Can they do this? Legal question

[MICKEY88]

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]

Haha, ideally it would be a written release but verbal would work too! What a mess

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

 

[MICKEY88]

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]

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, it would be legally binding. However, proving the verbal concsent would be quite a different thing!

 

[Gdad]

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.

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

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

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]

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!! 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!!!

 

[MICKEY88]

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.

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]

As long as it didn't violate the 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..

 

[0bli0]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

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.