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)
We don't know what the "original agreement" was because Max Jackson naively (and wrongly) believes that his "contract" was with Scott Winn only. Agency law doesn't work that way.
Jackson played fast and loose with contract law and it burned him. The rest is window dressing.
Just curious, where did you get your law degree from?
Where did you ? anonymous troll boy
Where did I what, loser?
Ha ha i'm sure you did, kudos. You get your bachelors degree in being an arsehole while you were there as well ?
Nope, I got that with your mama when you were spawned.
#tymax
No, you didn't.
I got mine from Texas A&M school of law and have been practicing for awhile now. E tu?
Yeah, and I believe you as much as you believe me. ;)
Yes (c) registered with gov
This one's a mess and a lot of lawyers will get well paid to sort it out. As they always do. Did TCR use the photogs images without proper permission and payment? Yep. They pretty well admit that and negotiating IP rights retroactively is always a position of vulnerability for the infringer. They can't decide what's fair compensation after the fact. Trouble is, looks like the photographer went after them without the advice of qualified representation and made a whole bunch of demands that make him look like a tool. I agree with his position in theory - he gets to call the shots now - but a lot of so-called 'justice' is based on appearance and a lot of demands wander close to the appearance of extortion. Sure, at this point he's entitled to ask what he wants, but getting a judge to agree is another matter entirely.
Unauthorized use of copyright IP is my pet hate, but reasonableness is not only a theoretical concept, but a legal one. Sure, if TCR used his images without permish, it's clear cut (though the original agreement on access is a little hinky.) Obviously they owe him dough. He should have used that for leverage and obtained a decent amount - negotiating after the fact means that TCR can no longer demand he accept 'going rate' - the damage has already been done and they'll have to pony up substantially more. Trouble is, the photogs list of demands and the chain of events upstairs - if true - show him to be a bit of a bellend and taking advice from some incredibly stupid people.
I came here from a link on FaceBook all revved up to go over the ramparts for the photog, but after reading this? Not so much.
How does Travis Snyder's response change the facts? He still used the photos without permission and is still unapologetic. I'm even more in support of Max now that I read the arrogant response from Travis...
I never said it changed the facts. But it certainly does add to them. Sure, you can support Max all you want and as I said several times, I agree with him on substance. This TCR statement was carefully vetted by a lawyer before release -
unlike Max's demands - and will be part of the court case, so yeah, it will factor in. How much? Who knows. But demanding that he becomes their
official photographer for infinity? You really think a lawyer advised him to make that demand? Please.
Rather than lawyering up and going after
these guys, Max decided that he had a 'golden ticket' and decided - probably on some very bad advice from a non-professional - to squeeze
them for a ton of stuff that he will never, ever get. That's why when ever this happens, talk to a lawyer before doing/saying anything. Nobody does themselves any favors by demanding stuff that no court would ever award.
If he wanted money, he should have negotiated with them through a hard-assed pro - he has a very strong position to do so. If he wanted a very expensive lawsuit that he might win - there's never any guarantees and judgments can be all over
place - well he's now got one. He takes his chances with the courts. He decided to play hardball with some major players and they decided to play back. That's the way these things work out sometimes and a professional would/should have told Max that.
The fact that this is being debated here - and on several other websites - shows that it's not as cut and-dried as I was originally led to believe on my Facebook timeline, which is how I got here in the first place. This isn't a case of a company stealing photographs from Facebook. There was an agreement in place - legally binding or not will be up to the courts to decide - and TRC seems to have broken that agreement. It seems that the lion's share of that agreement was that they didn't credit the photographer - so it might not even be copyright infringement, but breach of contract which is another thing entirely.
Listen, we're on the same page here - I think artists and photographers and all IP producers need to be compensated for "all* their work. I hope Max prevails in getting some decent compensation for his material being used for other people to profit from. That position doesn't preclude me from seeing this as a little more complicated that some mean company stealing some photographers images from Facebook and to opine that Max may have done some dumb things that will hamper him should this see a court room.
I think the biggest thing we can take away from this whole saga is that for the most part photographers have little to no idea when it comes to rights, copyright and ip rights. That needs to change (and I include myself in that summary too)
Not only photographers ... business don't have a clue either.
True, but why should photographers rely on businesses to act right. If you know your rights straight off the bat during negotiations then you can educate and nurture a better deal for yoursel before you even click the shutter.
