Exclusive Photographer Contract Violation

[smoke665]

Was this photographer retained by the track association? If not, no violation of that clause. "Retained" would normally mean that he had been approached by the client and was receiving some form of remuneration from them.

Though I'm not an attorney I have written 1,000's of contracts over the years which were then reviewed by my attorney. Very seldom was the wording changed. I think as "tiredion" stated, using the word "retained" puts you out of luck for any contract violation, because obviously the association didn't "retain" the newspaper or the journalist working for them. Whether the journalist was actually employed by the paper as an employee or a contract employee he was still the newspaper's agent and not acting on behalf of the association. You on the other hand could be held liable for contract default if you fail to pay the association the agreed upon amount. While the association, may be entitled to prohibit entry into your "exclusive" area, it's doubtful that they could prevent the photographer from taking pictures from any public access area, and or the newspaper publishing those pictures.

 

[TheLibrarian]

From what you've provided it doesn't seem like there is any penalty if they breach this that or another area of the contract anyway. If I were president of some childrens motocross track i would just stop working with you entirely considering you aren't making much for yourself or them and now you're a problem.

The newspaper journalist is not there to sell pics to children and i generally feel anyone demanding exclusive rights to childrens sporting events is kind of... in the first place.

 

[orljustin]

I'd boot you for being a PITA about something which doesn't affect the intent of the agreement which is about you selling prints. Not making you the press photographers for the location, and it doesn't even sound like that was something you initially offered to do/provide.

 

[Braineack]

seriously.

 

[CCericola]

Sounds like you don't want to continue the job, so stop. As for the photojournalist; I think you are stretching the meaning of your clause a bit. Editorial coverage doesn't seem to fall under the wording of your clause.

So sales are bad and maybe keeping the 20% will make you feel better but face it. It will burn your bridges with them and any other organization they associate with.

From my perspective. And I don't know you personally but, keeping the money does kinda make you look like bit of a douche. If it really isn't making the income you want just don't do it anymore instead of possibly ruining your reputation.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Did it impact you personally?

Is there any reason, besides the violation of the terms, that you should be upset?

Yeah, it sucks that you didn't get your photo in the paper, but that's the newspapers' job, not yours.

Honestly, it's probably not worth the trouble. If this is a relationship that is giving you income on a regular basis you don't want to damage that relationship. Though, perhaps the damage has already been done.

I had a similar situation to this myself. My photo was used without my permission. And I was upset about it. We were friends so we were able to talk it out, but it doesn't sound like you're personal friends with the president.

To him, you're just another pawn. A revenue source. If you become more trouble than you're worth then they would probably not want to work with you anymore.

If you really cared you could try suing them for breach of contract, but what would that do except give you the reputation that you sue your clients? And according to your contract, the only punishment for violating this anyway is that you don't pay them. And that's not going to make anyone happy.

The best thing to do in these situations is prevention. Make sure the client clearly understands the contract terms beforehand. If they mess it up, it's because you didn't explain it well enough. Now you know in the future, if you care, to include something about editorial rights.

 

[Braineack]

That's not a similar situation whatsoever.

 

[pixmedic]

before I went off on any wild tangents to the facility or administration, I would take that contract and have it looked over by a lawyer experienced in that sort of thing and...
first: see if its even written properly for what you want to do/provide based on what the facility wants you to do/provide.
second: if there ARE any inconsistencies with the wording , find out what the proper wording should be for the above mentioned.
third. if..and i mean IF, the contract was good, and the facility DID somehow breach the aforementioned contract...is it actually worth pursuing to any degree.

you might find a simple conversation with whoever is in charge there to clarify both positions to be more fruitful than crying contractual foul.

 

[tecboy]

I'll just blurt out. The contract is pretty strict. I think the president has a hard time following it.

 

[DGMPhotography]

before I went off on any wild tangents to the facility or administration, I would take that contract and have it looked over by a lawyer experienced in that sort of thing and...
first: see if its even written properly for what you want to do/provide based on what the facility wants you to do/provide.
second: if there ARE any inconsistencies with the wording , find out what the proper wording should be for the above mentioned.
third. if..and i mean IF, the contract was good, and the facility DID somehow breach the aforementioned contract...is it actually worth pursuing to any degree.

you might find a simple conversation with whoever is in charge there to clarify both positions to be more fruitful than crying contractual foul.

This. If you really want the best advice and insight, you may want to talk to your lawyer. Hope we've helped though.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think exclusive in this situation would mean the photographer is the only one permitted to take photos at these events and sell/license usage to participants, their families, fans, etc.

I doubt it means this photographer is the only one allowed to shoot in restricted areas. Or that other media such as newspaper reporters and photographers wouldn't be allowed to be there and take photos/write articles for their publications' use.

There's a difference between taking photos and how they're used.

Get on http://asmp.org or PPA and look at resources and get informed.

(Granted maybe it's a similar situation but doesn't sound the same.)

 

[Braineack]

That's not a similar situation whatsoever.

@DGMPhotography Your friend used a photo of yours without permission. How is that similar to having a contract to be the only photographer allowed special access to an event, and the event host then allowing a photographer from a newspaper also have access?

hint: they aren't similar. Only similar since the word "photo*" was used in the sentence.

 

[robbins.photo]

After all of this hopefully you've come to appreciate the subtle genius of my psychotic wombat plan...

Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[DGMPhotography]

That's not a similar situation whatsoever.

@DGMPhotography Your friend used a photo of yours without permission. How is that similar to having a contract to be the only photographer allowed special access to an event, and the event host then allowing a photographer from a newspaper also have access?

hint: they aren't similar. Only similar since the word "photo*" was used in the sentence.

It's similar in that in each case, the client broke the rules of the agreement. In any case, not really worth arguing about.

 

[vintagesnaps]

That sounds like a bit of a stretch... I think there's a difference between being an amateur or hobbyist in photography who wouldn't know about the business of photography, and being a pro or aspiring professional photographer - that's when it's necessary to learn this stuff.

Or just go with the wombats.