PDA

View Full Version : Can they do this? Legal question


PoohJen
09-30-2007, 01:27 PM
yeah, yeah, I'm a lawyer, but this isn't my area of expertise...

Yesterday at DS10's soccer game, a boy handed out flyers that were advertising action shots from that day's games. You go to their website, see if there are any pictures of your child, and then you can buy that picture.

I looked around and sure enough, down near the end of the field was a photographer with a very nice, pro-looking lens. I asked him (didn't mean to be confrontational) about whether he could legally do this.

He responded "it's public property, I can take these pictures".

I didn't dispute this, I disputed whether he could publish pictures of my child - and SELL them - over the internet.

He responded "I don't publish them". Yes you do, you post them on the internet. It says so in your advertisement.

"A 3d party vendor hosts the website." Uh. duh. You contract with that vendor to put them on the internet for you; doesn't make a difference!

We ended the conversation amicably, but I know that neither of us know what the real scoop is here.

So, the question is:

Can someone take unsolicited pictures of minors - i.e., SPECIFICALLY taking pictures of individual kids - post them openly on the internet and then sell them to anyone who wants one?

This field is used by the city recreation dept. (there's a sharing arrangement, I can't say for sure that it is public property). This was a simple, 10 year old recreation league. I'm reminded of that pedophile in the news recently, taking pictures of little girls in parks. Had he sold them on the internet (these would just be park pics, not lewd), would that be ok? :confused3

milkabum
09-30-2007, 01:30 PM
I'm only 13, so I don't know, but if at school they hand out image release forms, I don't see how this situation is any different.

If the newspaper photographers come to our school, the first thing they do is give out forms to those that will be photographed and possibly put in the newspaper. These people didn't even orally ask for anyone's permission, so I doubt that this is legal.

PoohJen
09-30-2007, 01:36 PM
Very good, Emily - you can be an attorney too!:thumbsup2

My point exactly, no release was given.


I just check the website, and there were pictures from my other son's recreational football league there! I must say, I felt uncomfortable seeing pictures of local 6 year old girls in cheerleader uniforms up there for sale! I wonder if their moms and dads know about this?

I want to add that the photographer was super nice, and I know he doesn't mean to be doing anything wrong. I don't want to imply that. Just wondering the bottom line on privacy law these days...

Nikel
09-30-2007, 03:13 PM
Journalism excluded, nope, it's not allowed. To use images for commercial purposes (whether it's just having them on his website ot business cards or selling them, it's all considered commercial use), there needs to be a release. I believe in some instances a verbal release is okay, but I always use a signed paper release, to cover my rear. And in the case of minors, a guardian has to be the one giving the release. That's my understanding of the law anyway.

jann1033
09-30-2007, 03:46 PM
legality aside it would seem like common sense for the guy should get releases just to cover himself so he can't be accused of selling pictures to someone unsavory. to bad the world is so sick but ....

Anewman
09-30-2007, 03:48 PM
Parent gives league permission.
League gives photographer permission.

RBennett
09-30-2007, 04:04 PM
I'm not really sure of the exacts, but I know I belong to a fight league, kind of like UFC, and at all of our fights we have at least one photographer there and sure enough you can go and buy 4x6s for like $4.99 off of their website. I know I have never seen a release, but maybe I just missed it somehow. :confused3 Now whether or not it's legal, I guess that might be where you use your connections and maybe contact a commercial lawyer and just ask their opinion.

Master Mason
09-30-2007, 05:06 PM
If the league grants permision, then they can do so. If you have a problem with it, you need to contact the league to find out if permission was given. If not you would have cause for them to be removed.

Also, there should at least be a password that is required to view said photos, (this part is an opinion only)

PoohJen
09-30-2007, 05:22 PM
Parent gives league permission.
League gives photographer permission.

Nope, I don't think they did. This wasn't sanctioned by anyone. As he said, "it's public property."

Anewman
09-30-2007, 05:41 PM
Nope, I don't think they did. This wasn't sanctioned by anyone. As he said, "it's public property."

I was answering your question "Can someone take unsolicited pictures of minors - i.e., SPECIFICALLY taking pictures of individual kids - post them openly on the internet and then sell them to anyone who wants one?" But if your assumption in this specific example is correct...


Well then my issue would be with the league, it is their job to supervise the kids/fields.

IMO this is not any different than someone going onto a school campus and shooting photos of kids, schools are public property too. Wouldn't you contact the principal if that was occurring?

Bottom line if the LEAGUE contracted a 3rd party vendor onto their fields, it is as if they were taking the photos themselves. If just anyone walks on and starts up business, there is a problem.

ducklite
09-30-2007, 06:00 PM
Journalism excluded, nope, it's not allowed. To use images for commercial purposes (whether it's just having them on his website ot business cards or selling them, it's all considered commercial use), there needs to be a release. I believe in some instances a verbal release is okay, but I always use a signed paper release, to cover my rear. And in the case of minors, a guardian has to be the one giving the release. That's my understanding of the law anyway.

That's the way I understand it as well. As you said, journalism is the exception. If the photographer was from the local paper and taking photos to accompany a story about public recreation facilities in town, it's fair use and no release would be neccesary.

I took a photo of a random guy crowd surfing at a show a couple years ago, and used it on the cover of the local publication I write and photograph for. Because it was being used for journalistic purposes to illustrate a story, it was fair use. There was no release, I have no idea who he was--anyone of 25,000 people that were there that day.

ukcatfan
09-30-2007, 06:32 PM
How does he even know if he is selling to the parents? There could even be situations where a parent does not even have the right to buy them. Not all parents have custody of their children. Also, if there is more than one kid in a photo then he would need a model release to sell that shot to anyone. I believe that he has every right to take the shots and post them, but not the right to sell them.

Kevin

MarkBarbieri
09-30-2007, 06:33 PM
These legal discussions always intrigue me. People are very quick to say how they think things work, but they rarely cite any laws or court cases. I would guess that the rules vary from country to country and within the US, possibly by state or even city, but then, I really don't have a clue.

We had a high school sports shooter at our local photography club recently. I don't recall him saying anything about releases. That doesn't mean that he had a clue either.

If he bothers you, give him your business card (he'll probably assume that all lawyers know all law) and tell him that continuing to photograph your child's team will result in legal action. You'll might ruin his livelihood, but he'll probably quit taking pictures of your child's team.

It is sad that the innocent taking and posting of pictures evokes fears of abuse and exploitation. It's even sadder that those fears might be well founded.

Anewman
09-30-2007, 07:36 PM
It is sad that the innocent taking and posting of pictures evokes fears of abuse and exploitation. It's even sadder that those fears might be well founded.

It is also sad that some parents might want to purchase good action shots of their kids, but the "fear of accusations" make good photographers shy away from that type of business.

bostran1
09-30-2007, 08:13 PM
While in law school I took a class on privacy rights and this issue falls squarely into the individual right privacy (although one's likeness or picture is increasingly being viewed as a property right rather than a tort, but that's a different story). Specifically, this is called appropriation. It occurs when someone uses another's likeness (name or picture) for commerical gain. This is most often encountered with celebrities when a company uses a picture of the celebrity to sell a product without the celebrity's permission.

For those who are interested in reading up on the subject, the Restatement of Torts, 2nd has some more information (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm), shown below:

§ 652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy.

Comments:
a. The interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others. Although the protection of his personal feelings against mental distress is an important factor leading to a recognition of the rule, the right created by it is in the nature of a property right, for the exercise of which an exclusive license may be given to a third person, which will entitle the licensee to maintain an action to protect it.
b. How invaded. The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.

Now, there is an exception to appropriation, the newsworthiness exception. Basically, if something is newsworthy, the person's likeness may be appropriated without any legal ramifications.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to write a treatise or fully research the matter but a quick look at some case law brings up this case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=1999app%5Cct12236&invol=1). It provides information and citations to many cases that could help explain the matter. Unfortunately, researching case law without access to Lexis or Westlaw is a pain in the behind.

Long story short, if they use your picture to make money without your permission, you may have a legal case.

Please note, none of the above should be taken as legal advice regarding any claims or potential claims in any form. As always, you should consult with a lawyer yourself.

Anewman
09-30-2007, 08:40 PM
Long story short, if they use your picture to make money without your permission, you may have a legal case.


Now lets define "permission":thumbsup2

bostran1
09-30-2007, 09:06 PM
Haha, ideally it would be a written release but verbal would work too! What a mess :rolleyes:

PoohJen
09-30-2007, 09:17 PM
Nice disclaimer Ben! I shan't report you to your bar's ethics committee today!

