![[UPDATED] The Color Run Sues College Photographer After He Asks for Compensation for Image](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/large-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Color-Run-sues-college-photographer_jpg.webp)
[The Color Run and Maxwell Jackson have come to a joint resolution since this article was published. For more info scroll to the bottom of this post for links to their site which has up to date posts on the entire situation.]
"The Best, the Biggest...The Happiest 5k on the Planet" is how the Color Run likes to describe itself to its 2.6 million Facebook fans. But don't let that fool you. The company is suing 21 year old photographer, Maxwell Jackson, because he claims they used his photo illegally. Say what?
Jackson went to one of The Color Run events in Miami in 2012 with some friends from his photography club at Florida Atlantic University, where he is still a student. He photographed the event and posted the images online. He was then approached by Scott Winn, who identified himself as the Photo Director of The Color Run. Winn asked Jackson for permission to use his photos on their Facebook page and said that they would even give him "photo credit wherever (his) photos are used." As a new photographer, Jackson felt this would be a great way to get some exposure. "I was a new photographer and this amazing new company was offering to feature MY photos on THEIR page!" Who would have thought that would take a tun for the worse.
July of 2013 comes around and Jackson is walking around a Sports Authority in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (no where near Miami) when he was actually handed a flyer featuring HIS photos. On top of the flyer having his images on them without his consent or knowledge, The Color Run did not even give him credit for taking the pictures. Jackson even stated that they are still using his photos on their main websites, such as TheColorRun.co.uk, and even more international sites. Not cool (or legal?).
The photos have also been featured in the U.S. News, Baltimore Sun Times, and by companies such as Coca-Cola. "There are thousands of individual websites all over the WORLD wrongfully using my photos as provided by The Color Run."
Jackson contacted The Color Run to try and receive compensation for the misuse of HIS photos. He instead received a response from Travis Lyman Snyder, owner and founder of The Color Run, which said he "would rather spend $500,000 on lawyers than be extorted by (Jackson)."
On top of that, according to Jackson, Travis Lyman Snyder filed a frivolous trademark infringement lawsuit against Jackson in Utah Federal Court, where The Color Run is centrally located, to sue him into submission. Jackson and his father worked "pro-se" (without a lawyer) on the case at first but then requested counsel from the state of Utah. On December 23, 2013, they received a letter that said their request for counsel was approved so now the clerk of the court would be finding Jackson a lawyer. You can view the full filling here
"I now have pro bono counsel, which means I don't have to pay lawyers hourly for their time, however, I still have to come up with between $50,000-$100,00 in fees connected to standing up for my rights. These fees are expenses tied to the case, such as expert witnesses, copies, postage, stenographers, depositions, travel expenses, etc... Without this additional funding, The Color Run and their deep pockets will get away with infringing on the copyright and stealing my artwork."
As a college student, Jackson says he is already in debt with loans and there is no way he could come up with the money to fight this case along. He is asking for donations on his GoFundMe campaign to help raise the funds for this case.
UPDATE: Jackson reached out to me and gave me the reason for him being sued by The Color Run. Here is what he said. "About 5 months after I shot the race I was contacted by someone I knew that worked with a company that sets up, breaks down and staffs Color Runs. They asked if I wanted to work color runs and it sounded like fun and good money so I said yes. While working for Silverback (company I worked with) I made my fb employment status that I worked at Silverback and The Color Run. That is their filing on the case but they have also argued that because their trademark "Color Run" is in my photos they are entitled to them."
What are your thoughts on Jackson's situation, and how The Color Run handled the use of his images?
We have reached out to The Color Run for an official response and will update if and when one is received.
UPDATE: It appears many upset readers started commenting on their Facebook wall. Rather than attempt to delete them all (which was their initial move), The Color Run has just removed the ability to comment on their Page.
LAST UPDATE : "I want to sincerely thank everyone for their voices and support as we’ve worked through this issue. We have been able to reach a joint agreement, which meets the needs of maxxsphotography.com and The Color Run. We are happy to have avoided the drain of the legal system and look forward to the continued success of both companies.
