Chiefs Photographer sues Chiefs, others over use of photos to decorate Arrowhead

**Tribal Warfare** · 04-09-2011, 01:50 AM

Photographer sues Chiefs, others over use of photos to decorate Arrowhead
By MARK DAVIS
The Kansas City Star

Football fans who fell in love with the new Arrowhead Stadium last season should brace themselves. Many of the Chiefs photos saturating the place may have to come down.

So demands the man who took those photos over a 40-year history with the team but who says he was never paid for their use at the stadium.

Hank Young, a longtime area photographer, has sued the Chiefs and five other companies that he said never paid for or sought permission to use his many images of Chiefs games, players, cheerleaders and fans for the remodeled Arrowhead.

Instead, the lawsuit contends, the Chiefs obtained the photographs from Young’s archives “under false pretenses” and unsuccessfully tried to coerce him into handing over his copyrights to the pictures before ending his generation-long gig as Chiefs game-day photographer.

Young, who said he worked as an independent contractor and not a Chiefs employee, now wants those images torn down and destroyed if he isn’t paid.

“Hank’s preference, obviously, is to be paid,” said Patrick Stueve, Young’s attorney.

An attorney for the Chiefs said the team appreciated Young’s long service and were disappointed by the lawsuit.

“However, the Chiefs strongly disagree with Mr. Young’s version of the facts and claims, and plan to vigorously defend against them,” said a statement issued by Gregory Gerstner.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, stirs up the complexities of labor law and intellectual property rights. The fate of those stadium images, or at least their cost, depends on who owned what rights to those photos.

Young’s lawsuit contends that the Chiefs infringed on his copyrights and committed fraud in the process. The team has not yet replied in court.

He seeks removal and destruction of the images, unspecified amounts of actual and punitive damages, and at least $1.4 million in statutory damages at the rate of $150,000 for every instance in which his copyrights were infringed. Young’s petition cited 30 of his images used at Arrowhead, but he hasn’t been able to do a complete inventory. He also wants “any additional profits” of the defendants stemming from their use of the photos.

Fans see the contested images throughout the stadium, at entrances, in concessions areas, in the Hall of Honor, on walls and along the spiral walkways.

The collection ranges from emotional memories of players Derrick Thomas and Joe Delaney — who lost their lives in off-field accidents — to a photo of KC Wolf that points fans toward the stadium’s visitors center.

According to the lawsuit, Young took the photos as an independent contractor working for the team’s public relations department. He used his own equipment and made “all the creative decisions,” such as choosing which photos from the games to give to the public relations department.

Stueve said Young never received a regular check from the Chiefs, he had no boss there, and the team had no control over how he worked.

Those are among several tests that the Internal Revenue Service looks at to determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. The difference means money when it comes to collecting payroll taxes.

The greater point of dispute hinges on the extent to which the Chiefs had the right to use the images. Intellectual property rights — which establish who owns the creative product of work — have become increasingly disputed issues.

Typically, there’s no issue when an employee produces something working for an employer. Even contractors can run into trouble if their product is determined to be “work for hire.”

According to the lawsuit, the Chiefs’ use of Young’s photos over the years was governed by a “limited license” that he granted to the public relations department for “editorial content.” The team could use a photo of one of its players issued along with a press release.

Young, the suit said, was paid “an additional licensing fee” when the Chiefs used the photos for other purposes, such as for banners or posters, or to decorate a suite there.

Young was paid higher fees when the photos were used for “a sponsorship or other revenue-generating function,” the lawsuit said.

It said he even was paid for his time to search his 40-year archive for the type of photos the Chiefs requested. He thought recent requests were for a hall of fame connected to the stadium but not part of the concourse, and covered by the limited license.

Young, however, had worked on a handshake.

There was no written “limited license” document and no signed contract to take photos as either an employee or contractor, his attorney said. Instead, Stueve said, his client worked under an oral commitment over 40 years and that “course of conduct” can be the basis for the agreement.

“History and tradition demonstrates” that the Chiefs recognized Young was “the exclusive holder of the copyright” for his photos, the lawsuit said.

Besides, the team tried to “coerce” Young into signing over the copyright on the photos last summer, threatening to stop using him as the team’s game-day photographer, the lawsuit said.

“In essence, the Chiefs wanted to rewrite history and change the terms of a forty-year relationship,” the lawsuit said. “Mr. Young was offered no compensation for this unprecedented demand.”

Young, still unaware how the photos were being used at the stadium, was given a deadline to decide whether to sign over the copyrights — July 23, 2010.

It was the same day he learned what had been done — the day the New Arrowhead opened to outside viewers.

Young, according to the lawsuit, took one of the media tours and saw his photos everywhere.

At a meeting later with Chiefs President Mark Donovan, the lawsuit said, Young was told he would receive no additional compensation and would no longer be the game-day photographer for the team.

Although Jackson County owns the stadium, Young sued the Chiefs because the team managed and oversaw the renovations.

Young also sued Populous Inc. as the architect on the project and Workshop Design LLC as provider of graphic designs.

The lawsuit also names stadium sponsors Sprint, Hy-Vee and Time Warner, which used Young’s images in their own promotions at the stadium. Each had worked with Young previously and paid him for promotional use of his images and should have known to do so again, the lawsuit said.

Populous could not be reached, and none of the other firms would comment about the lawsuit.