Because commercial use and minors are involved, I expect a release is necessary. I'm sure lots of photographers have sites like these, and it isn't often questioned. Not meaning to put people out of business, just curious.

and no, I'm not looking to sue the guy. I just wanted to know what the law is, and what folks here experience has been. To the extent that I am bothered by it as a parent, I'm sure if I see my kids' pics online I can ask him to take them down and he'll oblige.

ducklite
09-30-2007, 09:37 PM
It's also possible that the release that is signed by parents when signing their children up for sports covers photography.

ukcatfan
09-30-2007, 10:41 PM
Because commercial use and minors are involved, I expect a release is necessary.

I have never seen anything that protects children from being photographed. The guardian must sign a release instead of them, but that is about all I have ever heard. It might raise concern and cause the photographer to be asked to leave. If they do not, then they would be in violation of trespassing. Anyone can be photographed unless they are in a place where they would be expected to have privacy (i.e. inside their home, in a public restroom, etc). Individual places can prohibit photography though if it does not have public access like a ticketed sporting event.

Kevin

MICKEY88
09-30-2007, 11:43 PM
Parent gives league permission.
League gives photographer permission.

I personally have never seen such a thing occur, most often a photographer will simply offer his service to a league, not explaining the whole concept of a model release, quite often because they aren't aware of it themselves, unfortunately I have misplaced my copy of the photographers legal handbook, a similar situation happened a few years back when we found out, my stepdaughters pic, was available for sale on a local photographers website,

I called and asked them to remove her pics, they said they had the right to sell them because it was a public sporting event, when I read them the section, detailing, minors and the parents need to sign a model release, they still hesitated, I then suggested they find a lawyer that was familiar with photography laws or contact PPA, giving them 48 hours to prove me wrong or remove the pictures, they removed the pictures...thanked me for making them aware of the law and stopped the practice..

MICKEY88
09-30-2007, 11:44 PM
Haha, ideally it would be a written release but verbal would work too! What a mess :rolleyes:

no photographer who values his business would rely on a verbal release, and I'm not quite sure it would be legally binding..

MICKEY88
09-30-2007, 11:49 PM
It is also sad that some parents might want to purchase good action shots of their kids, but the "fear of accusations" make good photographers shy away from that type of business.

a photographer wanting to do that type of business, can simply provide info to the team, and let individual parents hire him to shoot their child, it of course gets difficult not including other children in the shot, but that's where the 2.8 lens and good cropping come into play, if you isolate the child while other players are out of focus, it's a pic that can be sold..

bostran1
10-01-2007, 06:45 AM
no photographer who values his business would rely on a verbal release, and I'm not quite sure it would be legally binding..

As long as it didn't violate the statute of frauds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds), it would be legally binding. However, proving the verbal concsent would be quite a different thing!

Gdad
10-01-2007, 07:03 AM
So I took my 16 year old daughter to Disney World and she had her picture taken on 12 rides. Disney has posted these images electronically in a public forum to advertise commercial print sales, sold pictures of my daughter to other people who may or may not have been on the same ride vehicle, and even made these pictures available on the internet to anyone who added them to their Photopass Card. I just read the back of my ticket and see no photo release for myself or my minor child. What is my legal recourse- I would like to begin this process immediately because I read somewhere Disney has a lot of money. :rotfl:

Being sarcastic here of course but really- what is the difference?

LPZ_Stitch!
10-01-2007, 07:50 AM
Disney has posted these images electronically in a public forum to advertise commercial print sales, sold pictures of my daughter to other people who may or may not have been on the same ride vehicle, and even made these pictures available on the internet to anyone who added them to their Photopass Card.

I realize you're being sarcastic, but does Disney really do this ... specifically, I mean the "use them for advertising"?

I thought the law was pretty clear here ... if you are using the pictures for commercial gain (and, advertising certainly qualifies for "commercial gain") then you need a model release.

LMarge
10-01-2007, 08:48 AM
I know the above was sarcastic, but I believe Disney probably has a team of people who work the ad system- i.e. release information,etc. As far as photos on photopass - when I went to get the photos from Cindy's Royal Table added to my photopass, there were two other families on the same card the photographer had used for ours - I had to specifically request that those two families NOT be added to my own personal card (which meant she had to load my photos one at a time, verses, the entire card) -the CM did tell me that my photos may end up on those two families personal cards,(unless they request the same) and that there wasn't much they could do about it!! :confused3 My reply to the CM was, "what in the world would people want with other peoples photos?" but these days you never know! Anyhow, I had no desire for 14 additonal photos of other worn out, totally exhausted looking families!!!:goodvibes

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 09:13 AM
So I took my 16 year old daughter to Disney World and she had her picture taken on 12 rides. Disney has posted these images electronically in a public forum to advertise commercial print sales, sold pictures of my daughter to other people who may or may not have been on the same ride vehicle, and even made these pictures available on the internet to anyone who added them to their Photopass Card. I just read the back of my ticket and see no photo release for myself or my minor child. What is my legal recourse- I would like to begin this process immediately because I read somewhere Disney has a lot of money. :rotfl:

Being sarcastic here of course but really- what is the difference?

HAving been at HErsheypark on days that commercials etc, were being filmed, I'd venture to guess that Disney may do the same thing, large signs are posted at the entrance, stating that video and stills are being shot that day for advertisement purposes, and stating that your entrance to the park, grants them the right to use such images..

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 09:14 AM
As long as it didn't violate the statute of frauds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds), it would be legally binding. However, proving the verbal concsent would be quite a different thing!


that may be correct, but everything I've ever read dealing with photography law, clearly states, that you must have a signed model release..:confused3

0bli0
10-01-2007, 09:34 AM
one resource i suggest getting in contact with is Bert Krages (http://www.krages.com/). He's a pretty well known art and photography attorney.

this topic has been discussed on sports shooter quite a few times. evidently, in the states the general rule is if it's public ground, then it's ok - minor or otherwise. school fields are generally not public property - as are some club fields. it's generally not the act of taking the photographs which are of concern - it's what is done with the photos after. most people have their photo taken in some shape or another several times per day - generally without knowledge.

i often shoot youth sport for a few of the local papers. here in oz (and i suspect in most countries) a model release is not needed for most publications - newspaper, magazine, etc... again, usage definitely comes into play. obviously where minors are concerned, it's a whole lot more complicated. when shooting youth sport - we always shoot openly and publicly. if ever asked, i'll gladly show images taken. we are never confrontational, and in the event we are ever questioned, we request police be called to intervene. the *only* time i have ever been asked to stop shooting was when another photographer was claiming 'territory' and complained to the event operator. after a short discussion with the operator, i merely walked to the other side of the field and continued shooting. there are some clubs, in order to protect themselves, are starting to require signed permission slips.

edit: oh yeah - we also closely follow the Standing Committee of Attorney General (SCAG) commision for children and young people guidelines. the following is a quote taken directly from their guidelines:
The photographer or camera-person owns the images they take (under the Copyright Act 1968
(Commonwealth) s35(5)6). If a photographer takes a photo of a child or young person at an event or in
public and the image cannot be classified as indecent, they hold the copyright on that image and can
publish it without asking for consent. The Internet is not governed by the same regulations as print or
broadcast media, so photographers can display photographs or vision online.


not directly related, but i have been stopped from shooting by the Anti-terrorist patrol, by Harbour Bridge security, and a security guard at Luna Park (claiming my Bronica is a professional camera so it's illegal).

Michele
10-01-2007, 10:38 AM
HAving been at HErsheypark on days that commercials etc, were being filmed, I'd venture to guess that Disney may do the same thing, large signs are posted at the entrance, stating that video and stills are being shot that day for advertisement purposes, and stating that your entrance to the park, grants them the right to use such images..

We went to one day's taping of the Disney Channel Games at Wide World of Sports this year and Disney had posted a sign similar to this. Stating that by entering you were agreeing that your image could be used.

Gdad
10-01-2007, 11:07 AM
I realize you're being sarcastic, but does Disney really do this ... specifically, I mean the "use them for advertising"?

I thought the law was pretty clear here ... if you are using the pictures for commercial gain (and, advertising certainly qualifies for "commercial gain") then you need a model release.

I was talking about when you walk out of the rides the pictures are displayed on monitors- they show you the picture in hopes you will purchase a print. I would call that advertising. I have never seen a sign warning me I was going to be photographed and even if I did that does not constitute a release.

Not saying I have a problem with any of this- just that I don't see the difference between this and taking pictures to sell on a youth sports field.

LPZ_Stitch!
10-01-2007, 11:19 AM
I was talking about when you walk out of the rides the pictures are displayed on monitors- they show you the picture in hopes you will purchase a print. I would call that advertising. I have never seen a sign warning me I was going to be photographed and even if I did that does not constitute a release.

