Can they do this? Legal question

[mabas9395]

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]

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..

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.

 

[MICKEY88]

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.

...

 

[MICKEY88]

interesting read on the topic..http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

 

[AndrewWG]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Anewman]

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]

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]

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.mxp

BTW, MaxPreps is owned by CBS.

 

[MICKEY88]

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

 

[MICKEY88]

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]

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]

that's when press credentials come in handy

Or a 300mm f2.8

 

[Anewman]

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]

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]

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.