I wanted to respond personally to this matter. As the founder of The Color Run, I’ve had the opportunity to work with many successful creative partnerships of all sizes, including amazing photographers. I respect their ability to capture the essence of our event and fully believe that they deserve attribution for their work to showcase their talents. This issue with Max is a single anomaly and quite frankly makes me sad. Max first came to shoot The Color Run because we granted his school class non-commercial access to come shoot the race in Miami where the photos in question were taken. After this, Max actually ended up working our events over the next year as a non-photographer and traveling and setting up with our traveling teams.
About a year later, Max first initiated questions about the use of some of the Miami photos. We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks. Our offers were declined, and met with the following demandslanguage taken from legal filings)
-”$100,000.00 US deposited into my business bank account” (This amount went on to be raised by Max to $300,000).
-”To be named the Official Photography Sponsor of The Color Run (Globally) for the remainder of its existence.”
-”Max Jackson Logo to be added in sponsors section on the bottom of all web pages”
-”My name to read at the bottom of any TCR photo’s used in legible print from the next print run forward as, Photograph by Max Jackson”
-”if no efforts are made within 15 days, to contact me I will be forced to take further action”
Understandably, these demands were quite difficult. They went far outside professional compensation and credit for photography work. We discussed other options, and ultimately when Max said he was planning to sue rather than continue a dialogue, there was little option left but to defend our rights through the legal system. I have been and will continue to be at the table to visit about how to resolve this outstanding issue.
As hard as it is to see tweets calling you a “#scumbag”, I love the Internet and its ability to give everyone a voice. I also appreciate the opportunity to share more information and insight into a complex situation. My personal hope and intention has always been to get this resolved directly, amicably, and fairly.
2 sides to a story. Not sure if it is true the words came from legal filing. Would be great if the company had video records of the meeting with the other party where he was offered money compensation and rejected it, said those words and made those demands. If the company has such video record, it should not reveal, until after the other party denies under oath in Court that he ever said those demands.
In the very, very, VERY first place, why did the company misused the young photographer's photo first? That is an infringement to his rights first and foremost.
"We sat down and genuinely tried to reach an amicable solution, including offering financial compensation and exposure through our networks. Our offers were declined, and met with the following demands
language taken from legal filings"
We don't know what kind of financial compensation and 'exposure' they first offered the photographer to brush him away, but apparently it was unsatisfactory and caused him to react in legal towards the infringement. If I remember correctly, punitive damages in the US may be up to $100,000 per infringement.
Theoretically unlimited. Although they have some limits (see ratio below) now, punitive damages exceeding the ratio have been approved in some cases.
There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay. In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.