As referenced in yesterday’s statement (written below), my hope was always that we would be able to reach a fair and mutually acceptable resolution. I am grateful that through this weekend we were able to resume discussions with Max and come to a solution.
I want to be clear that the recently resolved issues were never about The Color Run lifting and stealing images. From the beginning, we had a contractual “use” agreement with Max. We received high resolution, un-watermarked images for use online or in print. The problems arose from a poorly worded, semi-verbal contract. We both had a genuine misunderstanding about the terms of our agreement when it came to photo credit on printed images. The recent negotiations revolved around finding a fair resolution to that misunderstanding.
Lessons Learned:
- If you are a business, be explicitly clear about the use, compensation, and parameters of the agreement with the photographer when sourcing images. Make sure it is all in writing in order to protect each other.
- If you are a photographer, understand the level of access you are providing and also protect yourself with clear, written, release agreements.
- Lastly, if a misunderstanding arises, enter into a respectful and ethical discussion about how to resolve the issue. In our new social/visual/online world, businesses and photographers need a great relationship more than ever. Assume the best in each other and make it work.
There is no doubt that the social media voices on both sides of the issue provided meaningful insight during this process. I sincerely appreciate those that presented thoughtful perspectives on the situation and how to resolve it.
-Travis"
[Images used with permission from Max's Photography || Original Story Via Max's GoFundMe Campaign]
where did you read he was getting paid. His statement is that he was a student out with this photo club...
Here he is getting paid in 2013, a year after his photo was supposedly used without his permission. He looks happy here.
Ok seriously... you need to knock it off with posting this photo. It means absolutely nothing. Where in this photo do you see that he's being compensated in any way by Color Run? Where in this photo do you see a contract that states all his photos are allowed to be used on global advertising? A pass that says "Staff" means nothing, he could be working for another vendor, he could be volunteering. Can you show us all how he was being paid?
He was hired by a third party logistics vendor to do set-up and tear-down. He wasn't shooting photos for hire as an employee of The Color Run.
sounds like international commerce to me
They clearly took advantage of him, promising "exposure." It's one thing to be naive about the intentions of a company asking for photos, it's another to totally exploit it.
You hit the nail on the head!
I'm just an amateur, never been paid for work. How much would the typical compensation for something like this be? Including using the image in various media, internationally, etc?
Most would pay for time at the event and then agree to time for set up or post production. The photographers I typically work with charge about $100/hr, so if we're talking a 6 hour shoot, plus an hour or so on each end for setup and post; a professional photographer should expect around $1000 for all of the photos taken at the event.
Pricing COMPLETELY depends on use. A lot of photographers are doing this work for hire crap willingly, and they don't realize that they are pissing away their value. When a company pays for photographs, it's always paying for an asset. That the asset is intellectual property means there are licenses involved. If it's "Hey, we need photographs for social media." the value of the asset is totally different from "Hey, we need photographs for a national print ad campaign." and the two license values would reflect the difference.
There are shooting/tech day rates, which is only one item on a proper commercial photography quote, but they are dwarfed in comparison to the licensing fees. And that's a part of the negotiation. I can tell a client "You can use these for 2 ad runs between the years 2014-2017 for 20,000 dollars, or you can have an unlimited license for web and print in perpetuity for 30,000. My day rate is 1200 dollars."
No way Graham. In my experience terms of use are almost never negotiated beforehand with the cameraman and it's absolutely unheard of to pay different amounts based on the medium the picture would be delivered. Often, the client doesn't even order all the assets of the campaign up front... like, they would start with maybe a low-dollar digital campaign; if that didn't preform well, then maybe 6 months later they would decide to do a print ad. There's no way we would ever then go back to the photographer and say, "now that the client decided to run a print campaign and we've decided to use your picture in it--we're going to give you another $XXX"--that doesn't happen.
It absolutely happens all over the industry. This is one of those few cases where I am absolutely sure that you're wrong. You may not do it that way, but you're not the rule. Certainly perpetual licenses are becoming more commonplace, but it's not the only way it's done.
