outraged parent

[xcal007]

I do alot of sports action photography and for the first time I had a parent complain. What happened is I was asked by the league to take pictures during the games I then put them on my smugmug website to view and buy. Now the parent wants me to remove all pictures of her child or she is gonna press charges so I did so.
My question is whos permision do I need. Is the leagues saying its ok to take the picture ok or do I need to ask the parents. Also do all minors need to be password protected on the website..

[Phil Light]

My understanding is that technically any time you post anyone's picture online - if you can recognize their face, you need a signed release. If that person is a minor, then you need a release from a parent. But! I think very few people do this, and I'm no lawyer so pay no attention to what I have to say about legal matters.

[Curtis N]

Cooperating with the parent was the right thing to do. It's a battle not worth fighting in this case.

But if the game was played in public, I don't think you broke any laws. I would have asked, "press charges for what?"

[wannabegood]

Seems to me that there are league considerations, membership issues and such. When you join the league and pay membership dues and entry fees for tournaments, it's all in the consideration of public domain. So if the league specifically asked for the shots to be posted, the parents have already signed off in the membership papers. My daughter plays soccer and I'm fairly sure that is the case.
But like Curtis says, cooperating with the parent in question is usually the best thing to do, and there is always going to be at least one that wants to exercise that kind of power!
I personally like the grandma's that tell me, "if you have any more pictures of ***** just tell me how much money you need!" :) Too bad they're not all like that!

[basroil]

I do alot of sports action photography and for the first time I had a parent complain. What happened is I was asked by the league to take pictures during the games I then put them on my smugmug website to view and buy. Now the parent wants me to remove all pictures of her child or she is gonna press charges so I did so.
My question is whos permision do I need. Is the leagues saying its ok to take the picture ok or do I need to ask the parents. Also do all minors need to be password protected on the website..

point of putting it on smugmug was to get the parents to buy anyway... since they are clearly not interested, just take them off... if they later ask for the photos, hit them with fees for reupping the photos and reprocessing them;)

[dave13]

The company I work for does alot of event work. Almost all of our contracted schools/leagues get their photos posted and we all get parents and grandparents coming up to us saying something along the lines of "See #21 there? Take plenty pictures of him/her and I'll buy them." I'[m under the impression this is pretty standard practice in the industry.

Your particular parent must have had a bee in her bonnet that day.

[ssim]

What may be standard practise these days does not necessarily mean that it is legal. I had a similar instance with shooting a gymnastic competition for a club. I had one parent come up and ask me not to take any of their daughter. Not sure why but I just ignored their girl and shot the rest. I did put the images in a locked gallery. I am a little anal when it comes to posting images of minors on the web in an open gallery.

To the letter of the law, I think that you do have to have a release. I am not so sure that paying dues to play a sport would constitute a release of this responsibility.

[liza]

I find that parents sometimes become outraged by the fact that you aren't giving them the image for free. A lot of people seem to want something for nothing.

[Croasdail]

You do not need to have someones permission to post their image on the web when they are performing at a public venue. The legal bar is you can not post images of a person where a reasonable person would expect to have privacy. Unless the league had an expressed policy of not photography and applied it to everyone, there is no cause here. The media and software security industry has done a wonderful job of fueling peoples paranoia. It's sad how warped some parents have become.

Now, you can't sell for profit that image to someone though... that is not allowed. Taking the picture is fine. Making money off of someones image without their consent is a whole different issues.

You did the right thing by pulling their images though. They weren't going to buy anyway.

[xcal007]

I would like to thank everyone for thier input. I wanted to add some interesting info I just found out about the parent. Its been said that she is into photography and is new to the area and was hoping to get the leagues business this year.

[PhotosGuy]

Its been said that she is into photography and is new to the area and was hoping to get the leagues business this year. As IndyJeff might say, "Great! Let her shoot. I'll just look that much better by comparison!" ;)

[Gatorboy]

My understanding is that technically any time you post anyone's picture online - if you can recognize their face, you need a signed release. If that person is a minor, then you need a release from a parent.

This is not true -- in the United States.

[Croasdail]

I would like to thank everyone for thier input. I wanted to add some interesting info I just found out about the parent. Its been said that she is into photography and is new to the area and was hoping to get the leagues business this year.

Ah, well then she is making a swell impression with the league then, isn't she.

[zacker]

Your particular parent must have had a bee in her bonnet that day.


Is that the same as a bug up her *** ?

[thekufan]

What about paparazzi taking pictures of celebs on the streets in Holleywood. They sell their images to tabloids and make a profit off those celebs picture. I know this case involves minors, but isn't that an example of someone in the public domain taking a picture of someone else and making money off that picture?

[Phil Light]

This is not true -- in the United States.

If that is correct, then as a photographer, that would be great. But!, is this a fact, or something you were told? Are you an attorney, and / or do you have sources? I'm not challenging you personally, I would just like to find a definitive source in case the issue ever comes up with the shots I post. I hope you are right.

[Phil Light]

What about paparazzi taking pictures of celebs on the streets in Holleywood. They sell their images to tabloids and make a profit off those celebs picture. I know this case involves minors, but isn't that an example of someone in the public domain taking a picture of someone else and making money off that picture?

I've always had the same question.

[ssim]

I followed a court case a couple of years ago that had a celebrity suing a paparizzi. The celeb lost. A normal person was deemed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when outdoors. The celebrity was not deemed to be able to have that same right given their career. I also believe that the images that show up in the tabloids would be easily classified as editorial which does not have the requirement of a release form.

