![[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]
This is where he is going to run into problems.
"They asked if I wanted to work color runs and it sounded like fun and good money so I said yes" Good money ? for what ? For shooting the event for Color Runs ? Therefore this is where he looses his case.... also stating that on FB that he was working for "Color Runs".
However the debate comes in what he was HIRED to do ? was it a contract that he signed... was there a contract.... From my understanding right now... unless a photographer explicitly signs over his property to someone else. It still belongs to him.
Always get everything in writing.
As I posted below. When I worked for them I signed a contract before I started shooting. And prior to shooting they made sure it was clear numerous times who owned the images. NOT the photographer. I worked for them at least three times. They may be using my images all over billboards in Brazil. I wouldn't even know it. I handed them a card at the end of the day and got a check. Never even looked at the photos. They weren't mine. I got paid. Done and done.
The photographer isn't exactly giving everyone the whole story.
It was pretty clearly stated that this was not a work-for-hire situation. He was taking photos for his photography club and the group found the photos online and asked to use them and in perpetuity give him exposure credit, which they failed to do and at that point it's a breach of their very simple contract.
Canonites unite! mmm I guess...Nikonians too.
Here is a petition we started with the approval of Jackson. It needs more support and signatures. Please sign it and share it with your friends and families on Facebook. http://www.change.org/petitions/travis-lyman-snyder-stop-frivolous-lawsu...
Well... the color run is now on the naughty list. Every photographer in America is gonna hate them now. Wait to go. You stole images (once a photographer captures an image, it is his intellectual property. If it is posted that images are not legal in the area it could not be, but for something like this, regardless of brand, he owns the images. Them saying their brand being on the images entitles them, without giving recognition non-the-less, would be like Ferrari saying "Hey, you took a picture of a Ferrari. We're suing you.)
If this was a work for hire situation Color Run owns the image, if not the photographer does unless there is a written usage agreement.
My wife and I have a successful photography business and a great lawyer that protects our ass. However, to receive punitive damages the image has to have been registered with the US copyright office otherwise your only damages are how much did the image cost to produce.
I believe you right about being exempt from punitive damages but wrong about being limited to the cost of production.
If I compose a song (or take a photograph, et cetera) and someone takes that song and, without my permission, sells it at $1 a pop and makes $10 million, I am entitled to that $10 million, even if the song only cost a few hundred dollars to produce.
If they are using his photograph without permission, then he is entitled to the actual commercial value the photograph generates. Punitive damages are a different matter. Those are extra damages added after the true value of the liability that exist to discourage unlawful behavior. Otherwise, for instance, if someone stole your movie and watched it once, you would only be entitled to the actual value of a movie ticket.
I'm not legal professional, but I study copyright law as much as humanly possible to protect my work as a working photographer. The only thing Maxwell cannot do with the images, that has ANY trademarks on them, is not use them for commercial purposes... UNLESS he did an agreement with someone at the trademark shown, company, i.e. The Color Run. Such as for another example, I've photographed many Mustang cars at car shows, I cannot use them for any form of commercial use... UNLESS the trademark owners (i.e. Ford) paid for the use of those photos (paid or was given permission in some kind of agreement like Max did). The agreement is clearly stated in the FB message with a staff member of The Color Run and agreement was clear, to use the photos on facebook... THAT's IT! Agreement broken and violated so Max is in the right by far and does deserve all damages he is asking for, even for facebook use(when the violation happened) if he chooses so.
Wow, The Color Run sucks. Looks like that's a run I will never be doing...
There are companies that have integrity and there are others that do not.
It is obvious this company is deficient, in the extreme.
again corporate zionist bullies think they can defeat the little man in the street with power and money.totally disgusting !
That's not how photo copyright works. Ownership defaults to the person shooting it unless they've signed a release specifically dictating ownership and compensation.
This just makes Color Run look like a god awful scam. Whenever I think of Color Run Illl have a bad taste in my mouth.
Would be interested to know what the pictured person thinks of all this, firstly the photographer more than likely doesn't have a model release hence the image can only be sold by the photographer for editorial purposes. But it is likely the the event holders "The Color Run" has it stipulated in the entrant agreement that by participating in the event they agree to any potential marketing or advertising use of their image. Hmm.
