos...thanks!
Prior to doing photography I was in law enforcement. I learned when two parties were telling two different stories, the truth usually lay somewhere in the middle.
"As hard as it is to see tweets calling me a “#scumbag”, I am amazed by the Internet and its ability to give everyone a voice."
This is really funny after The Color Run spent most of the day blocking comments from the Facebook page, then deleting comments and blocking commenters.
Hm... unreasonable? Let's see... countless counts of illegally using an image in marketing materials.... every piece of marketing material is an individual infringement on copyright. This is actually VERY reasonable. Having his logo on stuff? His stuff was used internationally. Without his permission. That's a LOT of Color Run exposure that ISN'T giving due credit. Having his logo on your stuff is due recognition compensation.
Again, we haven't seen Jackson reply to their PR guy, if the next FB comment down said "yeah i'd love you to use my photos anywhere" then he is in the wrong , but THAT isn't in the screenshot.
If it was, and show's him saying "yeah only on FB" then it would make the case irrefutable, so why not include it in the screen shot ?
I'm against theft of photos obviously, couple of things though.....
Getting donations to fund the legal case, this legal case isn't to prove innocence or stop Max from being in prison, but to get Max, what looks like, a LOT of money; which is kinda like buyinh lottery tickets for someone so they can win $300,000.
In my experience, when there is 2 parties the truth sometimes lays in the middle somewhere.
I'd like to see the legal paperwork Travis says states all the stuff he has said, if Max has indeed declined $100,000 then $300,000 and wanted his name and logo on every poster worldwide (which to be honest sounds like what a student photographer would ask for) then he is asking way too much.
Yes, Travis can't make demands since they used the photo on national print campaigns.
But $300,000 for a snapshot taken when on a college field trip, and to have the tog's logo AND photo credit on every poster is totally out of the question. Companies like Nike would have that for whole campaigns and the tog would never have their logo on the shots ! AND to be named the official photography sponsor for all time, is a joke.
Travis, won't be lying since he is quoting the legal documents because it would have him in SUPER hot water.
So this is starting to look like a student tog, who just so happened to have his shot picked up now wanting to use this to catapult himself into a ton of money and a photo career, especially after he turned down $100,000 for a photo he told them they could use (albeit not in a national campaign)
They SHOULD NOT have used the photo outwith facebook, they are in the wrong for that but Max is being EXTREMELY unreasonable if the quotes from the legal document are true and asking people to fund it when he was already offered $100,000, just shows he's hapy to be greedy with other peoples money!!
Will go read again. he was never offered $100 000 or $300 000 it was his demands after negotiations failed. Also it was not just a National campaign but international which would cost very close to $100 000.
I agree that wanting his name and logo on everything is a bit much as like you say show me one Nike advert that has it. But at the end of the day after negotiations there comes a point where people that steal need to learn a lesson.
Now this story is still missing a lot of facts from both sides so we'll see how it develops. But read properly before making comments.
It was said that he was offered financial compensation and he turned it down, originally asked for $100,000 then jumped it to $300,000, I assumed that he was offered the former sum and refused, asking for 3 times that in return and that was wrong on my behalf.
The list of stuff max asked for in the quoted legal term sounds like a greedy student who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, that lucked out with someone liking a mediocre snapsot and nothing else.
He gave them permission to use his photo, albeit just for Facebook, but that was only luck on max's behalf that Scott Winn used that language, if he didn't use the words "facebook page" and just "can we use your image" he would have been up a creek without a paddle, because he sounds so naive that he would have still said yeah.
We still haven't seen Max's screenshot reply to that ? he could have replied "Yeah of course ! use it where ever you want, i'd love the exposure"
Meaning the company could have used the image in a print campaign and offered financial numeration ONLY as a good will gesture and he wasn't happy with it and wanted $300,000 instead of say $10,000 they might have offered, hence the "I won't be extorted by you" alleged claim from the company director.