[Phil Light]

I followed a court case a couple of years ago that had a celebrity suing a paparizzi. The celeb lost. A normal person was deemed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy even when outdoors. The celebrity was not deemed to be able to have that same right given their career. I also believe that the images that show up in the tabloids would be easily classified as editorial which does not have the requirement of a release form.

I wonder how a court would define "celebrity"? Would an amature athlete fall into that catagory?

[Gatorboy]

If that is correct, then as a photographer, that would be great. But!, is this a fact, or something you were told? Are you an attorney, and / or do you have sources?

No, I'm not an attorney, but I know that when playing sports in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy. Now, if you take pictures of someone through their windows at home -- you've stepped over that boundary.

You need a model release if you intend on selling the images for commercial purposes where you are using their likeness to sell a product, etc. (i.e. Magazine ad, website banner, t-shirts).

If a parent would ever ask me to take down images of their child, I would just do so as a courtesty even though you legally don't need to do it. But why push the issue for the principal of it?

If you are concerned over this issue I would consult an attorney and not rely on what you read on a forum.

[Bwinkert]

Have you picked up the book called "Legal Handbook for Photographers"
BY Bert Krages?

I found it to be pretty useful

Brad

[Moo]

Hmm, I wonder why they got so mad? (Did their kid suck at the game? - just kidding)

I think you did the right thing by pulling them down. I don't know about your sports league but with some of the things my son is involved in I have to sign something with the registration that says if I agree to have his photo taken at events.

I wonder if it is a public event what the laws would be. What if the local tv station was covering the game?

I'd check with the sports group to see what kind of release they have parents sign (if any). Next registration see if you can have something put in there and if you don't get every signature back then keep those kids out - perhaps having their numbers would help.

[Gatorboy]

I don't know about your sports league but with some of the things my son is involved in I have to sign something with the registration that says if I agree to have his photo taken at events.

I sign things similar to this from the schools my children attend. But I think (but I may be wrong) this is to give permission to use any images on the school website or newspaper which in addtion to the picture will include their NAME, GRADE, etc. This is probably more of a CYA -- and it's very easy to get every student's parents to sign (or not) for each school year, the first day brings about 10 papers for me to sign.

Those of us who shoot sports for sales to parents post the images with no indication of the names of the participants.

[S230]

I think in today's society especially in North America, people are too overly protective of children and often goes overboard. Not long ago, my friend and I were taking photos at a park and my friend was questioned by a parent if he was photographing kids and what is he doing.

[dave13]

Is that the same as a bug up her *** ?

Yeah, just a little nicer sounding ;)

[breal101]

I think in today's society especially in North America, people are too overly protective of children and often goes overboard. Not long ago, my friend and I were taking photos at a park and my friend was questioned by a parent if he was photographing kids and what is he doing.

Sitting on a park bench, watching little girls with bad intent.
Jethro Tull

I think of this song everytime I am around kids with my camera, it seems that is the way we are perceived these days. I could have the words wrong on the song, haven't played it in a while so please forgive my memory.

[themirage]

I got bored and downloaded alot of 'little leage' registration forms and none of them imply or state specifically the right to photograph is granted.

[strmrdr]

Even if you do or might win in court you will lose in the court of public opinion and your business will be harmed.
These days nothing has to be proven just allegations made and your toast when it comes to this area.

[pagnamenta]

I'm not a lawyer yet, but here's what I know. Depending on where you shot this, you have certain rights. If this was in public, then you are able to shoot them and their kid. Furthermore, if the club has a contract that says their kid might be photographed, they've waived the right to not be photographed.

Furthermore, you've taken steps to ensure that not anybody can get access to these photos so you've got that going for you.

I will say though, you played it smart by taking the photos down. If the parents were stupid enough, they would press charges and go to court thus costing you money. You could and probably would win your case, but it'd cost you to prove your point.

[Mark_Cohran]

If that is correct, then as a photographer, that would be great. But!, is this a fact, or something you were told? Are you an attorney, and / or do you have sources? I'm not challenging you personally, I would just like to find a definitive source in case the issue ever comes up with the shots I post. I hope you are right.

There is a long precedent that you do not need a model release for editorial use. You do need a model release for commercial use. Simply posting on the web, if the photo is not for sale, would not require a model release.

Mark

[Julio]

Now, you can't sell for profit that image to someone though... that is not allowed. Taking the picture is fine. Making money off of someones image without their consent is a whole different issues.

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html

[Phil Light]

There is a long precedent that you do not need a model release for editorial use. You do need a model release for commercial use. Simply posting on the web, if the photo is not for sale, would not require a model release.

Mark

Mark, at the risk of beating this dead horse even deader, doesn't that mean if I shoot 75 girls at a gymnastics meet and post the photos on a site like Smugmug to sell, I should have a model release from each of their parents?

[chakalakasp]

Caveat: I AM NOT A LAWYER. We actually have one that is on this board; however, just as photographers like to be paid for their expertise, I suspect she likes to be paid for hers, too, so if she doesn't chime in, that's understandable. :) She's got a book for sale, so if you want to know her thoughts, buy a copy. There are other books about the legal aspect of photography out there, as well.

As I understand it, you CAN sell photographic prints of people without getting a release form. You CAN'T use that image in any way that constitutes a promotion or in any way that ties it to a product. Making a print of it and selling it would be a-okay, as would putting a picture of it in the newspaper to go with a story about gymnastics, but working it up into an advert for your studio and putting it in the paper would not.

