Publication and ownership rights Formula 1 photo

[Rienk]

Hi,

This is my first post and I do appreciate al the positive feedback you are giving.

I took this photo during the Formula 1 championship in 2016 Belgium SPA-FRANCORCHAMPS

Recently I edited and this came out. I like to contribute this to the public domain (I understand it is not that good)

However, formally, can I do this? Do I own the rights of this photo, is it mine or is it somehow owned by Redbull and or liberty(ahum) media?

Thank you in advance!

[Manfred M]

That would be a question for a lawyer in Belgium that specializes in intellectual property law, not one of us amateurs here at a photography website. I have no idea of how Belgian law covers the whole issue of copyright and as the shot was taken on private property (the Francochamps racetrack), which has a business arrangement with Liberty Media which in turn has business arrangements with the individual F1 teams, which have business arrangements with the individual drivers, etc.

Had you taken the shot on one of the public street courses, the answer would probably be simpler.

[rpcrowe]

I can't make any suggestion about ownership rigts to this image but, I do suggest two relatively minor corrections..

1. The image is backlit. I would suggest brightening it a bit. I selected it with control points using NIK Viveza-2 and then opened up the shadows and brightened the image a TAD.

2. The image is sort of floating around with no horizon to judge. I would suggest leveling the car. I used the Camera RAW filter of Photoshop and simply rotate the image a TAD...

[Shadowman]

Try this link. I usually check an organizations rules of engagement prior to attending, I've found some events that won't even allow "professional cameras".

http://www.spa-francorchamps.be/en/press

[Manfred M]

Try this link. I usually check an organizations rules of engagement prior to attending, I've found some events that won't even allow "professional cameras".

http://www.spa-francorchamps.be/en/press

This is purely aimed at the press and does not cover off the question that was asked.

Many "professional" events do not allow any photography outside of what the event organizer authorizes.

[rpcrowe]

Try this link. I usually check an organizations rules of engagement prior to attending, I've found some events that won't even allow "professional cameras".

That way of excluding cameras always bothers me. What is a "professional camera" is a Canon 350D with a 55-250mm lens a "professional camera" or is a 1DX Mark II with a 40mm f/2.8 "Pancake Lens" a "professonal camera".

I have a hunch that you could very likely pass into a venue that excluded "professional cameras" if you were carrying the Canon 1DX Mark II with the Pancake mounted and be very lkely to be excluded with the Rebel and 55-250mm lens. BECAUSE THE 55-250mm IS PHYSICALLY LONGER THAN THE 40MM PANCAKE.

That said, if you were allowed to enter with the pancake mounted 1DX Mark II, you could just as easily be excluded the next time because of how the gate person interpreted that entirely vague "professional camera" regulation

And... telephoning in advance will not assure you of entrance. That entrance is entirely at the whim of the security guard...

The San Diego Poinsettia Bowl football game has a very reasonable regulation. You can bring in any camera you wish but, you are asked not to shoot during the actual play. You can shoot the pre-game, half-time, and post-game activities but not the play...

[Shadowman]

That way of excluding cameras always bothers me. What is a "professional camera" is a Canon 350D with a 55-250mm lens a "professional camera" or is a 1DX Mark II with a 40mm f/2.8 "Pancake Lens" a "professonal camera".

I have a hunch that you could very likely pass into a venue that excluded "professional cameras" if you were carrying the Canon 1DX Mark II with the Pancake mounted and be very lkely to be excluded with the Rebel and 55-250mm lens. BECAUSE THE 55-250mm IS PHYSICALLY LONGER THAN THE 40MM PANCAKE.

That said, if you were allowed to enter with the pancake mounted 1DX Mark II, you could just as easily be excluded the next time because of how the gate person interpreted that entirely vague "professional camera" regulation

And... telephoning in advance will not assure you of entrance. That entrance is entirely at the whim of the security guard...

The San Diego Poinsettia Bowl football game has a very reasonable regulation. You can bring in any camera you wish but, you are asked not to shoot during the actual play. You can shoot the pre-game, half-time, and post-game activities but not the play...

