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)
Ha ha just went through even more of your past comments and you are a full time keyboard gangster.
All it is, is you calling people names, telling them they are idiots and insulting them, the big man!
Funny how the people who always do it always have an anonymous account, with zero personal info.......you're too scared, I understand, the interweby thing is a scary place, you should get your mum to put the parent filter back on, just go sit down and watch your powerpuff girls dvd.
Good for you, douche. It must be nice to have so much free time from your full time photography business to bother looking at other peoples accounts. Maybe if you weren't such a douche bag idiot (did that cover them all for ya, cupcake), you would be out shooting or editing rather than hiding behind your keyboard looking for information on others you don't provide on yourself. In other words, blow it out your ass. And while you're doing that, would you like some cheese with your whine?
Did I whine ? what is you do all day ? still cashing the welfare checks from your mums basement ? its the early hours of the morning when post generally, you're probably hanging outside the strip club parking lot hoping "Crystal" won't spit at you when you try sniff her feet as she tries to get home.
I'm not hiding behind my keyboard, see that name up there, on my post, you see thats my real name, because i'm not hiding "cupcake" i'm here, in the open.
You on the other hand "id2nv2nj2ca" (i assume thats your given name?) are hiding, behind your anon user ID, because you're a coward. Maybe its because your mother doesn't allow you to use your real name or you're still on the run for your sex crimes against animals; probably both.
Being an internet troll is job for the unemployed who hate their life or 14 year old girls. So either get back to mailing letters to your congressman about the aliens living in your head or playing with your barbies and get a better insult than douche.
Look forward to you flagging my comment again, since you're scared of someone who has a brain.
DOUCHE!!!
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Whine like the little girl you are because you got called the douche bag you clearly are. As proven yet again by actually taking the time to see when I post comments. What a fucking loser you are. No wonder you aren't out taking pictures, what dumbass would hire a whiny little bitch like you?
I don't take the time to see when you post comments, you see there is thing called email, and when a loser replies to my comment (that is you in this scenario) it comes to this thing called an 'INBOX" and tells me said loser has posted yet another witty retort.
Harvard must be missing have a Gem like you in their ranks, how many times have you declined their offers of getting tenure since you supposedly attended ? 4/5 ? making too much money in law firm of yours ? I know, the trappings of real life eh?
You must win LOADS of cases, "our approach is....we call the judge a douche bag cupcake, i do it ALL the time on internet and it works there, I don't give them my name or anything online because i'm a coward, but as long as my mum has cheetos for me when I get home i'm happy"
Go Harvard
Were you born brain damaged, or did it happen later in life? Your parents must be so incredibly proud of the whiny little girl they raised into a full grown whiny little girl.
Ha ha again nothing, its not even a challenge, you must be the most terrible lawyer in existence. Still not ready to tell us your name ? keyboard warrior
Better to be a keyboard warrior than a keyboard loser, cupcake. :)
You still talking ? nobodies listening basement boy, its not even a challenge any more.
Really, then why do you keep coming back for more, loser?
STILL talking ?!!! you're fake law firm must be slow
Yep, just as slow as your fake full time photography business, right? Oh, you were lying about that to make yourself seem more credible, weren't you? And I will keep coming back just as long as you do, cupcake. So, you might want to have your mommy stock you up on juice boxes and depends, because this might take awhile.
Yep, just like you. How's your fake photography business going? You know, the one you made up to sound credible. Must not be doing so well since you have so much time to worry about someone that called you on your BS. Has your mom got you well stocked up with juice boxes and depends, because I will keep coming back just as long as you do, cupcake.
Again, everything i've claimed about myself, its fact and checkable, my name is right there !!!! thicko.
Still what BS have you called me on ? DEFLECTION.
You on the other hand, claiming to have a law degree from Harvard ? pathetic doesn't even cut it.
STILL not giving your name.....you gonna say you're a spy next ?
BTW, you SERIOUSLY need to get better insults instead of just using mine again
Yep, still talking. Just like you. What's wrong, is your fake photography business not keeping you busy enough that you don't have time to sit here all day and keep responding to someone that called you on your BS? Keep dancing, puppet boy.
Again, i'm not hiding behind a fake name, everything I say about myself is fact AND checkable. Your fake law degree on the other hand is not, how pathetic must you be to lie about having a degree ?
Oh, what BS did you call me on ? like just one bit of BS, go tell me ?
I'll give you a minute to make another lie.
Unlike little whiners like you that actually do flag comments, I NEVER do that. I enjoy seeing peoples idiocy on full display. Nice attempt at deflection, cupcake.