However, nothing stops people from sueing you for anything under the sun whether they're right or not. They won't win, but they'll be a pain in the butt. :) As such, if someone comes to you and asks you to stop selling a picture with them in it, it's probably a good idea to just heed their wishes unless the money you were going to make on that sale is greater than the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend against a potential lawsuit.

[Gatorboy]

... if I shoot 75 girls at a gymnastics meet and post the photos on a site like Smugmug to sell, I should have a model release from each of their parents?

no release is needed if you are selling the prints to the families of the gymnasts.

[goforphoto]

Photos taken in a public settingcan be used if:
They are used in addition to a news article. (no release needed)
Any other use, you should have a release rather it be adult or minor. And never never use photos for advertisement with out a release.

[Jon, The Elder]

I just put up a bunch of (not very good) photos of my Grandsons basketball game.

I use the disclaimer "not for sale to anyone". Not foolproof, but a simple statement showing intent.

[Croasdail]

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html


Interesting reading in the actual decision by the court. Seems there is a very narrow definition of commercial versus artistic use in the State of New York. I wonder how the other states have defined this very subject.

Thanks for the link.

[Mbrescio]

I wonder if the local newspaper was taking pictures of her kid, would she tell them not to post in the newspaper??????? One of our local newspaper takes pictures during games then offers them for sale. No releases are gotten before or after the games.

[symes]

Didn't see this answered so I thought I would chime in so indyjeff doesn't have to say this again...

What about paparazzi taking pictures of celebs on the streets in Holleywood. They sell their images to tabloids and make a profit off those celebs picture. I know this case involves minors, but isn't that an example of someone in the public domain taking a picture of someone else and making money off that picture?

tabloids are considered editorial...editorial photos can be sold...

cheers,

[grego]

What about paparazzi taking pictures of celebs on the streets in Holleywood. They sell their images to tabloids and make a profit off those celebs picture. I know this case involves minors, but isn't that an example of someone in the public domain taking a picture of someone else and making money off that picture?

Sadly, that crap called tabloids are considered editorial. In editorial, as long as they are on public ground, you can take a photo without a release.

Although paparazzi often bend the rules greatly.

edit: Symes answered the question before me! :)

[S230]

Photos taken in a public settingcan be used if:
They are used in addition to a news article. (no release needed)

I used to think this way until recent lawsuits in Quebec even for editorial.

[Mark_Cohran]

Lawsuits can be filed for anything, but it doesn't mean they'll go to court. In cases like this, they're usually summarily dismissed due to legal precedent, i.e. the plaintiff doesn't have a case.

Mark

[PhotoAttorney]

. . . As I understand it, you CAN sell photographic prints of people without getting a release form. You CAN'T use that image in any way that constitutes a promotion or in any way that ties it to a product. Making a print of it and selling it would be a-okay, as would putting a picture of it in the newspaper to go with a story about gymnastics, but working it up into an advert for your studio and putting it in the paper would not.

However, nothing stops people from sueing you for anything under the sun whether they're right or not. They won't win, but they'll be a pain in the butt. :) As such, if someone comes to you and asks you to stop selling a picture with them in it, it's probably a good idea to just heed their wishes unless the money you were going to make on that sale is greater than the cost of hiring a lawyer to defend against a potential lawsuit.

Ryan,

I agree with your analysis of whether a model release is needed and understand your concerns about a lawsuit. However, we should stand up for our rights so that they won't be diminished!

Best,
Carolyn

[PhotographerS]

Hi!
I am by no means a lawyer or an expert at law, how ever I am *trying* to become a photographer, and I recall that at the start of my high school (freshman year) I was taught that the school could get sued if I was to take a photo of a minor, and post it on the web,with out asking first. However later that year, the school got smart and added an agreement in the rule book about school publications (aka. yearbook, newspaper and school web site), that says any person (parent) that does not want their student in any of these publication needs to send a note to the office by the second week of school saying they do not want their student included then we (journalism dept.) would get word and we would exempt. them from all publication..... However in the past four years there has not be a single person to request that. (If no note was sent in then that gives the school permission to publish, with in reason, the photo legally). I think all sports, schools, etc. should have this stipulation in their rule books. This also protects other photographers that have been assigned to cover a sports event, etc. event.

*BUT I AGREE WITH MOST EVERYONE ELSE RE. TAKING THE PHOTOS OFF THE WEB*

Shea

[sageone]

I work for a high school where most all subjects are under the age of 18. In the student handbook there's a thing on marketing and communications that basically says that the school has a photographer who takes a ton of pics for marketing use. If you do not want pictures of your son taken and/or used in any PR materials, please contact the school in writing. Getting 700+ release forms would be a pain in the you know what so we took that approach. It's worked for us.

Maybe the league could do something similar to let parents know before hand.

[chakalakasp]

I work for a high school where most all subjects are under the age of 18. In the student handbook there's a thing on marketing and communications that basically says that the school has a photographer who takes a ton of pics for marketing use. If you do not want pictures of your son taken and/or used in any PR materials, please contact the school in writing. Getting 700+ release forms would be a pain in the you know what so we took that approach. It's worked for us.

Maybe the league could do something similar to let parents know before hand.