Or how about a mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens, the camera might pass inspection but if the lens has extension then no go. You might've mentioned a mirrorless in your description of the Canon models but I'm not that familiar with the brand. Also, would a bridge camera get by security, anything shiny might look professional to a non-camera enthusiast. I like the Poinsettia Bowl rules and I would attend that event just because bowl games are a spectacle beyond just the game. If cameras weren't allowed I probably wouldn't attend most events.

[William W]

. . . This is my first post and I do appreciate al the positive feedback you are giving.

I took this photo during the Formula 1 championship in 2016 Belgium SPA-FRANCORCHAMPS . . . I like to contribute this to the public domain (I understand it is not that good).

However, formally, can I do this? Do I own the rights of this photo, is it mine or is it somehow owned by Redbull and or liberty(ahum) media?

I agree with Manfred, that the best (definitive) answer will come from a Lawyer expert in this aspect of Belgian Law.

However, from experience shooting (big event) Sports in several Countries (Australia; USA; New Zealand, England and Canada) I offer the following points:

1. Belgium is (I understand) a Signatory to the Berne Convention

2. You almost certainly own the Copyright to the Photograph (because of (1.)).

3. The Terms and Condition of ENTRY to the sporting event will likely be (or would have been) on your ticket, on the purchase website and at the entry gates - the PURCHASE of the ticket binds you to these T&C contractually.

4. Within those Terms and Conditions of ENTRY to the event, there was most likely a paragraph concerning the PUBLICATION (or maybe USE) of any images made by the holder of said ticket: usually these conditions always prohibit publication for profit and/or commercial use; additionally, it is not uncommon that these condition prohibit "Publication".

5. If the Terms and Conditions of entry prohibit 'Publication' - then that is your answer - and that means technically you are in error (and liable) publishing the image on this forum.

6. Additionally, the Terms and Conditions might have prohibited 'Photography' - then you are already liable, without publishing any image.

So I suggest that if you do not want to pay for a Lawyer's opinion, (and I think that is unnecessary, unless you know one who will give a solid opinion for a beer or two) - then you should firstly investigate the T&C of entry to the event.

Having looked at all that - then the bottom line is to consider what would happen - for example let's assume you have no PUBLISHING or USAGE rights - you've already published the image here (which makes you liable) and (my opinion is) the Formula 1 Cooperatives will not be chasing you down to sue you for millions of euro: the rationale being this is an interactive PHOTOGRAPHY Forum and it is a nice photo of an interesting topic and people (i.e. other photographers) will and have commented on the photography and you've provided a free 'plug' for the event and it seems you had fun there - so that's good secondary advertising for the Sponsors and the Event Coordinators - so the corporate world is happy.

On the other hand, if (as an example only) you published the same photo on your website and on that website you portrayed yourself as a "Sports Photographer", or a "Professional Photographer" or similar, even if you were not selling this particular image, but merely showing it as an example of you 'work' - then it is likely you'd receive a take-down order quick smart and that could be followed by legal proceedings.

WW

[Rienk]

Thank you all for your insights.
It is more clear to me know that owning the foto and having publishing rights is not the same thing. Which is a complex matter. The terms and conditions is a very good starting point.

@rpcrowe thank you for your suggestions. The straightening is nice indeed. I was not aware of the backlit which is indeed present. Currently I use photoshop elements as primary and will play with that. It's not the best of photo as the main point for me was better understanding the ) the publishing rights and its complexity.

[shreds]

I do a lot of gig photography and similar terms get thrown at you to prevent you using the images without authorisation (and them taking a large slice of the fee).

In that respect the organisers often specify a professional cameras as one with a changeable lens, but would they notice a Leica? Particularly if you covered up the red dot.

Generally not worth the hassle, so I make it my business to either get a local newspaper to get me a press pass on their account or to know the band or the promotor (in your case someone on the team or the venue), to get you authorised.

I have achieved that with some very well known names, but the disclaimer you still have to sign suggests you should not be putting them on the web.