Personally, I think there IS a difference between the nature of advertising of "Please, buy *this* picture" and marketing brochures/websites ala "See how much fun these people are having on the Tower of Terror, come to Disney and you'll have fun, too."

Whether or not there's an actual legal distinction, here, I couldn't say....

Perhaps, the only real difference here is that we KNOW what Disney is doing with these pictures, and we aren't sure what someone might be doing with youth sports pictures.

It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, but it's the only one we've got....

Gdad
10-01-2007, 11:47 AM
Personally, I think there IS a difference between the nature of advertising of "Please, buy *this* picture" and marketing brochures/websites ala "See how much fun these people are having on the Tower of Terror, come to Disney and you'll have fun, too."

I think there IS a difference here as well- I don't have a problem seeing the picture offered for sale to the ride patrons. I would have a problem if I saw it on a billboard on I-4. My question all along was- Is there a difference between Disney taking a picture of someone and offering it to them for sale in a forum directed to that audience and the guy on the sports field doing essentially the same thing?

Perhaps, the only real difference here is that we KNOW what Disney is doing with these pictures, and we aren't sure what someone might be doing with youth sports pictures.

I have no idea what someone might be doing with a picture of my kid they bought at Disney or the guy who bought one from the sports field guy either. I assume Disney and the weekend warrior photographer are both doing the same thing in just trying to sell prints.

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 12:04 PM
one resource i suggest getting in contact with is Bert Krages (http://www.krages.com/). He's a pretty well known art and photography attorney.

this topic has been discussed on sports shooter quite a few times. evidently, in the states the general rule is if it's public ground, then it's ok - minor or otherwise. school fields are generally not public property - as are some club fields. it's generally not the act of taking the photographs which are of concern - it's what is done with the photos after. most people have their photo taken in some shape or another several times per day - generally without knowledge.

i often shoot youth sport for a few of the local papers. here in oz (and i suspect in most countries) a model release is not needed for most publications - newspaper, magazine, etc... again, usage definitely comes into play. obviously where minors are concerned, it's a whole lot more complicated. when shooting youth sport - we always shoot openly and publicly. if ever asked, i'll gladly show images taken. we are never confrontational, and in the event we are ever questioned, we request police be called to intervene. the *only* time i have ever been asked to stop shooting was when another photographer was claiming 'territory' and complained to the event operator. after a short discussion with the operator, i merely walked to the other side of the field and continued shooting. there are some clubs, in order to protect themselves, are starting to require signed permission slips.

edit: oh yeah - we also closely follow the Standing Committee of Attorney General (SCAG) commision for children and young people guidelines. the following is a quote taken directly from their guidelines:
The photographer or camera-person owns the images they take (under the Copyright Act 1968
(Commonwealth) s35(5)6). If a photographer takes a photo of a child or young person at an event or in
public and the image cannot be classified as indecent, they hold the copyright on that image and can
publish it without asking for consent. The Internet is not governed by the same regulations as print or
broadcast media, so photographers can display photographs or vision online.


not directly related, but i have been stopped from shooting by the Anti-terrorist patrol, by Harbour Bridge security, and a security guard at Luna Park (claiming my Bronica is a professional camera so it's illegal).

shooting the pic and publishing in the US aren't problems, it's the sale of the pic of minors without a release that is illegal..

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 12:09 PM
My question all along was- Is there a difference between Disney taking a picture of someone and offering it to them for sale in a forum directed to that audience and the guy on the sports field doing essentially the same thing?



.

there is a big difference... with the amusement park ride pics...standard procedure at most parks is you only sell pics to people that are in them,,, the sports photog, is selling to anyone that can access his site..

MarkBarbieri
10-01-2007, 12:14 PM
shooting the pic and publishing in the US aren't problems, it's the sale of the pic of minors without a release that is illegal..

Are the rules requiring releases in the US different for minors vs adults? Indecent situations aside, are there situations where you could take a picture of a person and sell it without needing a release if the subject is and adult but need a release if they are a minor?

MarkBarbieri
10-01-2007, 12:19 PM
there is a big difference... with the amusement park ride pics...standard procedure at most parks is you only sell pics to people that are in them,,, the sports photog, is selling to anyone that can access his site..

Is that the case? Can I not go to WDW, walk in to the Splash Mountain photo selling area without riding the ride, pick a picture at random, and ask to buy it? Will someone check to see if I am in the picture? If they don't perform any checks, I'm not sure that it is materially different from what the sports photographer is doing.

Gdad
10-01-2007, 12:27 PM
Is that the case? Can I not go to WDW, walk in to the Splash Mountain photo selling area without riding the ride, pick a picture at random, and ask to buy it? Will someone check to see if I am in the picture? If they don't perform any checks, I'm not sure that it is materially different from what the sports photographer is doing.

there is a big difference... with the amusement park ride pics...standard procedure at most parks is you only sell pics to people that are in them,,, the sports photog, is selling to anyone that can access his site..

Not sure if they check or not- either way they still could be selling a picture of my kids to someone else on the same ride vehicle. The creepy guy who sat behind them. :confused3

AZ JazzyJ
10-01-2007, 12:35 PM
I've been involved with a business that does just this type of work. They cover events (sporting, corporate, community, etc.) and photograph the participants in action; post them to their web site; and allow people to purchase the pictures. I know there was a tremendous amount of money spent on legal research to determine the legality of offering the photos for sale and whether releases were required. The end result was that if the event occurs at a public venue then a release is not required. If an event occurs at a private venue then written approval must be received from the event organizer. The organizer is responsible for working with the individual participants to obtain a release. That being said, this company was quite diligent in respecting a person's privacy. If a parent or participant did not wish to have their photo included it was immediately removed if the photo had been posted. If someone requested that they not be included during an event the photographers made a point to not shoot that particular person. In the 4 years these people have done events no parent has ever requested their child's photo be removed. Quite the contrary, the parents began using the service as an online photo album requesting photographers take MORE pictures of their kids so that grandma could see little Billy in action.
The legal advice provided was specifically for events in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. I am not sure whether there are differences in other states that would be something you would need to check.
As for requiring a password to see the photos, this was attempted but there was a huge backlash by parents and participants that it was too difficult to get to the photos and therefore the site workflow was changed to only require that a user know the date, place, and event type to bring up the photos.

mabas9395
10-01-2007, 12:49 PM
So does all of this mean that if I take pictures of my own kids at their sporting events and I post them on my smugmug site (where family and friends can buy their own prints-I don't make any money but smugmug does) that I have to blur out the faces of every other kid on the field as well as all of the siblings sitting on the sideline?

Because whether those kids are the main subject of the photo or not, somebody is profiting from a photo with a child's likeness where a model release was not given.

So in theory, if my son makes a goal winning shot with a team mate standing behind him, and if the parent of my son's team mate did not want pictures of their child up on my website, could they legally force me to either remove the picture or remove his likeness from the image?

I admit that this is not likely to happen, but is there any difference between this and what the OP posted? And if the OP's photographer can't do it, why can I?

Anewman
10-01-2007, 04:08 PM
I personally have never seen such a thing occur, most often a photographer will simply offer his service to a league, not explaining the whole concept of a model release, quite often because they aren't aware of it themselves, unfortunately I have misplaced my copy of the photographers legal handbook, a similar situation happened a few years back when we found out, my stepdaughters pic, was available for sale on a local photographers website,

I called and asked them to remove her pics, they said they had the right to sell them because it was a public sporting event, when I read them the section, detailing, minors and the parents need to sign a model release, they still hesitated, I then suggested they find a lawyer that was familiar with photography laws or contact PPA, giving them 48 hours to prove me wrong or remove the pictures, they removed the pictures...thanked me for making them aware of the law and stopped the practice..

I always have written agreements with any league or tournament organizer stating that they give me sole permission to shoot from the field and sell photos, if not I decline. It also states what the league will receive from me of course.

a photographer wanting to do that type of business, can simply provide info to the team, and let individual parents hire him to shoot their child, it of course gets difficult not including other children in the shot, but that's where the 2.8 lens and good cropping come into play, if you isolate the child while other players are out of focus, it's a pic that can be sold..


Yes they "can" but I stand by my opinion that many would find it not worth the hassle and move towards other types of business models leaving some parents on their own.
that may be correct, but everything I've ever read dealing with photography law, clearly states, that you must have a signed model release..:confused3
If the subject is a MODEL, I do not believe athletes in public sporting events are considered such.

So does all of this mean that if I take pictures of my own kids at their sporting events and I post them on my smugmug site (where family and friends can buy their own prints-I don't make any money but smugmug does) that I have to blur out the faces of every other kid on the field as well as all of the siblings sitting on the sideline?