I really dunno if model releases can work on an "opt out" basis for people going to a public highschool. But then I suspect (hope!) the school or photographer has run that one by an attorney. :)

[caljimw]

I am a retired lawyer, and a photo hobbyist trying to take a few decent shots:
1) You did the right thing by "solving the problem" when requested to remove the Smugmug photos.
2) Publication, and posting on the net, of public events photographs is not a violation of privacy laws -UNLESS ( there are a lot of unlesses - I am only going to mention one because I am aware of an active matter in Quebec) unless the editorial text attached with the photo misrepresents or is defamatory of the subject of the photo. As a specific example: You could not take a picture of two people of different races walking near each other, and suggest by editorial text that one is a racist. You could not even do so using professional models, unless you had a proper model release that specifically addresses the intended use of the photo.

3) One post alluded to the issue of posting any photos of minors on the net. Many organizations now prohibit the posting of the photo of ANY minor on their websites. Pedophilia and the net being what they are, they feel discretion is the preferred route.

4) The commercial issue has been correctly stated by many posters. It is not considered commercial use to sell a newsworthy image of an event to a newspaper or other publication. Using the youth sport event as an example, the photos could be sold to the league or event sponsor, who then might show the images on the net or in print as part of their regular program of communicating with their members.
5) Someone mentioned a locked site for posting of photos for sale. Good Idea, but not a substitute for a model release, unless you limit access to persons in the chain of authority of consenting to the sale of the photo (the individual, parents, guardians...).

And you thought all you had to do was push the button.........
Enjoy!

[S230]

Thanks caljimw. Finally someone with legal background. :) You pointed some excellent points especially point #2.

Here's an example of something about taking photos in Quebec. Referring to is the "Duclos photo", http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

[sfaust]

I really dunno if model releases can work on an "opt out" basis for people going to a public highschool. But then I suspect (hope!) the school or photographer has run that one by an attorney. :)

I don't think the 'opt out' program would really stand up in court. Especially if they can't prove that each and every parent received the notice. If they can't prove the parent received the notice, how can the parent know they have to 'opt out'? I could be totally wrong on this, but I can see lots of holes an attorney could use to wiggle out of for the parents.

Wouldn't it be like me sending out a letter saying that those who receive it need to 'opt out' or they comitt to buying a set of my images for $34.95. Then trying to collect on that?

[blackshadow]

Making money off of someones image without their consent is a whole different issues.

Not quite true - if you are using the photo for "commercial purposes" you need a release. Selling prints is not deemed to be a commercial purpose but using the photo for advertising is.

[sageone]

I don't think the 'opt out' program would really stand up in court. Especially if they can't prove that each and every parent received the notice. If they can't prove the parent received the notice, how can the parent know they have to 'opt out'? I could be totally wrong on this, but I can see lots of holes an attorney could use to wiggle out of for the parents.

Wouldn't it be like me sending out a letter saying that those who receive it need to 'opt out' or they comitt to buying a set of my images for $34.95. Then trying to collect on that?

I was the one that brought up the opt-out scenario at the high school. The info is included in the student parent handbook, which includes a form that all parents and students have to sign and return to the school before the start of the year. The form states that they have read the handbook and that they understand/agree/acknowledge the info provided in it. It also includes info about abscences, substance abuse policy, etc.

[blackshadow]

If it was me I would send the the parent a letter politely explaining that you have removed the images of their child as requested out of courtesy and as a good will gesture but that you have no legal obligation to do so.

[TeeJay]

...Selling prints is not deemed to be a commercial purpose but using the photo for advertising is.

Erm.... surely the word "selling" makes this a commercial purpose!

[SuzyView]

I shoot my sons' school events all the time, sort of as a contribution to the school. It is a very sticky thing as well for their sports teams. I do not post anything on the web, except in a secure photobucket account that the parents can log onto. I make them promise they will not distribute the password or else I erase the site. I don't put a lot of shots on that site, I usually burn CD's for the parents the last day. For the school I give the disk to the computer teacher, he has a folder with all the releases and can post only the pictures with children who have signed the releases. It is tedious, but the only way we can work these days. I don't post any children on this site (the forum) except my own children respecting the images of the other children I know and love. So, I think we have to respect the parents and families and do the right thing from the start. It is a dangerous world out there.

[blackshadow]

Erm.... surely the word "selling" makes this a commercial purpose!

See other posts above - selling prints is not deemed "commercial" when it comes to needing permission to sell the photos. Yes it does sound peculiar but it is right.

[sfaust]

I was the one that brought up the opt-out scenario at the high school. The info is included in the student parent handbook, which includes a form that all parents and students have to sign and return to the school before the start of the year. The form states that they have read the handbook and that they understand/agree/acknowledge the info provided in it. It also includes info about abscences, substance abuse policy, etc.

That sounds better, in that if they sign the form they state they agree with all the terms. So they are really opting in, since they could not sign the form if they don't agree, or ammend their signature with language stating they they agree with the terms except those noted. Thats makes much more sense than an opt-out situation.

[sfaust]

See other posts above - selling prints is not deemed "commercial" when it comes to needing permission to sell the photos. Yes it does sound peculiar but it is right.

It really depends on how you use the prints that will make the distinction whether its comercial or not. If you are selling prints to the parents, its a whole lot different than selling 16x20 prints on a street corner. They are both prints, but the way they are being sold is totally different. One is obviously non commercial, but a very good case could be made that the second one is.