Educate yourself a little bit with several actual examples.
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/category/pricing-negotiating/
Of course, all photographers want to get paid each time their photo is seen by someone--hell Donald Trump wants to get paid each time someone says 'You're Fired'. But unfortunately Graham, that's not how it works. Yes, maybe the best most world famous professional photographer could demand the terms your describing.
A little about me that I hope helps supports my insight: I work in the photography department an ad agency that does print and digital campaigns for 2 of the top 10 US Fortune 500 companies and I work with freelance photographers who are among the highest paid National Geographic photographers out there.
Congrats! All those things are incredibly fascinating, but you're still dead wrong. I found examples of EXACTLY the opposite of what you're talking about with a cursory google search. It was unbelievably easy.
Your ad agency may very well work that way (I'd love to see a redacted contract posted) but I've never talked to a photographer with a client worth a damn who didn't work this way.
Btw, aphotoeditor.com, which hosts these quotes (from The Wonderful Machine, which is as legit as a photo agency as exists anywhere), is one of the most reliable industry blogs out there, and I'll put my stock in a guy who's credentials are public over a poster with an axe to grind.
And if you don't beleive me, fine, but according to Getty:
Rights-managed products are licensed with restrictions on usage, such as limitations on size, placement, duration of use and geographic distribution. You will be asked to submit information concerning your intended use of the product, which will determine the scope of usage rights granted. Our price calculator or one of our sales representatives can help you determine the price. Exclusive rights are available for purchase for some rights-managed products. All licenses of rights-managed products are subject to Getty Images Editorial, Rights-Managed and Rights-Ready Image and Video License Agreement.
Speaking of Getty, I just used their handy pricing calculator. A one year run of a free standing ad display (in-store, posters, flyers) for a 50,000 instance for one image cost 19,000 dollars. Soooo yeah....
Or you can just look at this quote:
http://blog.wonderfulmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/estimate_1_t...
You googling 'photographer quote example' doesn't really prove anything--anyone can ask for anything, but that doesn't mean that's how it works in the real world. But thanks for proving the point that had Max provided a quote beforehand, the Color Run could agree or disagree to the terms rather than demanding more payment after he found out his pictures were being used in a national campaign. And also, according to the template you provided, Max didn't have Assistants, Stylist, Professional Talent, Equipment Rental, etc, etc... so it still works out to be less than $5,000 for his picture. and consider the fact that Max isn't a professional, but an amateur photographer--your example supports the fact that the picture was worth maybe around 1,000 bucks (too bad he gave it away for free).
Shame on the Color Run for getting all legal on this college student but I have to admit that a lot of "Photographers" have too big of an ego about their pictures. I agree that people should be compensated for their work, just that photography today is a lot different than it was 20-30 years ago and now pictures are worth a lot less.
I'd argue if Coca-Cola and Sports Authority are using them, they are worth a fair amount.
you can argue anything you want but if coke doesn't have that picture they'll go to getty and find something else for less than 1000 bucks.
The title should be changed to "The Color Run Counter Sues College Photographer after he demands compensation for image while threatening to sue."
I'm all about photographer's rights but I had the feeling they there were some details being left out of the story, as a successful owner of a multimillion dollar company is unlikely to respond so violently to what the photographer tries to play off as a polite request. Other accounts of the story are that he demanded $100,000 or threatened to sue them, and by doing so took a very foolish position when up against a much bigger company.
There are always two sides to each story, this article only accounts for one.
Either way, The Color Run is definitely in the wrong here. Not only did they lie about what they were going to use the photos for, but it appears they sold the photos to other large corporations, for their own profit.
I'd say this kid is easily entitled to at least $100,000, given the massive use of his photos.
If that kid gets anything close to $100,000 for his picture he will be the highest paid photographer ever.
That kid does not deserve to be the highest paid photographer ever.
"he will be the highest paid photographer ever"
Really? Let's bring it back to earth. I'm certain famous photos have gone for well over $100,000, if not in the millions.