Because whether those kids are the main subject of the photo or not, somebody is profiting from a photo with a child's likeness where a model release was not given.

So in theory, if my son makes a goal winning shot with a team mate standing behind him, and if the parent of my son's team mate did not want pictures of their child up on my website, could they legally force me to either remove the picture or remove his likeness from the image?

I admit that this is not likely to happen, but is there any difference between this and what the OP posted? And if the OP's photographer can't do it, why can I?

If you want to keep the shots up on your website, create a BLOG and report on the games and scores.

Now you can sell some of your journalistic photos.:thumbsup2 :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 06:08 PM
If the subject is a MODEL, I do not believe athletes in public sporting events are considered such.
In brief, a model release is a document that stipulates the terms under which one party may use pictures taken of another party. Most of the time, it's a brief (one paragraph) statement, although it can also be a lengthy contract full of stipulations on payment schedules, lists of permitted and non-permitted uses, legal rights and sometimes even limitations on the amount of money you can sue the other party for in the event of a contract violation. As such, a model release can say whatever you want it to say—long or short—as long as both parties agree to it. It can also be retroactive. That is, you can shoot first and get the release later. (In fact, many photographers don't bother getting a release unless they have an opportunity to use the picture in a way that would require one.)

But keep this in mind: a contract has to be written down. Quote time:


"A verbal agreement is as good as the paper it's written on."

--Samuel Goldwyn
...........


If you want to keep the shots up on your website, create a BLOG and report on the games and scores.

Now you can sell some of your journalistic photos.:thumbsup2 :rotfl2: :rotfl2:...

MICKEY88
10-01-2007, 06:14 PM
interesting read on the topic..http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

AndrewWG
10-01-2007, 06:40 PM
I have always thought that you need a release if you are going to sell a photo that you could clearly identify any person in the photo. I could be wrong, or maybe this is the "safe" way but not really the "legally necessary" way.

That is the guideline that I will work by either way (if I ever get a photo worth selling).

Anewman
10-01-2007, 06:51 PM
I have always thought that you need a release if you are going to sell a photo that you could clearly identify any person in the photo. I could be wrong, or maybe this is the "safe" way but not really the "legally necessary" way.

That is the guideline that I will work by either way (if I ever get a photo worth selling).

Generally you do require a release, the debate when it comes to sports shooting generally comes down to two issues.

1. Does the organization running the athletic competition have the right to contract/authorize/allow a third party to sell photos?

2. Do organized sports fall under a journalistic umbrella by default?


High school athletes are mostly under 18, have you ever heard of Maxpreps?

http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/NationalGalleries.mxp

manning
10-01-2007, 07:25 PM
no photographer who values his business would rely on a verbal release, and I'm not quite sure it would be legally binding..

It might be binding, but I wouldn't want to operate that way. It's hard to challenge the written word.

Verbal, you have to be nuts.

JR6ooo4
10-01-2007, 07:35 PM
Also, there should at least be a password that is required to view said photos, (this part is an opinion only)

I agree with your opinion.

I volunteer to shoot the local community theater and post all the pics on my site. All galleries of the shows are password protected and the password is given to cast members, tech and artistic staff. THey are allowed to share the password with family.

I allow access to the originals so they can download them and print themsleves or they can buy prints from smugmug. Maybe that helps me legaly, I volunteer the service and the pics are available for free if they want.

Mikeeee

MarkBarbieri
10-01-2007, 07:39 PM
I always have written agreements with any league or tournament organizer stating that they give me sole permission to shoot from the field and sell photos, if not I decline. It also states what the league will receive from me of course.

That creates the conflict that I've seen several times. Hobbyist shooters get mad when they are told they can't shoot their own kid with their expensive DSLR. Deny the hobbyist and you'll end up with angry parents. Let them and they'll share shots with the other parents and the pro shooters revenue will drop below a sustainable level.

The high school sports shooter at are club meeting was seriously worried about the sustainability of his profession because of the dilution of his market by "give away" competitors. He had started focusing on more indoor sports because his ability to set up strobes allowed him to shoot with effectively no competition (the poor lighting preventing anyone else from getting comparable shots).

On one hand, I don't think that anyone should be told that they cannot shoot their own kid's sports team AND freely share their pictures. On the other hand, kids on teams without a well equipped and skilled amateur shooter would lose out if the market became unsustainable for professionals.

But keep this in mind: a contract has to be written down.
My understanding is that, at least in the USA, a contract need not be written. As long as their is an agreement ("offer and acceptance", "meeting of the minds") consideration is exchanged, and their is intent on both sides to enter into a legally binding contract, a contact exists. This can be in written, oral, or theoretically just a lot of very clear pointing, grunting, and hand waving. Getting a non-written contract enforced may not be possible, but that doesn't mean quite the same as their not being a contract.

PoohJen
10-01-2007, 09:15 PM
My understanding is that, at least in the USA, a contract need not be written. As long as their is an agreement ("offer and acceptance", "meeting of the minds") consideration is exchanged, and their is intent on both sides to enter into a legally binding contract, a contact exists. This can be in written, oral, or theoretically just a lot of very clear pointing, grunting, and hand waving. Getting a non-written contract enforced may not be possible, but that doesn't mean quite the same as their not being a contract.

True, within the statute of frauds (as I think Bostran posted a few pages ago). More difficult issue with an oral agreement is proof of what, if anything, was said, meant. Much safer to get it in writing!:thumbsup2

Anewman
10-01-2007, 10:16 PM
That creates the conflict that I've seen several times. Hobbyist shooters get mad when they are told they can't shoot their own kid with their expensive DSLR. Deny the hobbyist and you'll end up with angry parents. Let them and they'll share shots with the other parents and the pro shooters revenue will drop below a sustainable level.

The high school sports shooter at are club meeting was seriously worried about the sustainability of his profession because of the dilution of his market by "give away" competitors. He had started focusing on more indoor sports because his ability to set up strobes allowed him to shoot with effectively no competition (the poor lighting preventing anyone else from getting comparable shots).

On one hand, I don't think that anyone should be told that they cannot shoot their own kid's sports team AND freely share their pictures. On the other hand, kids on teams without a well equipped and skilled amateur shooter would lose out if the market became unsustainable for professionals.




I have never seen a case where a parent is denied the opportunity to shoot their own kid(or his/her team), but should parents expect field access? Stands are always open to anyone.

dodukes
10-01-2007, 11:00 PM
wow, I have just read thru this entire thread and I'mglad i clicked. What the OP describes, is exactly what I do when I get some time. I got to the local baseball league and "set up shop" so to speak from the base lines. I shoot for a few innings and then go around passing out cards.
I have never had a parent confront me, usually its the other way around, they point me to which is their kid and that they want lots of pics taken..lol. If someone approched me and told me not to shoot their kid, i wouldnt, period, if hte kid was in the shot, id have to figure out how to crop him later i guess, saem thing if someone went to my website and asked to remove their childs pic.

I always wondered what other people thought, cuz yeah OP you are right, technically I could be anybody out there shooting pics. I dont try to be sneaky about it, (altho i do squat and try to avoid getting hit by the ball..lol).

Its very interesting to read all this cuz i definetly would not need any legal hassles coming from this since its barely spare change that i make you know. couple hundred a month i made last month(august) and i havent even been out there in sept.

Geoff_M
10-02-2007, 12:23 AM
Here's what I can summarize regarding the issue:
1) Is it legal to take pictures of a kids at the local park or school's soccer fields without first seeking permission? The answer is a clear "yes". It's not considered an "invasion of privacy" because you have no reasonable expectation of "privacy" in a local park or similar area. Minor or adult, there's no legal distinction. It's not illegal for me to take a picture of your kids playing in a park without first seeking your permission (written or otherwise). (*)

2) Is it "legal" to sell such images on the web without permission. I'd say the answer is a qualified "yes". The qualification is that if a person (or parent of a minor) prominently featured and easily identifiable in any of the images objects, you would probably be best advised to remove their images. If you don't comply, you could be subjected to being sued. (People like Derek Jeter aren't the only ones afforded legal protection from people selling photos of them without authorization.) But this would be a civil matter instead of a criminal one. Would a sports photographer "win" in this case? Perhaps not... but there would no doubt be a lot of factors to be considered by the jury before deciding. Such factors could be the prominence of the subject in the photo, the use of the image (selling on the web vs. selling the image to be used in an ad campaign by a sporting goods chain), the amount of revenue generated by sales of the photo, etc. The bottom line here is that the lack of a release only becomes an issue when someone objects to the commercial use.

A smart shooter would post the images en mass and then remove ones from people that object. Smart shooters, as mentioned, also try to reduce parental fears by password protecting the galleries so as to reduce fears that "perverts" are downloading pictures of their kids or people who would prefer that certain people not know where they are living don't want their location "blown".

