![[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]
There may be a clause in the race agreement when you sign up stating your likeness can be used for their promotions.
that makes me so sad to hear because i have signed up to do the color run in sf next month....
Seems a lot of people are kinda missing the point. It really doesn't matter if he sent them a letter for $1,000,000,000,000,000 for the photo, or whatever other demands he had, however ridiculous they were. If the company was not happy with the terms, they can say no and/or renegotiate. He has a right to be compensated for a photo used in advertising without his permission. The fact that they are suing HIM over it, is beyond ridiculous to me.
This is a prime example why it is so important to know about image licensing and usage rights, and registering your images with the copyright office. There are many online resources and professional organizations that help
with usage and licensing rates: ASMP, NPPA, PPA to name but a few.
If you are approached by someone who wants to use your images without anything other than a promise of "exposure" just remember one thing: "Exposure" doesn't pay your bills. Do your due diligence before agreeing to let anyone use your images - there are many stories just like this one, unfortunately.
"They asked if I wanted to work color runs and it sounded like fun and good money so I said yes." If that's the case, he may have taken the photos they are using as an employee (work for hire) and not as a contractor. And if that is the case, the photos would belong to Color Run. Color Run is still being unreasonable by suing him. And just because your logo appears in a photo doesn't mean you own the photo.
The Update at the end of the post totally changes the course of this. Initially, the article suggested that he was just going there with classmates. The Update indicates he indeed was paid for his work and is now going for more money. Not nearly as cut and dried as it first appeared.
Sounds like the employment was after the disputed photos were taken...
Sickening - I do wonder, however, if there were any stipulations in his employment contract with Silverback, or their agreement with Color Run that might work against Jackson.
In the past, I know they have tried to be very rigid about who can photograph, and claiming that all photographs of the event, are their property (somehow).
I think the girl in the picture is the only one that should sue.
wow hes gonna get fucked though. theyre going to argue that because he had his facebook status as working for the color run the photos are going to be considered a work for hire. that means the color run would own the copyright to the image, and the ability to sell the works out. he may actually lose this case tbh
Earlier I posted ( Regina ) regarding my opinions on this issue. Thank you to Brenda for the clarification. Maxwell William Jackson I would just like to say that I think your an awesome photographer and am sorry that you have to go through this ordeal. It is obvious to me that Scott Winn ( from the email ) showed an interest in and more or less requested use of your photo's with the enticement that it could further your photographing career. You obviously have an abundance of support. What was done was wrong, filing suit as was done regarding trademark infringement, seems to be a sly attempt to misdirect the true issue at hand. You have done nothing wrong you are entitled to payment for the use of your photos. While I am not currently a practicing Paralegal, I hold a degree in Paralegal Studies. It is a case of cutting one's nose off to spite their face where Scott Winn is concerned as he has now placed a blemish on what would have been a productive website.
wow this is gross :/
You may not be able to comment but you sure as heck can tag them in your comments and #hash tag the heck too. instagram, Twitter and it will show up. BLOW THEM UP. Heck, our fingers and keyboards are our weapons of defense for this artist. Let's use them.
OK- Just to add, since I'm on a soapbox - This is SUCH a waste of resources. There are far more important things to spend time, money and resources on rather then being petty BULLY! Seriously, use that money to invest in health in public education, foster care. I mean, crying out loud. You are a company that supports fun and health yet you are SCREAMING the exact opposite of this when by your actions. The Color Run is nothing but a school yard BULLY And yes, I said BULLY, when you would rather use your power to tear down the "little" guy rather then help them when they are the ones who HELPED you, then yes, you are nothing better then a school yard BULLY. So, if you don't get your way, your gonna throw a fit.. Such a toddler move. To me, this just SCREAMS guilty. MY mother used to say, you only get defensive when you've done something wrong. Go ahead lawyer up. You are only digging yourself a whole to barry yourself in.
I'm just asking but would the EFF do this kind of work for the photographer ? https://www.eff.org/about
Good question!
"...they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them."
NOPE. Not how copyright works. Sorry, assholes.
Block the Facebook comments all they want...can't stop @ mentions on Twitter though. Other ways to get to them and spread the word on how shady they are acting.
This was comment posted on the GoFundMe campaign page.......
Did you seriously send them this? Jackson wrote that instead, he was "requesting compensation as follows: $100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account, additionally to be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Internationally) for the remainder of its existence, my Logo to be added in sponsors section next to Chevy on the bottom of your web pages. My name to read at the bottom of any photo's used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photogrph by Max Jackson." He warned "if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action." That's a little over the top there. Take the damn money and be happy, do you think after that they are going to pay for you to go to every color run and shoot for them? Would you really want that? I wouldn't work with them unless they were paying me $10k a run + travel + expenses after the crap they pulled. On top of that monetary fees if they use the image to advertise anywhere, but the asking of $100,000 and sponsor status seems to go way past the normal boundaries and does seem like extortion. Give me money or I'll sue you, and while you're at it give me sponsorship.. or else.