Those million dollar photos are done by professionals that months, if not years to execute. This college kid snapping a bunch of pics is not the same. how about 'Most overpaid photographer ever"
I won't argue with you on that, but you also have to understand the business behind these types of photos.
Assuming both Coca-Cola and Sports Authority paid The Color Run for the use of these photos, he's entitled to whatever they made off of both of those.
The question is also whether Coca Cola and SA paid The Color Run or whether The Color Run paid them to get their brand on with Coke or SA. Sometimes payments go in opposite directions than common sense would assume.
As a pro photographer who shoots these kinds of races and knows what the images go for, I would say this kid is entitled to nowhere even close to $100,000. $5,000 at best.
Have your photos ever been used by Coca-Cola or Sports Authority?
geeze dude, you do realize Coke or Sports Authority could pay to have the whole thing staged with a professional athlete for less than $100,000?
Perhaps, though I'd argue any A-List Pro Athlete and pro photographer shooting them would cost more than $100k.
You would obviously be surprised to know how it's done. Sure LeBron or Beckham would be more expensive, but take your pick of professional track athletes (besides Bolt and a few others) for less than 100k. And pick almost any professional photographer unless you're sending them to the Arctic for 6 months.
That's likely true, however the difference is simply that they are staging an entire shoot for a client vs just paying for an image that has already been taken. I wish that photogs were paid $100,000 for their images to appear in ads, but in most cases that's just not how it works. If it were, I'd be a lot richer :)
I have not ever had photos used by Coca-Cola or Sports Authority, but I have sold images to brands that are just as big, if not bigger. Especially since this is a non-exclusive license where the original artist can still use the image, the going rate for images used for advertising purposes is nowhere near $5,000. He'd be very lucky to get that.
Bigger than Coca-Cola? Wow, good on ya!
This is insane. $5000 is not even close to outside the range of going rates, it entirely depends on the client and the scope of the project.
http://blog.wonderfulmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/estimate_2_t...
http://blog.wonderfulmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/estimate_ter...
http://blog.wonderfulmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/estimate_1.jpg
http://blog.wonderfulmachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/estimate_1_t...
Yes, but there's one difference. You knew what you were getting. He did not. Courts don't look kindly on deal breaking. 1. They didn't put his name on any of the images, meaning no exposure for him. That's a contract violation. 2. They used the image beyond the scope of what was promised, another contract violation, and 3. They sold the image. My hope would be that a judge would, acknowledging 1 and 2, agree the photographer is punitively entitled to some greater share of 3 than the average contract.
There for sure is more to the story... here is his facebook profile picture over a year later with him smiling and wearing a staff badge.
He has made money from The Color Run, he just wants more.
I emailed and tweeted at the vendor that is hosting their run in my area in the summer. Curious what they say about it...
Hey Color Run…suck it.
Trevor Huster, one of the masses
I hope he wins enough money to break the Color run and they go out of business! This is absolute BS!!!
It's a big company caught stealing again. They admit they are for-profit, but also try to hide behind local non-profits as as shield. I will ask all my photographer friends to NEVER shoot this assignment, and if they have to, to make it look as plain and boring and ugly as possible. I, personally, will tell everyone I know about this terrible outfit.
It never fails to amaze me how little companies understand copyright law. "The photos have our trademark on someone's shirt in the photo so they're ours now." That's not remotely how copyright law works, in any way, shape, or form. How on Earth you ever arrive at that conclusion is completely beyond comprehension.
Geez, when will people learn to copyright their images and STOP giving them away for "exposure"?? Exposure doesn't put gas in the car or food on the table. Why isn't the subject of rights covered in schools?
An image is copyrighted the moment it is taken. What are you talking about?
@Jackson, send their ISP a C&D letter citing use of copyright photographs. Beat them into submission.
The complaint says they are suing for his Facebook status. so I'm assuming its a defamation suit. I cant think of anything else that would require a screen shot of his FB status as evidence. I didn't read the complaint since pacemonitor requires membership. I'm wondering if he threatened litigation or accused them of infringement?
You all realize this is total BS and completely phony, right? Don't believe everything you read online.....
Let me guess, you work for Color Run?