I wish the whole issue would be more black and white, but its really a sliver of black and white on the edges, and a whole lot of gray in the middle :(

[Croasdail]

add to that the whole layer of if it is an artist representation, it is exempt as well, the whole thing gets really muddy. There was the case of a chap who did street photography in New York and did a large print of a Jewish man, sold it as Art, and the man sued. The man eventually lost on the basis of it being "art" rather then commercial. It is very complex.

[Julio]

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/archives/001665.html

[Croasdail]

yep Julio... that's the one. Thanks.

[Yella Fella]

does this even cross into wedding photography (slightly off topic), wherebys a photographer who sells prints for the day, but includes other guests in the pictures too etc.

[jkloef]

I am very protective of my children as well, and I agree with the way that you handled this situation. The woman has the right to not want images of her child online. Just for one example; child predators look at pictures like these and get off by them. Just by looking at the pictures they can fairly easily tell what team they are on and their location. I did not look at your pictures in particular but am speaking in general. There are sick people out there, my husband is a criminal investigator and has taken several classes about online predators. I don't blame the mother at all. I always check the box stating that no photos of my child may be released to the public whenever I sign her up for things and would be angered if I found any had been done so without my permission. It is a tough job being a parent and keeping them safe, I am sure she had a reason. Good call on just taking them off. :)

[August 15 Photography]

I find that parents sometimes become outraged by the fact that you aren't giving them the image for free. A lot of people seem to want something for nothing.
Its all the cell phone industries fault...Free phones Free phones, now everyone wants something for nothing lol

[dcyphert]

The past two years ('05 & '06) I have been the local Little League organization's photographer, but I declined the job this year because I was too busy with other photo jobs. When it came time for my 10 year old son to have his team and individual photo taken, I was there with my camera and 430ex on bracket, figuring I would do his own photos myself. I waited til the hired photographer finished and I stepped in and took a few. Just then, the son of a friend of mine came up to me and said his mom wanted me to take his little brother's photo instead of this 'outfit' that the league hired. So I walked over to his team and took his photo....a few minutes later the President of the League, who's also a friend of mine said that another member of the Board, who saw me taking the team photos, asked that he relay to me (instead of to me directly) to "stop taking pictures, but didn't have a problem with me taking my son's photo"...my response (among other things) and the President agreed, that I could "take photos all day if I wanted to", besides the fact I was on public school property as well.

I went looking for this person minutes after the President told me and told him "I was there as a parent, and he had no grounds to make me stop taking photos" and explained that a friend had asked me to take a couple photos for her. He said he believed me and said he didn't want to get into an argument (as we walked away from the other photographers) He said "you turned down the job and now you're taking photos", I told this person I was too f$&!*'n busy to hang around all day and take photos anyway...if I did, I wouldn't have declined the job in the first place!

It turns out (which I found out later) this person that wanted me to stop taking photos works with and is friends with this spousal team they hired...so it was then clear that he had personal interest in them being there. Since this happened I just let it go....but IMO (and after seeing their work) this couple they hired does inferior work, and I've had quite a few parents tell me this after receiving their photos this year...most have asked me to reconsider again for next year, but I anticipate that I'll probably be just as busy.

[Hogloff]

The past two years ('05 & '06) I have been the local Little League organization's photographer, but I declined the job this year because I was too busy with other photo jobs. When it came time for my 10 year old son to have his team and individual photo taken, I was there with my camera and 430ex on bracket, figuring I would do his own photos myself. I waited til the hired photographer finished and I stepped in and took a few. Just then, the son of a friend of mine came up to me and said his mom wanted me to take his little brother's photo instead of this 'outfit' that the league hired. So I walked over to his team and took his photo....a few minutes later the President of the League, who's also a friend of mine said that another member of the Board, who saw me taking the team photos, asked that he relay to me (instead of to me directly) to "stop taking pictures, but didn't have a problem with me taking my son's photo"...my response (among other things) and the President agreed, that I could "take photos all day if I wanted to", besides the fact I was on public school property as well.

I went looking for this person minutes after the President told me and told him "I was there as a parent, and he had no grounds to make me stop taking photos" and explained that a friend had asked me to take a couple photos for her. He said he believed me and said he didn't want to get into an argument (as we walked away from the other photographers) He said "you turned down the job and now you're taking photos", I told this person I was too f$&!*'n busy to hang around all day and take photos anyway...if I did, I wouldn't have declined the job in the first place!

It turns out (which I found out later) this person that wanted me to stop taking photos works with and is friends with this spousal team they hired...so it was then clear that he had personal interest in them being there. Since this happened I just let it go....but IMO (and after seeing their work) this couple they hired does inferior work, and I've had quite a few parents tell me this after receiving their photos this year...most have asked me to reconsider again for next year, but I anticipate that I'll probably be just as busy.

So, let me get this straight. You are taking possible business away from the hired photographer? How is this different than a "weekend warrior photographer" taking photos and undercutting the professional? Seems it appears to be OK when the shoe is on the other foot.

[blackshadow]

I am very protective of my children as well, and I agree with the way that you handled this situation. The woman has the right to not want images of her child online. Just for one example; child predators look at pictures like these and get off by them. Just by looking at the pictures they can fairly easily tell what team they are on and their location. I did not look at your pictures in particular but am speaking in general. There are sick people out there, my husband is a criminal investigator and has taken several classes about online predators. I don't blame the mother at all. I always check the box stating that no photos of my child may be released to the public whenever I sign her up for things and would be angered if I found any had been done so without my permission. It is a tough job being a parent and keeping them safe, I am sure she had a reason. Good call on just taking them off. :)

What a load of bollocks!!!