04-09-2011, 01:50 AM	Topic Starter
Tribal Warfare Man of Culture Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $-2777187	Photographer sues Chiefs, others over use of photos to decorate Arrowhead Photographer sues Chiefs, others over use of photos to decorate Arrowhead By MARK DAVIS The Kansas City Star Football fans who fell in love with the new Arrowhead Stadium last season should brace themselves. Many of the Chiefs photos saturating the place may have to come down. So demands the man who took those photos over a 40-year history with the team but who says he was never paid for their use at the stadium. Hank Young, a longtime area photographer, has sued the Chiefs and five other companies that he said never paid for or sought permission to use his many images of Chiefs games, players, cheerleaders and fans for the remodeled Arrowhead. Instead, the lawsuit contends, the Chiefs obtained the photographs from Young’s archives “under false pretenses” and unsuccessfully tried to coerce him into handing over his copyrights to the pictures before ending his generation-long gig as Chiefs game-day photographer. Young, who said he worked as an independent contractor and not a Chiefs employee, now wants those images torn down and destroyed if he isn’t paid. “Hank’s preference, obviously, is to be paid,” said Patrick Stueve, Young’s attorney. An attorney for the Chiefs said the team appreciated Young’s long service and were disappointed by the lawsuit. “However, the Chiefs strongly disagree with Mr. Young’s version of the facts and claims, and plan to vigorously defend against them,” said a statement issued by Gregory Gerstner. The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, stirs up the complexities of labor law and intellectual property rights. The fate of those stadium images, or at least their cost, depends on who owned what rights to those photos. Young’s lawsuit contends that the Chiefs infringed on his copyrights and committed fraud in the process. The team has not yet replied in court. He seeks removal and destruction of the images, unspecified amounts of actual and punitive damages, and at least $1.4 million in statutory damages at the rate of $150,000 for every instance in which his copyrights were infringed. Young’s petition cited 30 of his images used at Arrowhead, but he hasn’t been able to do a complete inventory. He also wants “any additional profits” of the defendants stemming from their use of the photos. Fans see the contested images throughout the stadium, at entrances, in concessions areas, in the Hall of Honor, on walls and along the spiral walkways. The collection ranges from emotional memories of players Derrick Thomas and Joe Delaney — who lost their lives in off-field accidents — to a photo of KC Wolf that points fans toward the stadium’s visitors center. According to the lawsuit, Young took the photos as an independent contractor working for the team’s public relations department. He used his own equipment and made “all the creative decisions,” such as choosing which photos from the games to give to the public relations department. Stueve said Young never received a regular check from the Chiefs, he had no boss there, and the team had no control over how he worked. Those are among several tests that the Internal Revenue Service looks at to determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. The difference means money when it comes to collecting payroll taxes. The greater point of dispute hinges on the extent to which the Chiefs had the right to use the images. Intellectual property rights — which establish who owns the creative product of work — have become increasingly disputed issues. Typically, there’s no issue when an employee produces something working for an employer. Even contractors can run into trouble if their product is determined to be “work for hire.” According to the lawsuit, the Chiefs’ use of Young’s photos over the years was governed by a “limited license” that he granted to the public relations department for “editorial content.” The team could use a photo of one of its players issued along with a press release. Young, the suit said, was paid “an additional licensing fee” when the Chiefs used the photos for other purposes, such as for banners or posters, or to decorate a suite there. Young was paid higher fees when the photos were used for “a sponsorship or other revenue-generating function,” the lawsuit said. It said he even was paid for his time to search his 40-year archive for the type of photos the Chiefs requested. He thought recent requests were for a hall of fame connected to the stadium but not part of the concourse, and covered by the limited license. Young, however, had worked on a handshake. There was no written “limited license” document and no signed contract to take photos as either an employee or contractor, his attorney said. Instead, Stueve said, his client worked under an oral commitment over 40 years and that “course of conduct” can be the basis for the agreement. “History and tradition demonstrates” that the Chiefs recognized Young was “the exclusive holder of the copyright” for his photos, the lawsuit said. Besides, the team tried to “coerce” Young into signing over the copyright on the photos last summer, threatening to stop using him as the team’s game-day photographer, the lawsuit said. “In essence, the Chiefs wanted to rewrite history and change the terms of a forty-year relationship,” the lawsuit said. “Mr. Young was offered no compensation for this unprecedented demand.” Young, still unaware how the photos were being used at the stadium, was given a deadline to decide whether to sign over the copyrights — July 23, 2010. It was the same day he learned what had been done — the day the New Arrowhead opened to outside viewers. Young, according to the lawsuit, took one of the media tours and saw his photos everywhere. At a meeting later with Chiefs President Mark Donovan, the lawsuit said, Young was told he would receive no additional compensation and would no longer be the game-day photographer for the team. Although Jackson County owns the stadium, Young sued the Chiefs because the team managed and oversaw the renovations. Young also sued Populous Inc. as the architect on the project and Workshop Design LLC as provider of graphic designs. The lawsuit also names stadium sponsors Sprint, Hy-Vee and Time Warner, which used Young’s images in their own promotions at the stadium. Each had worked with Young previously and paid him for promotional use of his images and should have known to do so again, the lawsuit said. Populous could not be reached, and none of the other firms would comment about the lawsuit.
Posts: 43,419