3) As others have mentioned, there are times were permission to photograph may be included on the player or tournament sign-up form. However, all this really does is prevent any later objection or claim of compensation of the subject(s) for commercial use, it doesn't make the actual taking of the photos "legal".

* = One exception, is if the sporting body has a contractual agreement with a photographer that gives them exclusive rights to sell images from the event or exclusive access to shooting locations. As mentioned previously, in the US "public" lands can be considered "private" in terms of determining trespass. If a local soccer league has leased the fields from the parks department for the summer, they will most likely have control over who can stay and who can be ordered out... and the police will back that up. In such cases, a freelancer as described by the OP could find themselves bounced from the playing fields. The same true of school grounds. The Principal and senior staff (AD, VP, etc.) have the legal power to ask anyone to leave the grounds at will.

However, it's important to note that this doesn't make any photos actually taken by the freelancer before being booted "illegal", it just means that the organization may act to prevent the shooter from remaining on the grounds and shooting. If I manage to take photos from the games and post them on my web site, the soccer organization cannot force me to remove my images simply based on their contract with an "official" photographer.

High school athletes are mostly under 18, have you ever heard of Maxpreps?

http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/NationalGalleries.mxpBTW, MaxPreps is owned by CBS.

MICKEY88
10-02-2007, 12:00 PM
I have never seen a case where a parent is denied the opportunity to shoot their own kid(or his/her team), but should parents expect field access? Stands are always open to anyone.

that's when press credentials come in handy :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

MICKEY88
10-02-2007, 12:05 PM
The high school sports shooter at are club meeting was seriously worried about the sustainability of his profession because of the dilution of his market by "give away" competitors. He had started focusing on more indoor sports because his ability to set up strobes allowed him to shoot with effectively no competition (the poor lighting preventing anyone else from getting comparable shots).

On one hand, I don't think that anyone should be told that they cannot shoot their own kid's sports team AND freely share their pictures. On the other hand, kids on teams without a well equipped and skilled amateur shooter would lose out if the market became unsustainable for professionals.


.

the indoor lighting must be really old and poor in your area, I've never had a problem in a HS gym using just one strobe on camera.. I can stand at one end of the gym and light up the far wall very easily..

MarkBarbieri
10-02-2007, 01:05 PM
the indoor lighting must be really old and poor in your area, I've never had a problem in a HS gym using just one strobe on camera.. I can stand at one end of the gym and light up the far wall very easily..

I've never tried to shoot in a gym, so I'm not speaking from experience. I'm just going on what the speaker said. To be fair to him, he talked about spending time before the games to set up a few powerful studio strobes to shoot against the ceiling and walls. Assuming that he knew what he was doing, he should have been able to get much better lighting than you'd get from an on-camera flash.

One thing that really stuck with me from his presentation was how bitterly he felt about hobbyist shooters undercutting his business. It was an odd attitude presenting to a photography club. Still, I could understand his concern because their hobby was threatening his career. I guess it's sort of like fearing that your job will be offshored, but even worse - (relatively) rich people will voluntarily do your job for free.

The only indoor athletic shooting I've had much experience with is shooting gymnastics a couple of times. I haven't really been happy with the results. I don't like the look of on-camera flash but the motion and light levels have made flashless shooting difficult. Next time I'll bring my thing for holding the flash off of the camera.

have never seen a case where a parent is denied the opportunity to shoot their own kid(or his/her team), but should parents expect field access? Stands are always open to anyone.

Most of my sports shooting has been pee-wee league soccer. There is no distinction between field access and the stands. The stands consist of the lawn chairs of other parents.

My son spent his last few games anxious to be rotated out so that he could operate the video camera and do color commentary. I had the camera set up on a tripod with a fluid head set up for horizontal panning. He'd pan with the action and zoom in and out as the action move towards or away from us. We never published or distributed the videos, so I'm pretty sure that he's not a criminal.

Gdad
10-02-2007, 01:43 PM
that's when press credentials come in handy :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

Or a 300mm f2.8 :laughing:

Anewman
10-02-2007, 03:07 PM
the indoor lighting must be really old and poor in your area, I've never had a problem in a HS gym using just one strobe on camera.. I can stand at one end of the gym and light up the far wall very easily..
One tries not use an on camera flash because it tends to bother the players when shooting up close(like under the basket). It is very common to setup a few strobes farther away(like in the gym corners up in the stands). They also give a better overall photo, without the harsh shadows a single on camera flash might give.

Anewman
10-02-2007, 03:16 PM
Most of my sports shooting has been pee-wee league soccer. There is no distinction between field access and the stands. The stands consist of the lawn chairs of other parents.

My son spent his last few games anxious to be rotated out so that he could operate the video camera and do color commentary. I had the camera set up on a tripod with a fluid head set up for horizontal panning. He'd pan with the action and zoom in and out as the action move towards or away from us. We never published or distributed the videos, so I'm pretty sure that he's not a criminal.

Understood, just clarifying that exclusivity was just concerning access to field(where applicable) not a shooting ban.

brerrabbit
10-02-2007, 03:49 PM
I don't know the specific laws concerning the commercial and non commercial use of pictures and their posting on the internet but as a past President of Little League Baseball and having been on the Board for a number of years I can tell you how we handled it. First our fields were located on private property owned by what we called The Dad's Club. It was an umbrella organization that owns a 32 acre complex that have girls softball fields, boys baseball fields, and football fields. Since it was private property we called the shots. Secondly we used an internet service called EZ Teams and had our own web site that posted public information but required authorization in the form of a password to gain access to the portion of the site where kids photos were posted. Professional photographers wanting to sell pictures via the site had to contract with us otherwise they were not allowed on the complex. Individuals could post their own pictures if they had access to the site. This way friends and relatives could see the pictures and standings via the internet from anywhere if they were given access. The system was not perfect but we felt it offered some protection. We used no photos for advertising but did get waivers signed at registration stating that we would have photographers posting pictures online but only within the protected site.

As far as Disney or any other pay to enter type activity using your image in conjunction with their facility I thought there was some kind of implied waiver given when you purchased your admission to their private property.

MICKEY88
10-02-2007, 04:19 PM
I've never tried to shoot in a gym, so I'm not speaking from experience. I'm just going on what the speaker said. To be fair to him, he talked about spending time before the games to set up a few powerful studio strobes to shoot against the ceiling and walls. Assuming that he knew what he was doing, he should have been able to get much better lighting than you'd get from an on-camera flash.

One thing that really stuck with me from his presentation was how bitterly he felt about hobbyist shooters undercutting his business. It was an odd attitude presenting to a photography club. Still, I could understand his concern because their hobby was threatening his career. I guess it's sort of like fearing that your job will be offshored, but even worse - (relatively) rich people will voluntarily do your job for free.

The only indoor athletic shooting I've had much experience with is shooting gymnastics a couple of times. I haven't really been happy with the results. I don't like the look of on-camera flash but the motion and light levels have made flashless shooting difficult. Next time I'll bring my thing for holding the flash off of the camera.



Most of my sports shooting has been pee-wee league soccer. There is no distinction between field access and the stands. The stands consist of the lawn chairs of other parents.

My son spent his last few games anxious to be rotated out so that he could operate the video camera and do color commentary. I had the camera set up on a tripod with a fluid head set up for horizontal panning. He'd pan with the action and zoom in and out as the action move towards or away from us. We never published or distributed the videos, so I'm pretty sure that he's not a criminal.

that amazes me that they'd allow that much lighting, I would think that would be more annoying to the athletes and fans, perhaps because I live in a small town ,and all my sporting events are at smaller schools, I've never heard of using that much light..with the exception of team photos which are definitely set up differently..

although he should definitely be able to get better lighting, I would think it wouldn't look natural to anyone who attends a lot of games in that particular gym

MICKEY88
10-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Or a 300mm f2.8 :laughing:

for daytime outdoor sports the 2.8 isn't even neccessary, but the press credentials still get you a better view point,

our HIgh school softball team made it to the state final game last spring, for the first time ever in school history, so I took of work and took my stepson, since he was a senior and good friends with most of the girls, after walking around the field looking for a good spot to shoot from I decided to use my press credentials. to see how far they'd get me since I hadn't registered in advance, I was given a nice orange tag to wear that gave me access to all press platforms around the field, that made it so much easier than shooting around or over people since there was a rather large crowd..

MICKEY88
10-02-2007, 04:56 PM
One tries not use an on camera flash because it tends to bother the players when shooting up close(like under the basket). It is very common to setup a few strobes farther away(like in the gym corners up in the stands). They also give a better overall photo, without the harsh shadows a single on camera flash might give.