The quoting from the legal document are the nail in the coffin as far as i'm concerned, he's asked for completely stupid things that NO professional would ask for at all for one snapshot that, lets be honest, isn't anything special its a shot that has been captured a million times before at marathons and the like, it was just luck that they chose that one and he asking US; to pay the bill, and he's not happy with a dollar, he wants $5 minimum from everybody?!!!
His behaviour goes to prove his greediness.
I want to win the lottery, i'll just set up a just giving page so people can pay for the tickets for me......oh, I don't want each person to ONLY pay for 1 ticket at a Dollar, I want everybody to pay for 5 for $5........
All we have is a students nobody has ever heard of's word that he's been wronged, and a screen shot of one half of a conversation and not his replies to that convo.
Plus Jackson said he asked for financial numeration and was told instead he will be getting sued, he never mentions anything about a sit down and him being offered money and exposure and that he declined it.
He doesn't mention ANYTHING about declining an offer. He's giving out only the information that works to his agenda and racks up the dollars on his just giving page.
It would be a different outcome if he lead with "they offered me $30,000 and I said no" 1. he would get zero donations 2. more than likely we all wouldn't be talking about this. .
"isn't anything special its a shot that has been captured a million times before at marathons and the like,..."
If that's the case, than as soon as this escalated Wynn should have pulled the snapshot off of everything, and offered straight compensation for the use up to that point... AND... said unequivicably, "We or I will never ever touch your photos again in your or this event's lifetime. So your logo and sponsorship demands are for the birds. Never. Gonna. Happen. We're finished with this, you and your "snapshots". Period."
But you see, there actually seems to be something special about this snapshot... or else why in the H*** would Wynn & Co. fight over it and desire to continue to use it without comp?
BTW: if you haven't heard, tastes in photography and any art endeavor are subjective. With event photograhy even more so. Just ask the wedding photog's and videographers getting sued because they missed a special moment. Just sayin'.
I will almost guarantee they've been told by their lawyers not to remove them because it would show that they think they are in the wrong, which they don't
On Jacksons go fund me page he finally spilled that they offered him $30,000, a social media shout out on all their channels, photo of the year type accolade and 60 days of his logo on their website etc............he turned it down and asked for £300,000.........
http://www.gofundme.com/6qn0ds
$30,000 is WAAAAY more than the shot is worth, he has zero right to ask others to pay his legal bills when he's been offered $30K with no lawyer.
The thought process of "if I lawyer up, i'll get loads more" seems to be at play, which is fine, just pay the bill yourself
He has every right to ask whatever amount he wants ... TCR of course can tell him to go screw himself. :)
I personally would have taken the deal but that's me.
BTW: i know tastes in photography are subjective, but in "my opinion" its not worth $100,000 never mind $300,000.
Do commercial photogs get $100,000 for national campaigns ? yes but they are productions not a college kid on a field trip.
I've had photos stolen by large companies/national newspapers before, i've never asked other people to pay my legal bills or been offered $30,000 for the images nor would I ask for that amount.
If you don't have the money to go after them for $300,000 after they've offered $30K and a ton of exposure, then accept the $30K, don't gamble with other peoples money, will they be given the thousands of dollars back if he wins ? nope.
While I agree with you that it;s not worth that the sum is PUNITIVE in nature.
You steal a car from a car rental place and then when they catch you you offer them their normal rate for the time you had the car? Doesn;t work like that.
Seems like you don't value your work enough, or don't understand the point of getting paid. It's not about what you would have asked for the original image license. It's about someone stealing form you and being a scumbag, so now they have to pay many times what they originally would have. It's punishment, not compensation. It also doesn't matter if it was a 12 hour shoot with a 20 person crew, models, stylists, extra's, and a food truck... or a "snapshot" with a disposable camera. It's the person that wants the photo that puts the dollar value to it. If someone wants a "snapshot" for $300,000, then that's what it's worth.
There are a lot of people in the comments that just seem jealous about how much someone else might make from their work.
I do value my work, a LOT more than Max, I would never have given them my images without a watermark in the first place without payment.
The person that wants it, valued it at 30K, the only person who values it at 300K is max.....and his dad, neither if which have a clue about the photo industry it seems.