As if the photography business isn't hard enough to get into. Someone with some talent gets what appears to be a great op to get their name out there and then gets screwed. F Color Run. They stole this photographer's work. Period.
I forwarded this article to the president of the National Press Photographers Association. Maybe the NPPA can help.
Here is an article about how The Color Run left several in Anchorage, Alaska, feeling unhappy, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130623/color-anchorage-5k-runner...
More about how little money raised by The Color Run actually goes to its designated local nonprofit group, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130619/did-color-run-spread-love...
Buffalo, N.Y., also isn't keen on The Color Run, http://www.buffalo.com/sports/blog/heres-why-i-avoid-the-color-run-opini...
Issues with The Color Run in Raleigh, N.C., http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/10/04/3253139/raleigh-color-run-leads-t...
I had a similar thing happen to me by a very well known law firm here in CT. They have been using my images in their promos for a couple of years now without any compensation or even giving me credit. I spoke to an attorney about it at one point and was told that there was nothing I could do because I willingly gave them the photos to use. This article doesn't state whether or not Jackson gave them the photos to use. I'm assuming he did and that will probably be the deciding factor. It's a shame that companies like this knowingly take advantage of amateur photographers, but I chalk it up to another lesson learned the hard way.
the problem with this is he gave them the rights to post the photos online (I am assuming facebook) as a photographer I have read through the clause on facebooks photo rights and once posted to the site they own and can distribute your photos with out your knowledge consent or giving you credit. so really its his own mistake maybe next time he will read the fine print.
pix555@gmail.com
Unfortunately this attitude that is being brought forth here by this disgusting client in many ways is being brought on by the photography community self. The attitude that it's okay to give all of your work away free and let the client walk all over you is all too prevalent. The art of negotiation has been lost and has been replaced a spineless inability to charge for one's photography. It took photographers a hundred years of negotiation to get rates to a place where one could actually make a living at this business. Digital photography has made it simple to be a photographer and very difficult to be a business person. If you're outraged by this incident please get involved with a professional organization like ASMP , APA or PPA. By all means donate as much as possible to Maxwell's defense! As photographers we control the visual media industry, but are willingly giving it to the unscrupulous middleman to make all the money.
I hope they do not get away with this and I hope this damages their reputation as an organization.
When you work for Color Run it's work for hire. It's in the contract. They make it VERY clear from the start the images belong to them. I guarantee that he signed a contract.
I've worked for Color Run. They paid decently. I don't mind working for hire for events like that. What am I going to do with those images? They won't make me money. I can't license them. They hold no real selling value to the photographer. Color Run allows you to use them in your portfolio as long as you keep the logo in there.
The photographer signed a contract saying he held no interest in the images and then he demands to be compensated? He was already compensated as an employee. I know this because I've done it a number of times.
The photographer isn't exactly giving you the whole true story. The company didn't do anything wrong. They didn't take advantage of the photographer. He wants to play professional photographer then he better learn the business side as well as the button pushing side. He's going to lose this case.
It sucks, but you gotta read the fine print. Although I'm pretty sure they made it clear.
See that is where you are wrong, because they DID use the photos elsewhere like retail stores and international advertising - somethign you could have made money off if you licensed the photos.
Here's the deal. Color Run doesn't license photos. They BUY them. When they pay a photographer. Without Color Run those photos are useless to me. The ONLY company that will want to license them is Color Run. But they have a business model that allows them not to have to license them.
Shoot the Color Run as a freelance photographer and see how many people you get knocking on your door looking for Color Run photos. It ain't the Boston Marathon.
He never SOLD them the photos, he never was HIRED by them to shoot photos. He was hired to do non-photography work for a pay. The photos that were used were only allowed to be used on FACEBOOK and nothing else. Those photos he took on his own, without pay of any kind were requested for exposure use (classic big company we have no money cry) he agreed for facebook only. Now this corporation, making LOTS of money, is using the photos without authorization to SELL and PROFIT. WHat he asked was 100% reasonable. Please educate yourself on how to profit form photoraphy.
Sounds like he took the photos *before* he was employed by them. That makes a significant difference.
My family has signed up for the color run but now I don't want to do it. Instead I'm thinking maybe I should print up a shirt to wear at the run with something to say about this. Just have to make sure I state it properly, since they seem to like taking people to court.
Does the fact that this guy tried demanding the $100,000 plus being named official photography sponsor, plus having his logo displayed on their website alongside the other sponsors who have actually paid to be there not seem a bit ridiculous to anyone else?