If you haven't read the case document, you really need to. It becomes clear as night and day to me once you do. You can download the initial case for free (14 day trial) but realize you will have to put in a credit card (just cancel i within 14 days). I don't know if I agree with all Maxwell was asking for, but I definitely agree that The Color Run was in the wrong to begin with, and this lawsuit is completely frivolous. He's not lying about what they are suing him for...its almost unbelievable. Seriously, go online and obtain the document...read it for yourself.
Well, where is it?
http://thecolorrun.com/689-2/ is the owner's response. Lame. (Notice no comments allowed here either.)
The defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney on both sides of the differential agreement can both check each other cameras for the film. If it's digital, they can check the authenticity if it's a copy or authenticated. If that company sued him and denies all talks he had with him. And follows up laying off the worker that talk with him. He can follow up with a counter suit, and get a person with experience in identifying the photo image is worth.
He asked to be paid for what they stole.They STOLE his work. They had the option of coming back as saying something like we'll give you $50,000 for the use of the image and your name on the image. Has no one ever heard of negotiation?
Read the response maybe there are two sides to the story http://thecolorrun.com/689-2/ I feel a bit bad now about my reaction without seeing the photographers demands.
I would support the photographer, but whats with that last paragraph? "Oh yeah, I worked for them too." mmkay, that means the employer owns your art work.
Next time ask for payment up front (even if free) and make them sign an agreement on their use.
It is often the case that the longer pockets win - and only a fool would "financially ruin himself" just to see 'right' being done! But the pigheaded response in that they'd rather pay half a million dollars than see the guy get compensated comes across as in the ante-room of the macabre, almost the foot-hills of the insane. That can only be described as disturbing... frightening really! But what it does need is a big-guy long-pockets to take it up for the little-guy - then we may well see justice!
I thought this was par for the course..my work has been used in USPS brochures,magazine covers etc never with credit or compensation!! I informed the entities of this and never even got responses! If I put something out in public, even with copyright notices restrictions, I expect it to be stolen..so I never submit my best image.. the Lawyers always seemed to get paid,however..
Hi John and everyone,
I would love nothing more than to take the time to reply to everything here but unfortunately that is just not possible.
Answers to questions that have been asked of me and more information on the case can be found on my blog: http://thecolorrunsuedme.wordpress.com
lies
If youre going to call someone a liar, have the balls to state facts that can show the validity of your claim. A simple "lies" is cowardly, lazy and frankly, a pretty cliched sitting-behind-keyboard response.
But then, I suppose we couldn't expect more from a look at your 48 comments. Here's a few gems:
"Hey dogfuckker. No one cares."
"Atleast I dont need a helmet to mask my atrocity of a face."
"You are fuckinggg useless."
"Did you ask your husband for permission to use the internet?"
Get a hold of yourself.
This is damning evidence that The Color Run *can* raise money, but *cannot* wield it with a competence that I believe is worth donating to.
It's very simple, really, if what BOTH SIDES state happened really did -- they violated this guy's copyright on the images when they took his work and went beyond the agreed boundaries, and they have no "fair use" claim either as it was for clearly-commercial purpose; none of the editorial, de-minimus or even linkage (where he'd control the distribution) arguments apply. Unless they can produce a "work for hire" agreement of some sort (and it doesn't sound like they have one or they would have asserted it by now) they've got a problem.
Deciding to become hyper-aggressive when you're caught is not unusual behavior from corporations but it has the potential to backfire in a big way on these folks, both in the courtroom and in the all-important court of public opinion.
Let's hope it does.
The entire system of "justice" in this country is out of control. The rich get exactly what they want by using the legal system to bully the rest of us into submission. I honestly think we need to get the guillotines out and start chopping off heads. The time for insurrection is upon us.
Corporate Imperialism at it's best. Apple is notorious for doing this with programmers, ripping off their ideas and concepts.
Keep updating! This is exactly what we need to read about, re: social media sharing of photography, and copyright protections. THANK YOU for posting about this. I wish the best of everything to the photographer, that he may have tremendous support (I would send money to support his cause), and that his case may break ground to protect the right of other photographers, too. HOOAH!
Up to $100,000 for copyright infringement is actually the law. If they go to court...the photographer will win.
Another example of how America law and lawyers shaft the world and made it to a paranoid race as it is, This need to be stopped and individual small man need more right and power over the big man with all his money, Its an Evil society we live in, About time higher holy power slapped them big time.
I am just continuing to post in the other posts on their wall. I suggest everyone do this until they spend so much time taking down posts that they have to just close their facebook page or deal with the fact that they are in the wrong.
