Selling your own V8 photos that you've taken yourself......it's illegal

[Lowndesfan6]

Is everyone aware that selling your own V8 Supercar photos (photos you've taken yourself) is illegal. (Against the Intellectual property Act)

You would think a photo taken by yourself is your own copyright, but taking your own pics of the V8's is in actual fact copyright owned by AVESCO and selling this product which hasn't been endorsed by AVESCO is illegal.

There appears to be a large volume of people on ebay selling their own photos and are likely to be sued by AVESCO is caught.

It's a huge problem, the teams don't like it either, cause it's taking money away from them.
I know for a fact that one guy got sued by AVESCO in 2003 for over $300,000 for this.

That's why businesses like sportspics pay a royalty to AVESCO for every photo of the V8's that they sell.

BE AWARE

For comment............

[buza]

Thanks for the warrning
It's a bit harsh to get sued for taking photos don't you think

[Scott75]

Why doesn't that surprise me, it should be called restraint of trade. TC just wants more money for himself. What if the photos you've taken are before AVESCO arrived, in which I have plenty, surely they can't stop me with them.

[eduardo1]

It's a similar deal to any entertainment event.

You can't even take photos at many concerts, and you would certainly be sued by promoters if you did take them and tried to sell them to Ebay.

Remember AVESCO represents the teams - and the teams don't want it.

The reasons are that, up to around 10 years ago, many photographers (some of whom were accredited 'freelance' photographers) were using these passes to take quality photos, and then getting drivers to sign them as if they were just a fan.

Autographed photos of this quality can often be worth something, or would be over time.

As the sport became more professional, drivers were beginning to release their own Autographed merchandise, including photos, as special editions. These unauthorised versions dilute that market and ruin the exclusivity.

The same would go at the cricket. Imagine if an amateur photographer with good lenses got a shot of Shane Warne holding up the cricket ball that he broke the World Record with. He then sells it on, and Tony Greig's overpriced versions are worth less, and Warney doesn't get his cut. TG would have the 'Lion on the line' and you'd be sued, with damages, and banned from every cricket ground in the country.

People who do this are profting from the images of sportspeople/entertainers, who then don't receive any income from this.

Now I think the old guy whose wife has told him to clear the attic, and he wants to sell his photos to someone who might care for them or treasure them the way he has, should be given latitude, but AVESCO has every right to chase down people who do this sort of thing on a regular basis.

Remember, accredited photographers are forbidden to sell any photos to anyone other than media outlets or for advertisements, without express permission from AVESCO, and have to pay a premium for that. So they are losing out as well.

If someone wants to set up a business selling motorsport photos - AVESCO isn't necessarily stopping them - they are simply insisting that they pay the proper royalties to the sport and the drivers/teams.

[naughtymutt]

If you look in the Programme (or on the back of the ticket) that you purchase at most motorsports events (even Club racing here in the UK). It says that only take photos/video for personal use (not broadcast) without their premission.

No big deal, its been like that for years.

[rdmdog]

Why would you not want to share them for free?

[naughtymutt]

capitalism

[rdmdog]

Meh, call me a Commie then!

[GTRMagic]

Moved to the Motorsport Art forum, where people more aware of the copyright problems associated with motorsport photogrpahy can comment....

[alfacors]

Originally Posted by rdmdog

Why would you not want to share them for free?

Some people use it to make a few bucks. I'm happy to get prints done for people so long as they cover the print and post costs, but I'm not making money off of it. But then, I'm not using a media pass to gain profit, and AVESCO has already profited from my ticket/paddock pass etc.

The only photos I have signed from the Grand Finale are ones which are visible on my website anyway - so no exclusivity there

It's been this way at the F1 for ages, although I believe you're not even supposed to display the pics publically under Bernie's rules (goes and hides his public F1 gallery).....

[vwpilot]

This is totally normal and not out of the ordinary. Whenever you take a photo of anything that has some recognizable aspect to it is YOUR property, but you cannot profit off of thier likeness without their permission.

In motorsports this goes for the drivers, the teams, any and ALL recognizable logos and sponsors on the cars, the manufacturers, the sanctioning body and the track if it is a recognizable aspect of the photo.

All series do this, its their image that is providing the photo for you and any profit you make off of it they also have a right to. I shoot the ALMS and Speed WC and its the same. Some series, such as NASCAR are VERY aggressive in their protection of this, others are not.

Its no different than any other pro sports, you cannot profit off of a photo taken by a NFL, MLB, NBA or any other pro sport player either without the permission of that player and the league.

The only loophole for this is in the way of editorial use. You can sell anything you take for editorial use without the permission of anyone. So you can sell to a newspaper or magazine without problem, but not to a private citizen or sponsor or anything like that.

It certainly limits our rights as photographers, but the idea is to protect the images of the individuals and the entities putting on these events and teh sponsors paying for them.

For instance, if Coke is a major sponsor for a race or series they do not want the images used to promote Pepsi products.

However, most times if you are selling something that does not conflict with sponsorship or other things, you can often get the permission you want. If you are going to set up something to sell hundreds of photos, you will likely need to cut them in, but if you are selling one or two photos to a kid for his room, you can get the permission generally without issue unless you have a series like NASCAR that wants to hold firm control on everything.

Sucks, but its the law and not something that is out of the ordinary.