I know of a commercial business who had a photographer shoot some on-site shots apparently that because of their client, lost them a significant contract worth thousands and they have struggled to get back on good terms with their client. As such they are very choosey about who can take cameras on their site. Luckily for a few of us with common sense, we continue to be allowed the freedom, but again if we want to publish anything we submit it for their approval first, which is usually forthcoming.

Its much the same for sports events. Did anyone venture to Russia with a large DSLR to capture the England or French teams and try to beat the restrictions. Unlikely unless you were invited and had a numbered vest.

A bit like DavidEdric on here, whose relative snapped away at the Royal Wedding in Windsor on behalf of the Press Association recently. Being invited usually gets you the best slot and angles, but for professional events that is not an easy win.

Regards your shot, I would like to see a tiny bit of wheel spin movement in the spokes to show the car was travelling at speed. Experience with this sort of shot will allow you to get the right camera shutter speed and 'pan' accordingly, which gives a nice bokeh to the background.

[William W]

. . .
It is more clear to me know that owning the foto and having publishing rights is not the same thing. . . .

Correct. These are not the same.

And for clarity, owning a Photograph is not the same as owning the Copyright to a Photograph.

A simple example: I make this image (below) at a Sports Event -



Then I make a large print of that image and I give (or sell) that PRINT to the Management or the Event Coordinators and I give them permission (i.e. "Usage Rights") to display the Print over the entry desk at the Sports Complex.

Now, in this case, I own the COPYRIGHT to the image, but the Sports Centre owns the Photograph they are displaying.

The significance of the difference is best explained this way -

1. Even though the Sports Centre owns the Photograph, they are NOT allowed to make copies of the Photograph, without my express permission, because I own the "copy-right".

2. No one else may make a copy of the Photograph, without my express permission, even if the Sports Centre says that they can.

Now of course what happens in real life is Tourists and Visitors take photos of Sports' Venues all the time, and in many those Photographs my images might be captured - do I care about that, no, I do not.

What could trigger a take-down order and/or legal action would be if someone made a photograph, specifically of my work and and used it to their advantage, for example alluding to it being an example of their work.

WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2018 WMW 1965~1996

[Shadowman]

On another note and it was alluded to in the first post, if you are at a sporting event and photography is still allowed you may have limited use of the images if the team logo appears in the shot, the restrictions/allowances may clearly state that images can only be used for personal use not commercial use, this might be the case with the case with the image posted as it has corporate names and the vehicles themselves are marketing instruments.

[William W]

. . . and specifying what John (Shadowman) mentioned is "multiple", not "singular" in this case - what I mean is, (as he mentioned 'corporate names' - plural) i.e. "AT&T"; Total"; "Red Bull"; "TAG Heuer" . . .

And I have known instances when an image was not being used for direct commercial use, but rather being used "in association with".

I'll give you the broad details: again a sporting event (it was swimming). At big meets, the Main Sponsors' logos usually appear along the skirt of the Pool Deck parallel to lanes 0 and 9, so any shot across the width of the pool will capture those logos.

A few images were subsequently used by a local swimming club on their facebook and home web page - so far so good, that in many sports circles is considered reasonable use, a local club showing off their own swimmers, at a major meet: even though technically the club was probably in breach (actually several breaches): no harm, no foul. The raison d'être is to promote swimming and get the younger kids interested and stimulated: a 12 year old making an entry time for a major meet deserves acknowledgement.

In this case, the catch was, the Local Swimming Club had their own sponsors listed on their website and facebook page: one of the sponsors was the local Hotel. We might think "fair enough, the local publican donates a few grand a year to the swimming club - that's good."

However, the Major Sponsors of the big swimming meet (their logos being quite clear and dominate in many of the images on the facebook and website page) were concerned that 'by association' they could be seen to be endorsing young swimmers be associated with alcohol consumption and gambling or generally that their business would be associated with those two activities. So, in this case, a take down order was executed by one of the Main Event Sponsors.

WW