I've only ever seen on camera flash used in my area, by the local newspaper guy yearbook photographers..

that's all I used for years at volleyball games sitting by the net so I could shoot either team, I asked the girls from our school if it bothered them and they said they don't even notice it,
maybe because i'm in smaller gyms it's easier to bounce flash..

Anewman
10-02-2007, 10:54 PM
I've only ever seen on camera flash used in my area, by the local newspaper guy yearbook photographers..

that's all I used for years at volleyball games sitting by the net so I could shoot either team, I asked the girls from our school if it bothered them and they said they don't even notice it,
maybe because i'm in smaller gyms it's easier to bounce flash..

My daughter plays varsity volleyball, todays ref stopped play twice asking spectators to stop using flash. I am sure he would not have allowed strobes bounced off the walls either. Most officials allow it from anywhere, and some allow it from up in the stands but not up close(sidelines). And I have also seen coaches ask for the flash photography to stop. I did not really shoot today but I usually set up right next to the main officials stand.

Anewman
10-02-2007, 11:04 PM
that amazes me that they'd allow that much lighting, I would think that would be more annoying to the athletes and fans, perhaps because I live in a small town ,and all my sporting events are at smaller schools, I've never heard of using that much light..with the exception of team photos which are definitely set up differently..

although he should definitely be able to get better lighting, I would think it wouldn't look natural to anyone who attends a lot of games in that particular gym

It is not really that distracting as the strobes are positioned behind the spectators backs and bounced off the walls/ceilings, it does not really hit anyone directly in the eye as apposed to how an on camera flash would if positioned on the baseline. And depending on the gym the light will be coming from the same general direction as some of the gyms lights.

MICKEY88
10-03-2007, 10:15 AM
It is not really that distracting as the strobes are positioned behind the spectators backs and bounced off the walls/ceilings, it does not really hit anyone directly in the eye as apposed to how an on camera flash would if positioned on the baseline. And depending on the gym the light will be coming from the same general direction as some of the gyms lights.


true but you'd still get a sudden increase in light..

MICKEY88
10-03-2007, 10:20 AM
My daughter plays varsity volleyball, todays ref stopped play twice asking spectators to stop using flash. I am sure he would not have allowed strobes bounced off the walls either. Most officials allow it from anywhere, and some allow it from up in the stands but not up close(sidelines). And I have also seen coaches ask for the flash photography to stop. I did not really shoot today but I usually set up right next to the main officials stand.

interesting I wonder if he had a complaint from players or coaches, or if it just distracted him, I've never had that happen, I used to sit in the first or second row right at the net..

although we had one ref, who would stop play to tell students they were cheering too loudly, needless to say he was not well liked by the fans, the students were doing nothing wrong, just showing their support for their friends..

all the other refs we normally had, would only prohibit cheering during the serve..

Geoff_M
10-03-2007, 01:03 PM
interesting I wonder if he had a complaint from players or coaches, or if it just distracted him, I've never had that happen, I used to sit in the first or second row right at the net..

although we had one ref, who would stop play to tell students they were cheering too loudly, needless to say he was not well liked by the fans, the students were doing nothing wrong, just showing their support for their friends..

all the other refs we normally had, would only prohibit cheering during the serve..The "battle" to use strobes in gyms is fairly common, though thankfully I've never personally encountered it. I use two off-camera speedlights on light stands with PocketWizard remotes when I shoot basketball. Of the people that report having problems, almost all of the complaints are from coaches or officials. Ironically, when actually polled, the players often don't recall ever seeing a flash during the game! They're too busy concentrating on the game to notice the "pops"... even with on-camera flashes. But coaches assume they'll distract, and if their team is struggling in the game, then it must be those darned flashes!

Many state athletic associations, in responses to appeals from media photographers, are now starting to write rules that actually make it harder for officials, coaches, or ADs to prohibit strobes. About the only two sports remaining were flashes are almost universally banned are volleyball (since the players spend so much time looking upwards) and swimming (that uses strobes as well as a horn at the start of each event).

bostran1
10-03-2007, 07:24 PM
True, within the statute of frauds (as I think Bostran posted a few pages ago). More difficult issue with an oral agreement is proof of what, if anything, was said, meant. Much safer to get it in writing!:thumbsup2

Yep, the only contracts governed by the statute of frauds (ie the only contracts that need to be in writing to be enforcible) are contracts for the sale of land (and leases for more than a year), contracts in contemplation of marriage (ie prenuptial agreements), contracts for the sale of goods over $500, contracts for the lease of goods over $1000, contracts that by their terms cannot be performed in one year, contracts to answer for the debt of another. I think that covers it and it will vary by state. However, anything can be contracted orally. The only thing the statute of frauds does is make certain contracts unenforcible if they aren't in written.

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 09:43 AM
Many state athletic associations, in responses to appeals from media photographers, are now starting to write rules that actually make it harder for officials, coaches, or ADs to prohibit strobes. About the only two sports remaining were flashes are almost universally banned are volleyball (since the players spend so much time looking upwards) and swimming (that uses strobes as well as a horn at the start of each event).

interesting, I guess the ban didn't hit central PA, because that's where I shot all my volleyball stuff, without a single complaint,

never thought about it before but maybe sitting low helped, since as you stated the players are almost always looking up..

jann1033
10-04-2007, 10:29 AM
True, within the statute of frauds (as I think Bostran posted a few pages ago). More difficult issue with an oral agreement is proof of what, if anything, was said, meant. Much safer to get it in writing!:thumbsup2

even in writing if someone doesn't feel like paying they can get around it but making it to expensive for you to collect via fees etc..did work for a company who does this routinely,course only found that out after the fact...my attorney said..."a signed contract is only as good as the two parties who sign it" so anyone who goes by verbal contract is really asking for problems imo:rotfl2:

but just so i get this right...say i take a fantastic (:rolleyes1 ) shot of some stranger windsurfing and sports illustrated wants to give me $$$ i'm ok. but if some friend of mine wants a copy i can't sell it to him?????.. or should i wade out to get the release?

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 01:46 PM
but just so i get this right...say i take a fantastic (:rolleyes1 ) shot of some stranger windsurfing and sports illustrated wants to give me $$$ i'm ok. but if some friend of mine wants a copy i can't sell it to him?????.. or should i wade out to get the release?


Just yell SHARK !!! and wait for the surfer to come to you..:thumbsup2

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 03:31 PM
interesting, I guess the ban didn't hit central PA, because that's where I shot all my volleyball stuff, without a single complaint,

never thought about it before but maybe sitting low helped, since as you stated the players are almost always looking up..Yep, for example here's Ohio's policy regarding high school volleyball: http://www.ohsaa.org/news/media/photopolicy.htm

The outright bans include gymnastics, diving, and volleyball.

Other states such as Illinois, just passed policies that allow it at volleyball games, but a number of permissions (coaches, site managers, etc.) must be obtained in advance. See http://www.ihsa.org/activity/vbg/2007-08/t-and-cs.pdf Section IX-K.

You can also go to Sportsshooter's forum area and search on the words "volleyball flash" and see all the people that have had problems trying or know that they cannot use flash period.

Anewman
10-04-2007, 03:35 PM
Yep, for example here's Ohio's policy regarding high school volleyball: http://www.ohsaa.org/news/media/photopolicy.htm

The outright bans include gymnastics, diving, and volleyball.


So the ban even covers camera mounted strobes, interesting.

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 04:11 PM
Yep, for example here's Ohio's policy regarding high school volleyball: http://www.ohsaa.org/news/media/photopolicy.htm

The outright bans include gymnastics, diving, and volleyball.

Other states such as Illinois, just passed policies that allow it at volleyball games, but a number of permissions (coaches, site managers, etc.) must be obtained in advance. See http://www.ihsa.org/activity/vbg/2007-08/t-and-cs.pdf Section IX-K.

You can also go to Sportsshooter's forum area and search on the words "volleyball flash" and see all the people that have had problems trying or know that they cannot use flash period.


wow looks like PPA needs better lobbyists to prevent such rules...

JediTim
10-04-2007, 04:17 PM
Jumping into this late but this is probably part of a bigger problem than most people realize. I post my pictures on Flickr (http://flickr.com/photos/jedi-tim/) and anyone has access to these pictures and can either upload and print them to their computer or even have Flickr print them.

I was reading an article Monday that pointed to a picture taken from Flickr of a girl. The picture was now in Australia as part of an ad by Virgin Mobil (http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023). Someone in Australia saw that at the bottom of the picture it referenced where in Flickr the site was found. The original person in the picture then saw the reference and no way gave permission. To top it off the picture was insulting to the person.

