I took images of the Volvo Ocean Race today, as they departed from Rio.  I will submit them in macrostock sites as editorial.

So, I understand such images may not be used commercially without a release.  Does it also mean that I can not sell them as prints myself?  If so, why?  It is an open event.

Regards,
Adelaide

I took images of the Volvo Ocean Race today, as they departed from Rio.  I will submit them in macrostock sites as editorial.

So, I understand such images may not be used commercially without a release.  Does it also mean that I can not sell them as prints myself?  If so, why?  It is an open event.

Regards,
Adelaide

I have scads of images like that ... but of motorcycle racing.  Some of my stuff is more than 25 years old.  I've found a use for it at CutCaster as Exclusive Editorial.  Some media specializes in "Vintage" images. 

I'm not sure that your country is the same as the US but I cannot sell it as prints.  What I have tried in the past is to get releases from the riders and use it in calendars.  That didn't work.  A few of them ignored me.  Nine month calendars don't sell very well.   

I live in Brazil.  Does it matter?

Warren, in your case, were the photos taken in a racing track?  I understand that when we pay for an entrance fee it is written somewhere that photos can only be taken for personal use.  I can make a poster of a photo fo Shamu, but I can not sell them.  What I don't understand is how this can be applied to an open air event.  It doesn't make sense to me.  It's ok that images can't be used for advertisement, but why can't I sell a printed copy of a photo I took from the beach?

Regards,
Adelaide

Yeah it does because the rules vary from country to country.

And what if it was in the USA?

I live in Brazil.  Does it matter?

Warren, in your case, were the photos taken in a racing track?  I understand that when we pay for an entrance fee it is written somewhere that photos can only be taken for personal use.  I can make a poster of a photo fo Shamu, but I can not sell them.  What I don't understand is how this can be applied to an open air event.  It doesn't make sense to me.  It's ok that images can't be used for advertisement, but why can't I sell a printed copy of a photo I took from the beach?

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes, Adelaide, I was at race tracks but not paid entrance.  I had press credentials. 
As YingYang stated, I am not allowed to use images of another person for commercial purposes (advertising, promotions, or etc) without that person's permission.  It's pretty much the same reason Stock will not accept the images without a model release. 
Also, the same applies to registered trademark and/or logos ... except that would be a property release.
That makes me wonder if a Model Release would be enough.  Would I also need property releases for the machine he rode and the clothing and equipment he wore?  It is very confusing.

I tend to agree with you, Adelaide, especially if you are simply selling them locally.  My understanding is that "at worst" the person/product in the photo would issue a "cease and desist."  Easier to get forgiveness than permission.   

I'm am processing some images from an event this past weekend that I plan to offer as "FREE" screensavers.  I'm not so sure that I can do even that.  I've asked one of the agencies for clarification.

Unless you plan to use the image for general distribution (stock) I, personally, would take the money.

Hey Adelaide,

Don't stress...  as long as you're selling the prints for "personal use only" there are no problems. 
...
For some reasons [sic], simple questions can't get simple answers on this site anymore.   

Cheers,  JC

As for Adelaide's actual question: The closest to a "simple" answer I could find is in Brazil's copyright law, Lei no. 9610, Chapter IV, Article 48, that allows "works permanently situated in public areas [to be] represented freely, by means of paintings, audiovisuals, drawings, photographs and procedures." That's a more photographer friendly law than we have here in the US so I suspect you'd be ok Adelaide, but you'd still want to check with someone that actually speak the language about the laws of your country.

@JC-SL - I think it is strange that people are willing to criticize others that are actually researching the correct answers and trying to help. I'm sorry that giving off-the-cuff "simple" answers to questions about the laws of foreign countries isn't my style. I prefer to error on the side of caution. For instance, your answer would be wrong here in the US. I own a sailboat and my mainsail has a unique design by a local artist. He'd be within his rights to sue for infringement if someone were to sell photographs of my boat. Such is the world we live in.

For some reasons [sic], people can't give thoughtful, researched answers without others rolling their eyes on this site anymore. 

Such is the world we live in.