If you ask me I say this guy saw dollar signs and figured that since the image was already used he could ask for any amount he wanted which is just not the case. All I keep seeing is the fact that this Color Run guy has stated he would rather spend $500,000 on lawyers fees than be extorted but when you see the insane demands this kid tried making it makes a little bit more sense.
For $100,000 they could have hired almost any photographer they wanted to shoot an advertising campaign for them. Just because someone within the company assumed that since they had permission to use the image on Facebook (which they did ask for and were given permission), that they had permission to use it elsewhere doesn't mean that this kid is out $100,000 in damages plus needs to be made the official photography sponsor. Get real man! Someone gave you some terrible advice and you saw some major dollar signs and its going to bite you in the ass.
Even if you end up taking this to court you will be awarded a fairly nominal fee for the use of your image.
I should point out that I absolutely DO NOT agree with the fact that Color Run has decided to try to bully this guy by suing him, I equally disagree with his ridiculous demands. There is absolutely no way in hell this one photo is worth $100,000 in damages.
I notice that you seem to leave out the demands you made on your gofundme page. Is that because you know that if people knew how greedy you were there is no way they would donate any money to your campaign? Or is it because if people saw your demands they would start to understand the reaction Color Run had to them?
You are going to learn a really harsh lesson here man. You got greedy and acted way too emotionally and it really is going to bite you right in the ass. Color Run will bounce back from this no problem. You on the other hand will end up being known as the greedy photographer and companies will probably avoid working with you in the future.
I don't think Color Run would have sued him if he hadn't threatened them with legal action in the first place. You mess with the bull you get the horns. They're totally being dicks about it, but if he had handled it PROFESSIONALLY from the start we wouldn't be reading about this.
Get Jared Polin on it. Fro knows photographers rights!
In Australia, there are two people who could sue for their rights being breached in this situation. The photographer and the person in the photo. The photographer owns the image, and The Colour Run selling it to other companies for their own profit and promotions is illegal. The girl in the photo also has rights to sue, as she has not given The Colour Run permission to use/sell an image of her for commercial use.
I'm not sure of the laws in other countries, but I dare say they would be similar in this situation.
I am a professional photographer, and am completely appauled that things like this happen.
I'd assume that when registering for the Color Run, you grant them permission to use your likeness to be used in marketing photographs taken during the event. However, since this photographer wasn't working for The Color Run at the time, you may very well be right about the person in the picture having a case. Would she have a case against the photographer or The Color Run? The photographer DID give The Color Run permission to use his photograph...on their Facebook page only; not for other purposes. This is a sticky situation.
It's not a sticky situation. When you step on the grounds there are signs EVERYWHERE posted saying that there is photo/video and your image may be used for promotion etc. The photographer turned over his rights when he allowed them to use his images. He didn't care enough about the image when he said yes in the beginning. You bargain BEFORE not after.
Everyone is assuming the photographer is right, but he's not. He screwed up and he's going to learn an expensive lesson.
You have all these people citing legal precedents and all kinds of stuff. It's like everyone on the forum is all the sudden a legal expert AND a photographer.
I have worked for them. They pay a fair hourly rate for a job that ain't really that hard. A freakin' monkey could do it.
Im pretty sure the person in the photo signed her rights away when she signed up for the run. These kinds of events have waivers you have to sign beforehand stating that they may use your likeness for things like advertising and anything else.
"...they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them.” That's a ridiculous claim. So if I take a picture of someone who has a Nike shirt on, then Nike is entitled to that photo? I REALLY hope that doesn't hold up in court. Also, he wasn't working for them when he took the photo, so they have no ground to stand on claiming that's the reason they have rights to the picture in question. Sounds like really shady business practices if you ask me.
"...they have also argued that because their trademark “Color Run” is in my photos they are entitled to them.”
That's the PHOTOGRAPHER'S claim. There's no proof they said that. And I doubt that's the way it was phrased. I guarantee it's out of context if they actually said something similar.
Pay the young man for his work, corporate ass clowns.
I think they would have been a little more open to the idea of paying him if he didnt demand $100,000 plus being added as the official photography sponsor for as long as the company exists, as well as having his logo added to the sponsors page next to the Chevy logo.
I think this guy got greedy and Color Run reacted the way they did as a response. I dont agree with the fact that they are suing him, but I equally disagree with his ridiculous demands.
Lets get real here. They used one image. There is no way in hell it is worth $100,000.
...so the Color Run is just another corporate thieving scam?
http://thecolorrun.com/689-2/ They responded and now it is who's story do you believe.. Both seem legit.
If you ask me The Color Run was legit and "photographer" boy thought he was gonna get a payday. His demands are ridiculous. The read like an angry child wrote them. The more I look into it the more I see it's just a kid making a fuss. It's not even worth contemplating anymore. He's just making all photographers look bad.