Never rely on someone else to look out for you, do it yourself. Learn the facts on copyrights/ip/etc
It's a shame there isn't a popular photography blog that would only teach wanna be amateurs the important legal/business stuff, and let them read their camera manual themselves. It's almost like everyone is out to make a buck on their ignorance by selling weird flash accessories and videos about how you just need to buy another thing, or take a picture with these settings, or use this service (who's a sponsor), and then you'll be a real "pro"!
Maybe someday...
thats what we did, cuz lawyers cant do anything but charge and charge and then settle. plaintiff and defendant lawyer over a steak after golf.
This is more artist / talent / photograph bull$hit. The problem here is Max Jackson struck a bad deal and it now trying to overplay his hand. Clearly at some point in time he has transitioned into a photography business. He is trying to parlay a minor non-fiscal breach to cash money. Maybe if he had consulted a lawyer and had liquidated damages written into the agreement, he would have a leg to stand on. As it is, he doesn't.
Mr. Jackson relied on contract / legal advice from his noodnik father who is a *web designer* rather than a *lawyer* thus the contract had gaping holes in it. Somebody below posted the letter Max sent the color run. In paragraph 4 it says: "I provided, and no one else, with the condition that I would get photo credit wherever my the pictures were used". Max gave an agent of the Color Run an open license folks.
The original agreement called for credit in lieu of financial compensation. Has the Color Run breached that? Probably. It is an easy remedy: future attribution and a small sum in compensation. Work out a settlement (say $30,000), call it lesson learned, and move on.
with federal doc in the system forever saying you lie about employment and infringe on others trademark????? forever???? really 30k at 20 he has more value than that.
It's still very simple; whether his "demands" were acceptable to him or not is moot. Given that they were not able to agree means that they didn't have permission to use the images. They are still wrong. Nowhere do I see any mention of what they offered, only what the photographer "demanded". Parenthetically, given their use was international and quite extensive, $100,000 might not be an unreasonable request. Also, it's obvious they used the images without his permission and THEN tried to work out an agreement afterward. How do they not understand that at this point he's pissed and any negotiation is going to be tainted with that emotional influence? Nowhere do they state they offered an apology, admitted wrongdoing, etc. And to try to defend his position by saying "...exposure through our networks" is laughable. This, in and of itself, shows him/them to be a complete novice in negotiating with photographers and a complete lack of understanding of the business of professional photography. I would be pissed too, and would sue their ass off!
The general timeline that I've gathered from these articles and Max's blog is this:
1. Max sends letter with initial demands to Snyder.
2. The two parties start negotiations with the assistance of a lawyer
3. TCR offers $30k, a FB "shout out", award of "photo of the year", and 6 months of Max's logo on all TCR web pages.
4. The negotiating lawyer calls to inform Max that the $30k offer package no longer includes the 6 months of Max's logo on TCR web sites, deadline to respond is mid-day of the following day.
5. BEFORE the deadline, Max is notified of a lawsuit against him by TCR for trademark infringement, with resulting fines on one account being "3x any monies made".
6. Max counters the $30k offer with a $300k demand.
Seems to me that TCR wasn't negotiating in good faith and was intending to sue Max regardless of his response to the $30k offer.
mis=info it was 30 k and 60 days that max agreed to not six months. max's dad #tymax rest accurate.
yep sorry, was going back and forth between tabs when writing that and just misread the line that said 60 days.
#tymax
That puts it in a different light. I think it is very impressive that he reached out to FStoppers. Usually they would hide behind lawyers and say nothing outside of court. The fact that he goes on the record here with these claims makes me believe he is being honest. He doesn't address the issue of non-FB usage, but I am led to think the sit-down between the two sides probably resulted from it. It looks like the photographer over-asked when what he should have done was simply sent an invoice to the company asking for his rate plus penalty.
This response doesn't ring true.. not saying if it is or not, but I lean as not being true and if proven to not be an official demand, Max can sue for defamation
Comments like this:
They went far outside professional compensation and credit for photography work.
Get my back up in situations like these ... while some of the demands were a bit ridiculous like being given the job of official photographer in perpetuity the compensation amount wasn't ORIGINALLY (100000$) outside what could have been awarded by the courts.
Saying "Ok, you got us stealing your picture ... here's what we would normally give for this type of use" doesn't fly. If I steal a car off a car rental lot, just giving them the normal fee when for the rental I get caught isn't going to cut it ...