This is something people will really need to be aware of...as more pictures are posted on the internet there is a greater chance the picture will be used by someone else.


Tim

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 04:19 PM
wow looks like PPA needs better lobbyists to prevent such rules...Speaking of that matter and your state, guess what...? Starting this year if you take a photo at one of your state's HS tournaments, per the PIAA, they own the copyrights, not you! The people in the stands, the press, etc... they now lay claim to ownership of every image and grant newspapers the "right" to use "their" images of the event.

POLICIES REGARDING CABLECASTING/TELECASTING, FILMING, PHOTOGRAPHING, VIDEOTAPING, AND/OR WEBCASTING (VIDEO STREAMING)
A. Photography, Film, Video, and Audio. – PIAA is the owner of the rights to and the copyright holder of all audio and visual depictions of PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests, including all still photographs taken of such Contests, all film, analog and digital videos, audiotape, and Internet depictions of such Contests and the live audio, visual, and webcasting broadcasts of such Contests. Still photography, filming, videotaping, audio recording, and webcasting are prohibited at PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests, except as expressly and specifically authorized by this policy. All video, broadcast, title, and broadcast rights for PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests are the exclusive property of PIAA. PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests cannot be reproduced, rebroadcast, or used for any other purposes without the express written consent of PIAA.
B. General Policies Applicable to All Classes of Photographers, Videographers, etc.
1. Still photographs, films, videotapes, and audiotapes may not be used to review decisions of Contest officials.
2. Still photographs, films, videotapes, or audiotapes, in full or in part, may not be used for any commercial purpose unless authorized in writing by PIAA.
3. Any still photography, filming, videotaping, audiotaping, telecasting, webcasting (video streaming), and cablecasting shall not interfere with the visibility and comfort of spectators, shall not present a safety hazard to spectators, and shall not disrupt, disturb, or interfere with the competition or with any competitor.
4. Any person conducting photography, filming, videotaping, audiotaping, telecasting, webcasting (video streaming), and cablecasting shall not stand on any unsafe or potentially hazardous physical object
or facility.
5. Any person conducting photography, filming, videotaping, audiotaping, telecasting, webcasting
(video streaming), and cablecasting must remain in the areas that have been designated for spectators, sports photographers, schools, cable/television stations, or Internet video broadcasters, as appropriate.
C. Specific Classes of Photographer, Videographers, etc.
1. Member Schools. Representatives of PIAA member schools are authorized, at their own expense, to take still photographs and to film, videotape, and/or audiotape PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests.
2. Spectators. Individual spectators are authorized, at their own expense, and from the seating area or other designated space, to personally take still photographs, film, videotape, and/or audiotape PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests for strictly personal use.
3. Media
a. Members of the media are authorized, without paying a fee, to take still photographs and take short film, video, and/or audio clips of PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests for print and electronic news coverage.
b. With advanced permission from PIAA, members of the media may take still photographs and film, videotape, and/or audiotape PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests.
c. The filming or taping of the majority of a PIAA Inter-District Championship Contests is prohibited absent PIAA approval.

Link, Page 77 (http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/Handbook%20-%20Section%20II%20-%20Policies%20&%20Procedures.pdf)

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 04:28 PM
Jumping into this late but this is probably part of a bigger problem than most people realize. I post my pictures on Flickr (http://flickr.com/photos/jedi-tim/) and anyone has access to these pictures and can either upload and print them to their computer or even have Flickr print them.

I was reading an article Monday that pointed to a picture taken from Flickr of a girl. The picture was now in Australia as part of an ad by Virgin Mobil (http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023). Someone in Australia saw that at the bottom of the picture it referenced where in Flickr the site was found. The original person in the picture then saw the reference and no way gave permission. To top it off the picture was insulting to the person.

This is something people will really need to be aware of...as more pictures are posted on the internet there is a greater chance the picture will be used by someone else.


TimAs long as the photos you post to Flickr can't be considered an "invasion of privacy" when you took them, there's nothing to worry about from a legal ramification standpoint by merely posting them. The legal problems in the case you mention rest with Verizon and their ad agency who commercially used the image without permission. It doesn't matter if the use was "insulting" or not. Companies often pay photographers and models thousands of dollars for such photo usage. I'd sue too.

But you are correct that you need to be aware that you are putting them out in the public view. For example, last season I posted photos of my son's hockey team to webshots. Even though the last ones I've posted were from March, I still get about 100 hits on the photos each week from who knows who. I was careful not to mention player's names or even the team's home town in the galleries.

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 06:38 PM
Speaking of that matter and your state, guess what...? Starting this year if you take a photo at one of your state's HS tournaments, per the PIAA, they own the copyrights, not you! The people in the stands, the press, etc... they now lay claim to ownership of every image and grant newspapers the "right" to use "their" images of the event.



Link, Page 77 (http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/Handbook%20-%20Section%20II%20-%20Policies%20&%20Procedures.pdf)


very interesting... back in the spring I went to the state softball championship game,

nothing was posted there....

I showed my press pass at the main gate and they barely looked at it, they handed me an orange pass that I needed to show, to gain access to any of the press platforms surrounding the playing field...

obviously they don't follow there own poilicy since I never followed the process in advance...LOL



I'd think their policy is loosely based on those such as the nfl, they own all rights, but to the best of my knowledge wouldn't prosecute anyone for selling a few shots here and there

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 06:45 PM
Speaking of that matter and your state, guess what...? Starting this year if you take a photo at one of your state's HS tournaments, per the PIAA, they own the copyrights, not you! The people in the stands, the press, etc... they now lay claim to ownership of every image and grant newspapers the "right" to use "their" images of the event.



Link, Page 77 (http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/Handbook%20-%20Section%20II%20-%20Policies%20&%20Procedures.pdf)

ahhhhhhh section C 3 H,

says I may sell pictures to any participating school or student, or the student's family...

thank goodness I'm not going to jail...LOL

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 07:05 PM
very interesting... back in the spring I went to the state softball championship game,

nothing was posted there....

I showed my press pass at the main gate and they barely looked at it, they handed me an orange pass that I needed to show, to gain access to any of the press platforms surrounding the playing field...

obviously they don't follow there own poilicy since I never followed the process in advance...LOL



I'd think their policy is loosely based on those such as the nfl, they own all rights, but to the best of my knowledge wouldn't prosecute anyone for selling a few shots here and thereIt appears that this policy was inserted for this school year.

No this is different than what NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. does. There must have been a national HS athletic association conference this summer that talked about this issue, because other state associations have inserted the same policies for this year. A good example is Arkansas. Here was the reaction in the PJ community when that hit: Link (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26410) In that link I expressed the same thoughts as you that it wasn't any different than the what MLB does, but upon closer examination it is.

Professional sporting body assert their rights to control the commercial exploitation of their product, even restricting resale of images by newspapers as part of their credential agreements, but they've rarely asserted actual "ownership" of every image taken. Several years ago MLB tried to do a "rights grab" to their "hard card" holders, but relented when major organizations like the AP balked at signing and threatened to pull coverage. The LPGA tried to do the same thing (Link) (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19443) with the same results (Link) (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=19457). At the state level, in Louisiana the press balked when the state association tried to pull this (Link) (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=23943)

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 08:59 PM
ahhhhhhh section C 3 H,

says I may sell pictures to any participating school or student, or the student's family...

thank goodness I'm not going to jail...LOLI think you need to look a little closer. It reads (emphasis mine): Upon request of a PIAA member school or student, Media may sell copies of photographs that are published to the requesting school and/or student (or the student's family).In another words, if some parents see their kids in the sports section of the newspaper, you are allowed to sell them prints of the photo. That word "published" isn't in there by chance. You aren't allowed to sell them "unpublished" photos. The photos have to be used in some editorial sense, be it a newspaper, magazine, web-based sporting news page, etc. Just talking photos and selling them to parents, friends, etc. wouldn't be allowed per the rules.

Where this is headed is that the PIAA, without a doubt, wants to sell the exclusive rights (like their counterparts did in Arkansas) to peddle photos to parents of state tournament games to an "official photography" firm and be able to prevent others from doing so. If you look at the link above about the Louisiana press "uprising" what they were trying to stop were things like what newspapers commonly do now and, in addition to a photo or two from a game being used in a news story about the game, they will also post 25 "out-take" photos in a separate gallery that are for sale if you happen to see your kid in one. Papers more an more view this sort of thing as a way to generate additional revenue. Sporting organizations more and more want newspapers to decide if they are in the media or event photography business.