You supposedly have a law degree ? yet make things up as you go along? terrible character flaw for a lawyer. Where did I deflect ? pretty positive I called you on EVERY aspect of you're crappy retort.....yes.....yes i did, what you did however....that WAS deflection.
So since i'm happy share my name, after you said I "hide" behind a keyboard, what's your name ? if you aren't HIDING behind a keyboard , muffin.
Oh you're Bar number would be good aswell, its public knowledge for any lawyer, you know, prove you have a law degree from Harvard as you so claim.
Keep dancing, puppet. Eventually you'll get tired and scurry off into whatever basement you spend most of your time in. Oh wait, that's where you are now, isn't it?
So now you are using the same material I used on you ? I used the basement quip about 5 comments back, i know you're a bit special but keep up. Oh and yet again, nice deflection ;P nobody even noticed.
Still no name ? Harvard boy, thought they'd teach you better at Harvard Law.
Or did it just say Harvard on the rusty trailer where you used to day care, this Law degree you have, written in crayon is it ?
How badly were you abused as a child to be so butt hurt in life. Go take a photo for yourself, since no one hires you to do it for them.
Keep dancing, puppet. :-)
Again, still no name ?!!! who's hiding ?
Again, still dancing like a puppet on a string?
Same stuff, different day. Keep dancing, puppet. Keep dancing.
So with all this circus going on, I'd like to know the side of the story from the girl in the picture...
OOOH!! Good question. Probably a waiver built into the registration form.
I was thinking the EXACT same thing. And then thought exactly what Eric Lefebvre said. Wonder if that's how it works?
Here's the thing... Snyder doesn't make any statement that event
/suggests/ that he had the rights to use the images in a full commercial
context. That's a very, very unusual thing in a case such as this, as
usually that would be the first thing you'd want to do - establish that
you didn't, in fact, use the images illegally.
The entire point
of this letter is essentially that the photog asked for more than Snyder was
willing to give, and had stated that he was willing to sue them over
it. If they were negotiating compensation, then they didn't have the rights.
That's about as close as he can come to
saying "we used the images illegally" without actually saying so flat out.
I think Snyder here is admitting, to some degree, that they were using Jackson's images outside of their intended purpose. However, now that the other side has come out, it does appear that there has been some attempt at negotiation between both sides and that they could not come to an agreement. Seems like the courts is the best place to settle the issues at this point.
I find it interesting that he doesn't reference any information about their original agreement as to how the images would be used. He clearly glosses over that. Until he gives more info, this is just a PR move.
"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."
Hmm. So when Max asked what on earth Color Run was doing with his images without permission, Color Run tried to shut him up by offering some kind of "financial compensation." Did you guys offer the kid $500 to shut up or something?
Way to gloss over this. The overall tone of the letter is just smug and obnoxious. Playing victim by saying, "Oh, boo-hoo, we just had to defend ourselves from this crazy kid," isn't going to fool anyone.
It was $30,000 plus a bunch of other stuff, naming his photo shot of the year, his logo on their website, social media promotion of his brand through all their channels world wide....he turned it down and asked for $300,000, still wanna donate to his legal case ?
It appears that Color Run countered the offer with $100k and no "worldwide exclusive Promotion and Sponsorship" the Max was asking. It was then that Max bumped the demands to $300k.
Regardless, I think both parties are idiots and they both appear to enjoy drama.
Wynn: because he's so clueless how to ask, compensate and use creative's content... even though he "claims" to have experience in this (BS!). Why in Dawg's Name would he even negotiate with the kid and not just hire, for exclusive picture rights and usage, a pro photographer, for say $30k. Also pay the kid the $30k immediately, tell him to enjoy it and don't spend it on too much photo gear... because he (Wynn) will get the word out that he (Max) can not be dealt with on a serious business basis. Pull all materials immediately with said picture.
Max: because he pokered over his ability to pay for (financial) means and security if they called him on his bluff.
Financial cost of stupid mistake: less than $100k.
Social cost of stupid mistake: $0.00 vs. 2, 3,... $500k...???
Neither one of these Drama Queens...um Kings... is gonna come out of this situation smelling like anything other than Dawgy-Doo!
I agree, whole heartedly, Max is still playing the "its the exposure i'm wanting" card, but all he's doing is proving he'll be drama to work with and no commercial client would want to deal with someone who doesn't have a clue what they are doing.
Usually a lot of them time, if we don't know what we are doing we can bluff a little till we figure it out but he's got it in black and white he doesn't have a clue.