He also seems to gloss over the "Accept the 30K we told you we would give you or we'll sue you for trademark infringement for having posted that you worked forh The Color Run on facebook" situation.
Also claiming fair use and demanding the judge assign copyright of the images to the company?
I'd like to see Travis address those issues.
good catch, did you read Travis's first letter in response, first paragraph last sentence?
Color Run fucked up first. Shame on them for trying to spin it around.
Interesting case. if Snyder is telling the truth, it seems like some agreement could've been made to avoid all this, and the photog was being unreasonable. But if TCR did launch the bigger advert campaign without considering the photog, then that is a reasonable problem that needed to be addressed, especially if the photog was not even credited, since that was the minimal agreement at the outset, as we understand the situation. Bottom line, I would say that if TCR went ahead with the broader campaign outside of Facebook, they owe the guy for his work.
If they couldnt reach an agreement, why is Color Run using his images?
They (TCR) misused his photo's as agreed; TCR offered a settlement;
Color Run stole the idea for the event from India
https://www.google.com/search?q=india+color+holiday&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS...
This is a Public Event on a Public Street right? No releases, no contracts necessary? "Fair Use?. They've abused their privilege of being able to stage a "Public" event.
Don't give them a license for next years event. Or make them negotiate a contract with India.
Color run is trying to take advantage of an Up and coming Photographer.
This is nothing but BS. The big corporate machine thinks they can do what ever they want to do. I'm in a battle with a venue for continual use of one of my images. Originally I had allowed them to use the image, but when they failed to deliver on thier end of the deal I had an attorney send a cease and desist. Now, 2 years later, a new attorney and another cease and desist they refuse to stop using my image and are threatening me with a counter suit for fraud. I hope this dude registered his images. I know I did.
Scott contact us in 3 weeks, we can help! max's dad #tymax
Nothing complex here. If the organization used his images commercially without permission, he is right to be angry and ask for very large compensation. He wins in any court. Game over.
<3
This is the actual letter Max sent as his FIRST contact with the company in regards them using his images in the print ad, he did provide the company the images without watermark at their request through a conversation (that he hasn't made public) plus he has a rich step dad who said he will pay the retainer for a lawyer, but yet he still wants $50,000 from the public ?!!!!!! this is nothing but a joke and sounds like he is totally at the con and wants money from everybody !!!
Every ridiculous request he made was true, straight from Max's hand and sounds like he did give them permission for them to use the image everywhere but with the one stipulation there was a photo credit to him, where he is kicking up a stink is because he didn't have a photo credit on the print ad, which would NEVER happen with any photographer who was hired to shoot a commercial shoot.
http://thecolorrunsuedme.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/my-original-letter-to-...
he is refunding every penny and starting a charity to protect artistic rights.... with money of his own from the settlement.
The refunding every penny is a given, it's not his and he should never have asked for it in the first place.
If it wasn't for his misinformation to the photographer community he wouldn't have got his "undisclosed sum".
There already is numerous bodies out there protecting artists rights, that's just a face saving exercise to try and hide that he was in the wrong, just get him to donate half to one of the already established entities, or charity that helps American citizens get food/clothing or army vets, they are 1000 times more worthwhile.
I did actually have my photos stolen, I didn't give them away for photo credit (I'm not stupid after all), or any body permission to use them anywhere, and I've been paying for everything out of my own pocket to deal with it, nor did I ask for $300,000, I wouldn't accept a penny of help, it's my own problem.
You used his pics without giving him a backlink. By doing so, you lost the right to use the photos and will be liable for royalties for using them. Everything else is unactionable and both of you are wasting money and everyone's time. Listen to a real IP lawyer and not the whores you hired to bleed Jackson.
the (tm) was interesting, considering he work for them? humm read the plaintiff docs from stole filed against max...... rule 11 all the way
Sure, Travis: "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."
Explains why The Color Run used his non-photographs everywhere, on all their promos, without giving him a dime.
What a douche bag.
thank you so much, we couldnt have done any of this without people like you. that can see.
You're welcome. I hope you and Max arrived at an acceptable agreement with The Color Run and I'm glad that it isn't quite as easy to bully someone into submission in the 21st century.
According to the FB page of The Color Run. It's been resolved
Whatever that means. More details to follow no doubt
Link? I don't see anything on their FB page
they settled, "Licensing issue resolved"