Yingyang, thanks for your research. It is a strange world indeed. I think there is too much stress on "copyrights" and "ownership". Ericsson, Telef�nica and Puma are sponsoring the boats, and IMHO they should be happy if people hang photos of the ships with their names on the wall.

It sounds a bit insane that I can photograph, print and hang a photo I took of the boats, but I can not sell a copy to the guy who was next to me, who did not have the equipment or the expertise to take such a photo himself (even if I can here, as you say I could not in the USA). Of course, it is unlikely that I have a problem with this type of personal approach (even in the USA) but it would be a problem if I had the images in Smugmug, Art.com or something similar. It is still insane. 

Regards,
Adelaide

If you sell that poster to anyone, you must have a property release from Sea World.

I agree, but then you are talking about an attraction in a closed place, and it seems they even write this is the ticket to make it clearer.  Of course this doesn't prevent one from selling on a personal basis - to a neighbour, for instance.

Regards,
Adelaide

...  Nine month calendars don't sell very well.   

Priceless!

Quote from: Phil on April 13, 2009, 20:13

to earlier if you take a pic me sprawled over my ferrari (maybe in a couple of years , ferrari dont allow you to sell it (probably only wife would buy it, but thats not the point because of copyright on their vehicle.

Phil

Now there's an image!

*shaking head to get image out of head*

It would be useful if someone on this forum who sells "personal-use" prints would chime in (explaining legal rights/issues for the respective country - ideally after consulting a legal representative).

As some stated above I am totally under the impression that as soon as there is money involved I tap into commercial grounds which could heavily upset potential copyright owners.

Remember without the boat, yacht, race car or whatever you are photographing the picture would be quite boring. So in the end only the years of engineering and millions of $$$ from their sponsors make it possible to even take that picture. Now most of the people think that they can make money off of that because the guy next to them doesn't have a camera with them at the time or doesn't know how to handle a D-SLR? 

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me.

Or let's look at this: You take a photo of a race car (Nascar, Formula 1 whatever). In order to be sure that you can sell your photo as a print simply contact the manufacturer of the car, the racing team, the driver, the tire manufacturer, the sponsors, the management of the race track where you took the picture and find out if they approve it. If yes, then I believe you have solid grounds to charge money for prints. I know that people do this all the time but I think they simply fly under the radar and that they might get away with it while they're lucky...

Here's another one: Let's say you take a photo and sell it through SS and it gets downloaded and used for a huge billboard along a major highway. Let's say the advertising company that bought the picture made some amazing piece of advertising out of it so that people would want to have a picture taken with them and the board in the background (or maybe without them in the frame if they are not so pretty...). Now since not all people who would want to do that, know how to work a camera, they would have to ask someone else to take the picture for them. Since some professionals won't work for free you would have to pay them in order to get that picture taken and printed.
So is this still "ok" to see that along that highway people take pics of your billboard photo charging money for prints? I look at it that way, without your photo the billboard wouldn't exist as such and therefore there wouldn't be any picture the people would want. So since your work is an integral part of this photo I believe you have rights to claim compensation.

I understand that this is by far not common practice but I don't think that it's legal either. In many, many, many (did I say many?) cases the copyright owners, models or property owners don't have a clue what happens with their unreleased stuff.

Adelaide,
I think (pretty sure) that sailor picture is Public Domain.  I think the other is an old National Geographic image that has probably found its way into Public Domain.

There is a good read at Wikipedia on Public Domain.  It also emphasizes the difference in national and international copyright law.

Warren,

I am not sure about the sailor image, but I am almost certain NGS owns the girl's photo.  It is not found in any site for sale, but it is for sale in NGS site and on Steve McCurry's site, and I would doubt NGS would let it be public domain for nothing, as it is one of the most famous images ever.  This image was taken in 1984, so according to the copyright rules in the Public Domain text in Wikipedia, it would fall into what we have discussed here at MSG before:

A work that is created (i.e. fixed in tangible form for the first time) after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term lasting for the author�s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author�s death. In the case of �a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,� the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author�s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author�s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.