His actual demand in the letter to the colour run his logo right next to the chevrolet logo, so he values his work and brand as that as a multi million dollar company.
Plus his dad told him, getting his name out there and "photo credit and links were worth my weight in gold at the time just under $2000/troy oz"
Yeah he actually used the weight denomination.
Now, hes posted the full convo and he provided them them the raw images and VOLUNTEERED them as the FULL RES, he was never asked for full resolution. Why do that if he totally expected them to just be facebook use only ?
He's digging his own grave, he's in the wrong, and HE is the one that hurting photographer.
The color run would have paid someone to shoot ad shots if they didn't have a student give out work for free for "exposure" !!! he deserves nothing.
Still completely missing the point of this whole thing. You have absolutely no understanding of how this stuff works. I'll try to explain it one last time. Max could have mailed them his memory card with all the raw files taken with a 60MP camera. If TCR said they were for facebook posting, that's the only thing they can do with them. If they said it's for facebook and 5,000 fliers, that's all they can do with them. Not facebook and 5,001 fliers. Was it smart to send high res if that's what he did? No, but it also doesn't matter.
TCR DIDN'T pay someone to shoot the images specifically for advertising and their for their public face. Instead, they just decided they liked the ones they got for free and used them without specific written permission to do so, hoping they wouldn't get caught. Coulda, shoulda, woulda doesn't matter, THEY DIDN'T GET PERMISSION. They chose to steal, so they have to pay. Not pay what jealous you thinks someone should get (apparently nothing now), but pay the penalty for stealing and ripping off a photographer. Not for ripping off Max (who you seem to have a personal problem with), but for ripping off ANY PHOTOGRAPHER It doesn't matter how good YOU think the photos are, or how much YOU think a random stranger deserves for their work. The fact that you now think he should get nothing for being wronged is disgusting. You're the kind of fauxtographer who resents people making money, because you think you should be in their place. You judge his photo, his demands, the way he handled files (remember he's a 21 year old student??), and now it's suddenly ok to steal from this particular guy. What about when this happens to someone else. Do you know what legal precedent means?
What a snob. Go away.
YOU are missing the point completely, read the message thread, he gave them FULL WRITTEN PERMISSION to use the photos, he gave them ZERO restrictions whatsoever.
He told them they can put there logo on them instead of his.
The only restriction and it wasn't even that, was from TCR, it is blind luck they said "facebook album"
Yet again, we haven't seen any email chain, Max mentions in the FB thread he emailed them, so he could have easily said "thanks for using my images, i'm happy for you to use them anywhere"
This is a case of his word against theres and all the written evidence shows Max complying totally, and his first port of call with seeing the images in print wasn't to say "you printed my photos, i should be paid" it was demanding 100K, logo next to chevy's, photo sponsor for the race FOR ALL TIME and other BS.
He is the photographer we all complain about, the student/uncle bob that gives away the work for free, taking paid work away from pros, then he asks the same togs he's taken work from to pay him 50K to pay for copies and travel expenses because he is already getting free council.
If he had half a brain, he would ask his college professor who is teaching photography advice and he would say "ask for money"instead he asked his dad, who as a web designer "of decades" should have known a hell of a lot better to advise giving away work for free.
He put himself in this situation, nobody else.
I would have a completely different opinion if TCR simply stole his photos from facebook/flickr, but they didn't.
You seem like a real douche. And just love to misinterpret what has been laid out in black and white several times, and actually make up your own set of facts. You don't get hired very much, do you? Unless it's from a craigslist ad. Dime a dozen type, right?
Yeah, i've been earning my whole living as a photographer for 6 years, never advertised on craigs list.
You're right, it has been laid out in black and white, you are just misinterpreting it.
I haven't made up one single fact, everything I have quoted has been from the photographers own words.
You should really get a larger vocabulary, I clicked on your profile and out of the first 10 comments I seen, 8 of them had you calling someone a douche, douche bag or idiot.
I've never given my work away for free to a large company, nor will I, only an idiot would do that.....