1 - the parent has no legal right to stop photos legally taken to be displayed online as long as the person (child or not) is not misrepresented or used for commercial purposes (ie advertising)

2 - Yes there are predators out there and it's disgusting. However photos of children taken at events appear all the time whether it be online or not. If I was taking photos for a newspaper or magazine there is no restriction to publishing the images - same goes for online as long as the criteria in my first point are met.

3 - sounds like the parent in the original was acting out of commercial interest to try and muscle in on the photography contract rather than trying to protect her child.

Yes a parent has every right to protect their children and they should. But trampling on the rights of others engaged in lawful enterprise isn't protecting the rights of the child at all it's denying someone else their lawful rights.

[MJPhotos24]

So, let me get this straight. You are taking possible business away from the hired photographer? How is this different than a "weekend warrior photographer" taking photos and undercutting the professional? Seems it appears to be OK when the shoe is on the other foot.

Agree with this response, you want to take your kids pic you don't do it on the day the leagues photographer is coming in! You're not only undercutting him a bit, you're trying to show him/her up. Some parent did that this year with a little P&S saying "don't worry I'm buying prints to" and hey, that's fine but I know she was doing it to compare the quality (to get the same light, same background, same everything except settings and know how she won't come close to). Knowing she wouldn't come close to getting the same results I didn't mind, but if she came in yielding pro gear I would ask her to put it away. The parents might know her and ask for free crap (they always want free over the small price of pro images). One pro photographer I know poses his kid for the other pro photographer, but he NEVER EVER EVER would bring his gear to try and show him up. It's just plain out crossing the line, doing it on purpose or not it just is.

[MJPhotos24]

What a load of bollocks!!!


I concure!

[dcyphert]

So, let me get this straight. You are taking possible business away from the hired photographer? How is this different than a "weekend warrior photographer" taking photos and undercutting the professional? Seems it appears to be OK when the shoe is on the other foot.
My thought precisely...I really wouldn't care if a competitor showed up with just a camera, provided he was there to take his own kid's photo, but if he came with his tripod, reflectors and umbrellas...that I would object to. You said exactly as I said. "it is no different than anyone else bringing their point-n-shoot and snapping a few. You have to know this situation...in this small community, this person is just one of those on the LL Board that spend (voluntarilly) their time at the (3) fields maintaining it, which I can appreciate, but they start to believe they're martars or expect certain privelages. I'll just continue to go as a parent with my 30D and do my own photos of my son's. I agree I probably should have gone to a game of the other team for my friend and took their photo, but it happened on the spur of the moment and I didn't give it much thought. I didn't see it as undercutting them either, I nor my friend I took the photo for had no intentions of buying from them anyway.

[NickSimcheck]

No doubt it sucks for the hired pro, but if it's a public location then it's a free world...tough.

Sure it makes the wannabe/weekend warrior a jerk, but he isn't doing anything wrong.

[Gatorboy]

No doubt it sucks for the hired pro, but if it's a public location then it's a free world...tough.

If you have an agreement with the organization putting on the event that you are the official photograher -- it's the EVENT coordinators' job to prevent other photographers from stealing business.

They should only allow the 'official photographer' from shooting in the best locations or forbidding cameras all together. If the organization can't provide this level of enforcement, don't take the gig.

[NickSimcheck]

They should only allow the 'official photographer' from shooting in the best locations or forbidding cameras all together. If the organization can't provide this level of enforcement, don't take the gig.



Yeah that's about all they could do. That and boo the jerk who isn't the hired guy. :lol:

[dcyphert]

It was and always has been (as long as my son's have been involved with this league) on public school property. The fields they "think they own" are on the public propery as well. As far as enforcement from the Board members, they don't have a leg to stand on if they want me or anyone else to not take photos on this property. I never stopped a parent from using their point-n-shoot at my photo sessions the last two years, on the same property, and for the same baseball league.

[dcyphert]

I really don't mind the weekend warrior doing it...I mean it's only 1, maybe 2 parents out of 250 or so...besides, it's likely that's all they'll get is a plain photo. My finished prints are far more than a photo, that's what the parents love to see anyway, they've become so tired of the same old "MemoryMate". I wouldn't think of asking someone to stop taking photos unless it was going to interfere with the outcome of my shot or there was an agreement written up prior to the shoot that prohibited it.

[cosworth]

In regards to page 1, OP. I would have just said no. It's my business and it would affect sales. She can hire a lawyer all she wants.

Maybe that's why I don't do anything with children.

[MJPhotos24]

It was and always has been (as long as my son's have been involved with this league) on public school property. The fields they "think they own" are on the public propery as well. As far as enforcement from the Board members, they don't have a leg to stand on if they want me or anyone else to not take photos on this property. I never stopped a parent from using their point-n-shoot at my photo sessions the last two years, on the same property, and for the same baseball league.

Well that's wrong, just because it's on public property doesn't mean it's public domain when it comes to events being held there. The event organizers are getting permission to use those grounds for there needs, they're not just showing up outta the blue going "hey lets do it here". So they have full right to limit anyone from doing anything on those grounds they want while it's there time "slot" on the property. Also, I work for 3 schools a a coach during different seasons, I can't just come in with my stuff going "I'm doing our photos" for the teams I coach, they wouldn't allow it - yet it's at the school and public property, even our games are public events but other photogs are not allowed in because of contracts they have with other companies. I first must ask the other company and if they pass then I can do them. So the argument of it's pulic property would never hold up, because when the organization has the rights to that property for there event - it's there rules.