Read the facts, he's the one in the wrong, they offered him $30K he turned it down and in turn wants $50K from the public in donations and $300K from them, total greed.
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-...
You clearly have no idea how copyright deals with IP. What Jackson is asking for is factually normal for /any/ photographer who has had their IP stolen.
The problem is exactly that he /wasn't/ hired to do a commercial shoot. If he had been, then the intelectual property would have belonged to The Color Run. Because he was not on the payroll as a profesional photographer, his photographs were his own property. By sharing them without watermark or giving credit, by disseminating them to third parties, The Color Run is in violation of the law, and what Jackson is demanding from The Color Run is essentially in compliance to any company who has violated copyright law.
For instance, if The Color Run had advertised using pirated music without the artist or label's written permission, the lawsuit that would be filed against The Color Run would read basically the same as what Jackson is asking for.
The goal of Snyder in suing him is to make sure his losses in court fees are equal to the amount that Snyder will eventually be forced to pay Jackson by law as to bully future artists from asserting their rights. He wants to draw it out over ten years and make it such a big hassle nobody else will want to do it. But he is clearly in violation of the law, there's legitimately no defense other than attacking Jackson with frivolous lawsuits.
Read the facts, Max has finally given the full convo, he gave them every shot, permission to use them and offered them up at FULL RES, the never once asked for that, if he didn't ever fathom them to be used as print why offer them, logo free, at full resolution ?
He didn't even ask for a single thing, no photo credit, no money, it was ALL offered by TCR, they wanted a ride to the grocery store and he said "keep the car"
I am not a photographer, but i see whats right.. and whats wrong. I'm supporting Maxwell Jackson. Its his hard work after years of training to create those awesome pictures. The COLOUR RUN company should pay him out for it.. Regardless.
Photographers need incomes too!
He hasn't worked hard for years, he's a student and check out his work, its far from awesome
Yeah... The stone carvers work isnt amazing, and they are students of teh guilds, but 2000 years later, they became masterpeice.
Irregardless of how "awesome" the work is, they still work hard to learn, to perfect, to capture the right moment, with the right settings, along with the right angle..
Its still his work.
and you know what? he can sue and win. Its all about whats right.. and whats wrong.
You wanted to make a perfect sandcastle, so you spent years teaching yourself as a student too learn and to perfect building a work of art in sand.. then someone comes along and say "can ii have this? ta.. hey everyone.. i built this.. that be $5 per persn to look at it.. ta.. .. " how would you feel?
Its called.. THEFT.
:)
What kind of contract for compensation does the girl who's clearly depicted in the photo have? I think this issue is of a bit bigger concern since it's her face being plastered everywhere. Maybe it's all legit and she's been contacted about it, but none of the articles mention it, so I have to wonder.
This needs to be read first, and Max needs to come forward with screen shots of the whole convo with their photo editor, it looks like he gave them full use without watermark (its in the letter below) as long as the photo credited, and the reason he is pissed is because they credit wasn't on the printed material.
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.
READ THIS BELOW !!
http://thecolorrunsuedme.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/my-original-letter-to-...
I FB'ed them and they sent me this link: http://thecolorrun.com/689-2/
I FB'ed them and they sent me this link: http://thecolorrun.com/689-2/ or is this old news?
This is obviously a great learning experience for all....good and bad. My question to the Color Run is this........"did the person who is shown in the photo sign a model release when she signed up to run"?.....Her actual likeness/Image has been used....did she get paid as well?
I wonder if the girl in that photo knows she's everywhere promoting the color run?
JACKSON SAYS" “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. By him saying I work for SILVER BACK AND OR THE COLOR RUN , these companies own these images ,
I was paid by a company to take photographs of a famous person , after the shoot Verizon used my images to put up over 35 billboards in NYS , I didn't see a dollar besides the money I was paid for the shoot . Verizon had a contract with the company that paid me , if I was not hired by anyone and they just took the pictures off my website then yes that is v
wrong. If I am understanding the article correctly Jackson says he was hired by color run. And if he wasn't he still gave permission to use his images . He is going to settle out of court for a smaller amount , use his 15 minutes of fame , that he thinks will take him far, and will end up shooting weddings like the rest of us starving artist. Good luck , get a city job stay in school and put the camera down , wish someone would have said that to me 16 years ago .
Thats the price you pay for posting anything of FB. There is no creative morals anymore. It's rip it off and screw the small guy. Not knowing or being a beginner is no excuse. The price you pay for shooting digital and using the internet.