He doesn't have a clue what he's doing, huh? You base this off more of your made up facts, or what has actually been presented?
No i'm basing off of pure and utter fact, in the photographers in words.
He gave away his work, for free, offered up everything, for free with zero contract.
He's the type of photographer working togs complain about ALL the time, offering images for free for "exposure" and only newbs freak out/care about their photo credit and/or watermark that they covet so much.
If he did have a clue, when they asked about using his images, he would have said yeah and gave them a bill for different types of usage.
The fact this situation has ever came to light PROVES he didn't have a clue, if he did, then it would never have happened.
They didn't sneak on his website in the middle of the night, download the photos, clone out the watermark and use them without ever contacting him (which happens to togs all the time, and they get nothing) He offered them up to be used "anywhere" from his letter, full res, no water mark, didn't ask for a single thing, never mentioned usage, money, copyright, you know everything that matters.
He didn't even ask for a byline, it was offered.
Wrong.
ha ha you serious ?
Max wrote it HIMSELF on his donate page what he was offered, it isn't wrong, its fact, irrefutable fact, unless Max lied about what he was offered.
Do your research before stating things as fact, $30k, 60 days logo on all their channels worldwide and social media shout out, he turned it down after they said they didn't want to have his logo on their website for the full 60 days, which is pathetic and asked for $300,000 instead.
"I was told that I had until mid day the next day to accept their offer of $30,000"
HA HA OMG LOLZ HAHAHAHAHA. You're a real piece ya know that?
He didn't write that actually, child. Please copy and paste where he said they approached him out of the kindness of their hearts with an offer of 30k, and instead he insisted on 300k. We'll be waiting a while because you won't find it.
Or, you'll paste something that actually says what really happened, which is different than what you said, and then I'll have to point that out to you because you won't realize it.
30K + PR and advertising. I personally would have taken it but it's Max's right to demand more ... even if I think some of his demands were a bit crazy.
Facebook photos are not even capable of quality full print campaigns... the Color Run...being a very successful business should have had an agreement written and signed...word of mouth is not going to cut it in today's society.
The Photos are not that great seriously. I wonder why they got used in the first place. The color run should hire professional photographers that grant them unlimited use to avoid such situation.
Its difficult to hire enough pro photogs for these events mainly because of the destruction the color powder does to camera equipment. TCR may well be willing to pay for time and image rights, but not cover the costs involved in cleaning, repair, or full replacement of expensive equipment.
I know a few photographers that have had to turn down offers from TCR specifically because the payout was nothing compared to the maintenance cost after the event was over.
This has led TCR to rely partially on amateur (per image basis) photogs that have already taken it upon themselves to endanger their equipment and thus relieve TCR from any such obligations. Sure, TCR probably has a select handful of contract photographers that DO have the equipment maintenance covered, just not enough to provide coverage of every single event around the world.
Underwater housings are your friends ... not that I;d ever shoot one anyways ... health issues (Asthmatic) ... that stuff would literally kill me.
This is theft, pure and simple, regardless of whatever negotiations took place the photos should have been removed while discussions were in progress, this is just another example of big business using bully boy tactics to get what they want without great expense, the fact that the photographer has stood up for himself is admirable....all too often we hear the word exposure when applied to anything 'artsy' as an alternative for actual payment. Artists and phtographers are continually bent over and rear ended as too many of you think that 'it's JUST a drawing' or 'it's ONLY a photograph', both statements are offensive. You don't get a plumber in to do your bathroom for 'exposure' do you? Art and photography are skillsets that require training perseverance and years of practice, not to mention financial investment...the guy should get paid, there is no argument.
Again we still haven't seen Jacksons reply to Scott winn, if he said "yeah, i'd love you to use my shots anywhere" then they aren't in the wrong. They offered him $30,000 plus a bunch of other PR stuff but he's turned it down and asked for $300,000 because of "research" on the internet
Exactly! We don't know what the full agreement was because Jackson only disclosed one side of the conversation.
Who do I believe, the amateur photographer or the corporate louse who stole his photos?
Notice the louse in his timeline does not say _when_ he stole the photos. He omitted the main relevant fact. That the photographer demanded $100,000 in compensation is irrelevant.
The louse also does not say why he's suing the photographer.
The louse is a louse. Can't speak to the character of the amateur photographer.
As expected, the truth is more complex than what Jackson made out, and so there really is no point in the public voicing all their opinions now until we know all the facts. It's just a shame the original fstoppers article was written so clearly in favour of Jackson despite only knowing one side of the story.