EDIT: I've never stopped a parent from using there lil' P&S either - cuz I know they are doing it to compare and won't come close to the results. However, coming in with gear thats a bit professional - I'd have the commish tell them no way to. Common sense not to do that to the hired photog.

I really don't mind the weekend warrior doing it...I mean it's only 1, maybe 2 parents out of 250 or so...besides, it's likely that's all they'll get is a plain photo. My finished prints are far more than a photo, that's what the parents love to see anyway, they've become so tired of the same old "MemoryMate". I wouldn't think of asking someone to stop taking photos unless it was going to interfere with the outcome of my shot or there was an agreement written up prior to the shoot that prohibited it.

Again, theres the difference - a parent with a litlte P&S and someone else coming in with pro gear. Ok, if one person comes in and doing photos of his/her son thats fine but when they start doing it for others...line crosssed really. The one year I was asked to come in and do action photos even though they had a photographer, I told them immediately to ask the company if they would - they passed, I came in and did them.

[chloeosmom]

Sorry if this has been said b4, but I dont have time to read 5 pages b4 work, but, as a parent when signing up my daughter for sports and the like, and when you sign the release, there is a spot saying that there may be pics taken and they will be used for (newspaper, trade mags), and for purchase on such and such website. If a parent doesnt like it, you just eliminate your child form the sport. Most clubs have all that figured out already. Just talk to the guy who hired you and ask if there is something like that in the membership information/contract that the parents signed. If not, tell him what happened and ask him to add that to the contracts. That way your covered for next year at least.
B

[elguapo]

I read all the replies to this and have a question.

Even if you do not have a legal obligation to do so, if you comply with one parent's request to remove photos of their child, have you set a precedent that you are then legally required to follow?

For example, you remove photos of the child of the complaining parent, then other requests come in, but it gets to be too much of a hassle so you stop removing the photos. Could the other parents successfully sue because you complied with one request but not another?

What if the child is in a photo with another child? For example, let's say there was a great play at home plate and one of the children involved was the one the parent asked not to be photographed. Would you remove those types of photos also or only photos in which the child appears alone? What about team photos?

Personally, I think I'd spend $150 or so to have a lawyer draft a letter stating that what you are doing is legal and anytime a parent complained, I'd send them a copy.

You may want to read the information on the link below about the penalties a judge can impose on the plaintiff and their lawyer if they file a frivolous lawsuit. And suing someone for taking photos of your child in a public place at a sporting event would qualify as frivolous since there are numerous court cases and a long established precedent that it is legal.

http://ripoffreport.com/wantToSueRipoffReport.asp

[dcyphert]

As I said in a previous post...if I was approached again to take another teams photo (other than my own son's), I'd decline and tell them I'd do it before a game (on a non-photo day)...the Mom just caught me off-guard.

[MJPhotos24]

I read all the replies to this and have a question.

Even if you do not have a legal obligation to do so, if you comply with one parent's request to remove photos of their child, have you set a precedent that you are then legally required to follow?

For example, you remove photos of the child of the complaining parent, then other requests come in, but it gets to be too much of a hassle so you stop removing the photos. Could the other parents successfully sue because you complied with one request but not another?

What if the child is in a photo with another child? For example, let's say there was a great play at home plate and one of the children involved was the one the parent asked not to be photographed. Would you remove those types of photos also or only photos in which the child appears alone? What about team photos?

Personally, I think I'd spend $150 or so to have a lawyer draft a letter stating that what you are doing is legal and anytime a parent complained, I'd send them a copy.

You may want to read the information on the link below about the penalties a judge can impose on the plaintiff and their lawyer if they file a frivolous lawsuit. And suing someone for taking photos of your child in a public place at a sporting event would qualify as frivolous since there are numerous court cases and a long established precedent that it is legal.

http://ripoffreport.com/wantToSueRipoffReport.asp

Well, no they couldn't sue because you did it for one parent and not another - you just changed your policy on removing photos (all rules/prices/information subject to change). Heck, charge a $25 removal fee ;) Maybe they wouldn't care then! I've never had one parent complain or ask for the photos to be removed. It is best to remove them just so they don't complain and drag your name through the mud. As for two kids in one photo, even if I removed all the ones of kid A but he's in another one with kid B that one of them together is staying (play at home, or conference on the mound, whatever). If she complained after that just tell her kid B's parents might like to see that photo so that will remain on the site unless she asks for them removed as well.

[Phil Light]

It might be worth keeping in mind that in this country anyone can bring a civil lawsuit against anyone for any reason. Finding an attorney who will waste their time and accept a stupid case, and then being able to win might be a whole other story.

[Hogloff]

Personally, I think I'd spend $150 or so to have a lawyer draft a letter stating that what you are doing is legal and anytime a parent complained, I'd send them a copy.


That's probably a heck of a good way of not getting the job next year. Parents talk among themselves and it doesn't take long to get a bad name, with the parents banding together and asking the league to remove you.

In this type of situation, take the high road and remove the pictures of the kid. If there are pictures of the kid among others, just consult with the parent and explain why you would like to keep those on for display. Communications is key in these types of situations...strong arm tactics will get you nowhere.

[Mike R]

Be the Pro and remove the shot. Then when other parents talk about your great shots and she comes back to get one, charge her a surcharge for the additonal work you now have to go through.

[dcyphert]

Now, you can't sell for profit that image to someone though... that is not allowed.