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 09:20 PM
I think you need to look a little closer. It reads (emphasis mine): In another words, if some parents see their kids in the sports section of the newspaper, you are allowed to sell them prints of the photo. That word "published" isn't in there by chance. You aren't allowed to sell them "unpublished" photos. The photos have to be used in some editorial sense, be it a newspaper, magazine, web-based sporting news page, etc. Just talking photos and selling them to parents, friends, etc. wouldn't be allowed per the rules.

.

depends on whether or not they clearly define published,

some definitions of published include, posting them on a website..

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 09:22 PM
I think you need to look a little closer. It reads (emphasis mine): In another words, if some parents see their kids in the sports section of the newspaper, you are allowed to sell them prints of the photo. That word "published" isn't in there by chance. You aren't allowed to sell them "unpublished" photos. The photos have to be used in some editorial sense, be it a newspaper, magazine, web-based sporting news page, etc. Just talking photos and selling them to parents, friends, etc. wouldn't be allowed per the rules.

Where this is headed is that the PIAA, without a doubt, wants to sell the exclusive rights (like their counterparts did in Arkansas) to peddle photos to parents of state tournament games to an "official photography" firm and be able to prevent others from doing so. .

the PIAA is in so much trouble with our legislature already, they are discussing disbanding them, I'll discuss this with the Senators involved:thumbsup2

Geoff_M
10-04-2007, 09:38 PM
depends on whether or not they clearly define published,

some definitions of published include, posting them on a website..But since, in the eyes of the PIAA they "own" your photos, they would get to decide about what's "published" and what isn't. Trying to stretch the definition of editorial publishing to include posting them on a photo sales web site is probably taking it a bit too far. If you've read the Louisiana and Arkansas threads I posted above, you'll have a pretty good idea of the power struggle and attempted muscle flexing that's at work here.

the PIAA is in so much trouble with our legislature already, they are discussing disbanding them, I'll discuss this with the Senators involvedGood luck... You can bet a lot of newspapers in Pennsylvania will be hopping mad as this gets around (it looks like the policy was updated in late September).

MICKEY88
10-04-2007, 10:37 PM
But since, in the eyes of the PIAA they "own" your photos, they would get to decide about what's "published" and what isn't. Trying to stretch the definition of editorial publishing to include posting them on a photo sales web site is probably taking it a bit too far. If you've read the Louisiana and Arkansas threads I posted above, you'll have a pretty good idea of the power struggle and attempted muscle flexing that's at work here.

Good luck... You can bet a lot of newspapers in Pennsylvania will be hopping mad as this gets around (it looks like the policy was updated in late September).


I haven't shot any school stuff since my kids graduated, but it seems like a good cause to fight for, Luckily the Senator that handles all education/school stuff is my buddy, so meeting with him will be easy.

the other good thing is it only applies to state playoffs, our HS rarely makes it that far..LOL so even if I want to shoot any games , regular season stuff is still open..

Anewman
10-05-2007, 03:53 AM
Speaking of that matter and your state, guess what...? Starting this year if you take a photo at one of your state's HS tournaments, per the PIAA, they own the copyrights, not you! The people in the stands, the press, etc... they now lay claim to ownership of every image and grant newspapers the "right" to use "their" images of the event.



Link, Page 77 (http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/Handbook%20-%20Section%20II%20-%20Policies%20&%20Procedures.pdf)

And now we go full circle(back to original topic).

So If the PIAA owns the rights to those images, the athletes must agree to those terms if they want to compete. And if the PIAA contracts a photographer to shoot...

I was talking about this to another photographer on the sideline of todays JV football game, and he mentioned something to that effect about the Little League world series. Even if you have a press pass, by Little League allowing you access to shoot their games you give them the rights to use your shots for advertising(or other).

IMO if we look at this closely it is not such a terrible policy, I mean these high school athletes are amateurs and minors. I feel the PIAA and Little League controlling where and how(as copyright holders) the images are used and sold can protect our kids from the exact stuff that was mentioned as concerns in this thread. We are looking at this as photographers, but lets try to look at this as parents. Wouldnt you want someone monitoring how your kid/athletes images are used?

Geoff_M
10-05-2007, 08:10 AM
And now we go full circle(back to original topic).

So If the PIAA owns the rights to those images, the athletes must agree to those terms if they want to compete. And if the PIAA contracts a photographer to shoot...

I was talking about this to another photographer on the sideline of todays JV football game, and he mentioned something to that effect about the Little League world series. Even if you have a press pass, by Little League allowing you access to shoot their games you give them the rights to use your shots for advertising(or other).

IMO if we look at this closely it is not such a terrible policy, I mean these high school athletes are amateurs and minors. I feel the PIAA and Little League controlling where and how(as copyright holders) the images are used and sold can protect our kids from the exact stuff that was mentioned as concerns in this thread. We are looking at this as photographers, but lets try to look at this as parents. Wouldnt you want someone monitoring how your kid/athletes images are used?Personally, I don't think this is a good trend at all. Copyright ownership is literally the lifeblood of photo journalism. Without it, your ability to earn a living or extra cash is in jeopardy. Over the last ten years or so, copyright ownership has been under a constant assault that has had some very real negative effects in the PJ world. It's one of the reasons that more and more, being a PJ is akin to taking a vow of poverty.

The first big shot fired in this war was made by the Associated Press (AP). News services often hire freelancers to "string" for them at sporting events and other scheduled news events when extra help is needed. It used to be that if you were an AP stringer and they used one of your photos, they paid you a per image fee, they got the rights to use the image for news purposes, but the stringer retained ownership of the copyright and was free to sell the image as a reprint or for other non-competing uses. That all changed several years ago when the AP rolled out a new stringer contract that bumped up and per image fee a bit, but in return it added language that transfered ownership of the image to AP forever, and ever, amen. The Stringer had the choice of walking away from the work they got from the AP, or signing their rights away. Most chose the later.

From that point forward, the rush for "rights grabs" was on as other news venues took notice and started looking at things like secondary sales (See this list of news organizations selling reprints (http://www.pictopia.com/pub/clients.html)). Well, it's harder and less profitable to sell reprints of photos you don't own, so away they went!

It wasn't long before the idea spread beyond news organizations and into the subjects of the photos too. They have to spend a lot of nuts to get good photos of their events for advertising and other promotional use. So they realized that if they could get the photographers to sign credential agreements with "rights grabs" inserted, their photo bills would drop to zero. Recently, even some entertainers have gotten into the act by trying to insert grabs into concert credential forms. Not surprisingly, the photographers and agencies that like actually being paid for use of their work take a lot of umbrage when such clauses are often times quietly slipped into the piece of paper you sign when you go to pick up your event credential.

As for the motive of the PIAA, I can assure you it isn't about protecting the kids from misuse of their images. Just like everything else in the "rights grab" game, it begins and ends with $$$. If you want to sell photos from their events, that's fine, but you gotta pay a licensing fee first to sell "their" photos. On top of that, the PIAA get to use any of "their" photos for free, even if you took them.

As for protecting the kids, the PIAA and any school for that matter, can ask any photographer to leave the grounds for any reason they wish. If they spot a guy at a basketball game only taking photos of the cheerleaders' rear ends (It happens (http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=38&u_sid=645018)) ... they can bounce him. Likewise, if they don't like what a photographer or agency is doing with the photos they take, they can be barred from future events. There are other ways to deal with this other than a blanket "rights grab".

Fortunately there still are agencies out there that do things the "right way". For example, I'm represented by Icon Sports Media. I get to keep my rights, and they share any revenue from sales with me. Before you sign any forms or submit any pictures anywhere, read the text. There's a very good chance there's a rights grab in there! A common place to see them now are with so-called "Citizen Reporter" programs... the ones were if you get a good news photo (or video) on your cell phone camera your local newspaper or TV station (or even CNN) wants you to send it do them. Guess what, they get a good photo (or video), they don't have to pay a nickel for it (because they know you'll just be thrilled to death to see your photo in the newspaper or video on TV!), and when you submitted to them they made you check a box whereby you agreed that the newspaper/TV station can use the photo/video, sell it, license it to others, and do what they want with it (and might even now "own" the work) forever!

MICKEY88
10-05-2007, 08:55 AM
I agree wit Geoff_M. I don't see this as a positive thing in any way, as a photographer or a parent,

I'd rather have a trustworthy photographer holding the copyright, than a money grabbing organization like the PIAA, they have been very controversial over the past 5 years or so, because every move they make is about money, not about the student athletes best interest...


as a side thought to this issue. that's why I never enter photo contests, most of them have a clause hidden in the rules stating that if you win, you give up the copyright to the image...

The PA Renn FAire has a photography contest, buried in the rules is that clause...sure, you can win a free pass to the faire for next year, sounds nice on the surface, but in reality, they give you a 28 dollar pass, for a photo they want to use for advertising the following year, quite a deal for them..