Not even to the child's own parent? What if that parent wanted to buy the photo and 2-3 other players were in the same photo and whose faces were discernable....could someone still sell that photo to the same parent legally?
Are there any law experts that want to chime in here? I would like to know because I keep hearing different scenarios, if, then maybe?? Is there really a lawyer out there that will waste their time on something like this...wait...did I just say that! Hmmmmm.

[symes]

Well that's wrong, just because it's on public property doesn't mean it's public domain when it comes to events being held there. The event organizers are getting permission to use those grounds for there needs, they're not just showing up outta the blue going "hey lets do it here". So they have full right to limit anyone from doing anything on those grounds they want while it's there time "slot" on the property. Also, I work for 3 schools a a coach during different seasons, I can't just come in with my stuff going "I'm doing our photos" for the teams I coach, they wouldn't allow it - yet it's at the school and public property, even our games are public events but other photogs are not allowed in because of contracts they have with other companies. I first must ask the other company and if they pass then I can do them. So the argument of it's pulic property would never hold up, because when the organization has the rights to that property for there event - it's there rules.



MJ you're actually wrong on this one...or at least my legal counsel would suggest so...if a single parent wants to hire a photographer to come and take photos of their child or if a few parents want to do so you can't stop them...They are on public property. Unfortunately, the league signs with the photographer and that is a binding agreement that the league can't hire other photographers but that agreement almost regardless of what the parent signed their kid up for and signed that little piece of paper doesn't stand up anywhere. They simply can't force parents to use the services of one photographer. At least that is how my lawyer phrased it...


Cheers,

[MJPhotos24]

MJ you're actually wrong on this one...or at least my legal counsel would suggest so...if a single parent wants to hire a photographer to come and take photos of their child or if a few parents want to do so you can't stop them...They are on public property. Unfortunately, the league signs with the photographer and that is a binding agreement that the league can't hire other photographers but that agreement almost regardless of what the parent signed their kid up for and signed that little piece of paper doesn't stand up anywhere. They simply can't force parents to use the services of one photographer. At least that is how my lawyer phrased it...


Cheers,
I am thinking thats different, cuz it's one parent or a group that pre-hired the photographer cuz they wanted to use them instead of the leagues regular guy. The photographer isn't just showing up and trying to hand out cards, he was asked to be there by the parents. If the photog just showed up out of the blue and started handing out cards, shooting everyone trying to take business away from the hired photog for the organization they can have that person removed. Especially if it's a paid event of course. Some of those papers those parents sign do have a photography portion, and it will hold up. It's a contract, signed, dated, it holds up. Youth leagues may be different, but for higher level (but not pro sports) you simply can't just waltz in and do that.

In canada this past year (whole new world up there, I know) I drove 3 1/2 hours to cover a hockey game for a company of amateur players at a city owned rink. The team photographer was not happy to see me, he went right to the office and asked I be removed (after being very friendly to me of course not telling me) Why? The company who sent me didn't want to use his pics but he wanted them to. So he had them come and stop me from shooting before I could crank out any shots, I argued for about 30 mins to no avail. I argued it left and right just how you're saying to. It was I put my stuff away myself or I get thrown out the door with my stuff. It was a public rink, there event, there choice.

[dcyphert]

Unfortunately, the league signs with the photographer and that is a binding agreement

Well in this sleepy little community in rural PA, pop. about 7,000, this Little League Association and it's Board members could care less who takes the photos (it seems a burden to some), and they have no written agreement with who they choose to take the photos. In fact, when I was involved with this league, they left the decision making up to one indidvidual to 'choose' the photographer......maybe there inlies the problem.
When the shoot is held outside, the location this is held is not pre-arranged and signed out to be used for this purpose, it's simply a small 16x24 shelter next to an elementary school which is also in proximity to the fields. When there is a need for more shelter due to rain, I, not a Board member, have contacted the high school (also a couple 100 feet away) and obtained a key for that day.

[FlyingPhotog]

I work in Sports TV and every credential* I've ever worn has verbage along the lines of "The bearer of this credential aknowledges that their image may be broadcast, photographed, or otherwise captured or transmitted, etc..."

(*Credential also applies to passes worn by non-press folk. NASCAR Pit/Garage Passes and similar.)

I would contact the league in question and make sure their application / permission slip paperwork includes a disclaimer stating that the league makes arrangement to have their games taped/photographed and that if you choose to participate, then you are fair game. If you so choose, you may opt out with the understanding that no images of this player will ever be available at a later date.

Just my $0.02 worth...

[chuckvanhalen]

I agree with not fighting with the parent - not worth it. But anything taking place in public like that is fair game to shoot and post. Newspapers wouldn't be able to publish if we needed signed releases of everyone we shot. Editorial use is fair game, commercial/advertising is another story.

[c71clark]

<snip> It was I put my stuff away myself or I get thrown out the door with my stuff. It was a public rink, there event, there choice.

I would have gotten their names, and then told them to do what they had to do. The second any of them laid a finger on me I would have called the mounties. You gave up too easily.

[MJPhotos24]

I would have gotten their names, and then told them to do what they had to do. The second any of them laid a finger on me I would have called the mounties. You gave up too easily.

They didn't literally throw me out, they would have needed a lot more security to do that. It was the president of the team, I had all pro gear - he had the right to not allow me to shoot, it was just stupid how it all happened.

[NathanJK]

And this is why I decided sports just wasn't worth the hassle...