need y'all advice on response.

[Aaagogo]

So, I shoot sports during my college's sporting events, my newspaper gets to use them should they choose to, and I put them up on facebook(with watermarks) and the athletes can use them if they wish, as their profile picture and such. however, when it comes to prints, i do not give them away for free.

lately, the women's tennis team were asking about my images, i told them that they're more than welcome to use them on facebook should they choose too.

now, they want prints, and I kindly told them that for prints, I can't and do not give them out for free, however, since the tennis team helped me on a special article on a feature of Student Athletes in my college, I'm more than willing to give them a discount on the prints.

she replied me with this, she wrote that she did research on the internet and found this.

"And you can't put someone else's likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone's likeness. For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can't try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what's happening ("A player celebrates a goal") is more important than who's doing it ("Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest"). Sound like a gray area? It is if you're planning to sell the pictures, but not if you're simply displaying them. And if you're using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm

we really like to have the pictures, the seniors are leaving and they really would love to have some action pictures of their last year, all the girls loved your job. thanks one more time to come and spend time with us.

So, how should I respond.

[Aaagogo]

I was thinking thinking along the lines of this.

------------

I understand you concern about commercial use, however, all my images are for editorial and personal use only.

Like GettyImages.com that sells images of athletes in their game.

The commercial use of images means, use for advertising, or promoting of product, example, using the image and saying that you use Wilson tennis rackets, and people go out and buy Wilson rackets. A more general commercial use would be the image appearing on, for example, sales brochure, magazine, advertisement, or billboard.

As i have explained myself in my FAQ section, on why my images are for sale, rather than giving them away for free.

---------------

I also have these 2 lines on my site

NONE of the athletes, academic institutions or name brands featured are endorsing or promoting ThatsPhotography.

Images on ThatsPhotography are not a direct or official product of any athletes, academic institutions or name brands.

[Teeth]

I think that's an excellent response as you're telling it as the mentioned rights state. The section quoted (in their reply) mentions selling prints to people other than the subjects in the photo. If the individual subjects are looking for pictures of themselves in action, you're not commercializing your product to a third party. If they don't want pictures commercialized of themselves, they don't have to buy prints of themselves.

If they come back more aggressive, you could always use the "time is money" response, covering your reasons why it costs you to produce these images and prints (albiet in a more eloquent way).

[jbimages]

If your photographs are art, the case has already been tested in US courts.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139565912319

Its a good idea to get a legal opinion in the country in question as laws do differ but over on this side of the pond selling a print in itself is not commercial.
A quote from http://4020.net/words/photorights.php#tpa
A photographer displays photos on their website and offers prints for sale. Non-Commercial — they are merely selling individual photographs, not using the people in them to endorse any product or service.

There is an interesting example in http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf, the source of the precised information in the original research.

[tim]

"I'm sorry but I accidentally deleted all the images of you, however I have the images of the rest of your team. Please tell them prints are available for purchase".

[Stocky]

"Thank you for the copyright lesson. I have done some research in the past, and my current sales practices are perfectly reasonable and in line with industry standards. I am also not sure that the article you got that from is entirely accurate. If you would like me to remove any pictures of you I would be happy to do so, otherwise please refer to my site for the posted rates."

[S.Horton]

"When I read your e-mail, I think you want free prints."

;}

[Aaagogo]

the girls are nice overall, and so is the head coach, I'd see them not buying a whole lot, but who knows, before I showed up, non of the players were even considering prints of themselves. (i know they're no where near great, but i'm the "best" among those I stand)

I was asked to attend the games after they've seen my basketball, golf images. so they already know that I sell my images.

maybe they thought they would try asking for freebies?

i want to answer them in such a way that can be correctly informed.

thank you for the links you've provided, John from Sydney, Australia.

[sidx001]

I think your response is spot on. Although Tim's cracked me up! You stated your
position carefully and without sounding standoffish...I think they were looking for
some freebies!

[S.Horton]

On a serious note, I did have something similar happen, and here is what I did.

1. Toggled the gallery offline immediately
2. Waited for the follow-on e-mail "where are the pictures?"
3. Waited three days
4. Apologized for the delay, explained that the gallery was offline because the original e-mail confused me about permission and sales potential, asked for clarification before turning it back on

They became much more pliable.

When time is on your side, waiting and silence are very powerful negotiating tools.

The other approach is to return the e-mail via phone call. That tends to work, because many people are tigers via e-mail, yet kittens in person.

[Aaagogo]

the message or method of communication was through facebook pm

[tcphoto1]

It sounds like they either want freebies or don't want to you use them. As creator of the images, you can sell them in Stock but not in a Commercial application unless you have a signed Models Release. They might not like it but they did not create the images. I would offer a slight discount up to the point where you hear a complaint.

[S.Horton]

the message or method of communication was through facebook pm

Ah, you see, I'm too old to use that.

:p

[Aaagogo]

while i understand that it's only natural to ask for freebies, I do not blame them for asking.

Thanks for your help guys,

I've sent the reply as my 2nd post, included that I'm offering a discount to them as a way of saying thanks for the help the tennis team showed me with my Student Athlete feature article that was shot down by everyone other than the tennis coach and one of the players from the tennis team.

and i did tell them I'm more than happy to remove any images of any of the team members if they feel that I'm using their likeness for commercial use.

this last part was not included

i don't mind not selling any images at all, but I will definitely not be giving away free prints or electronic copies. I figured since I've already posted the images on facebook, with watermarks, I've done my fair share of "giving back to the community"

[amfoto1]

You are perfectly entitled to sell individual prints so long as you had permission to take the photos on the premises, but that's another issue and clearly you had the permission anyway.

The only time you (or anyone licensing use of your photos) would need a model release is if the photos were to be used commercially. That would be in an advertisement or other manner where it's implied that the recognizable person in the photo is a spokesperson or in some way endorsing a product or service, or as illustration that will appear on a commercial product that will be sold in high volume, such as a mouse pad, t-shirt or poster.

Participants in events that are held before an audience have no expectation of privacy. So that's not an issue.

You may display the photos as part of your personal portfolio of work, too, without a model release. And, they may be used editorially, including any sort of publication (print or electronic) and fine art, to include the sale of original prints in small volume.

Sounds like you have someone who is "pre-law" and just wants to make a point or show off their knowledge, not necessarily get free prints. But, even if the latter is their goal, I'd just be cooperative and take down all image in which that person appears, and try to avoid getting them in shots at future events if they continue to object. That will no doubt prevent you from displaying some other peoples' photos, as well, and when they find out they probably have words with the original complainer.

But, really, the complainer doesn't have a leg to stand on. For your purposes, there is no need for a model release.

You might want to speak with the athletic director and coaches. They probably have all players sign an injury waiver before anyone is allowed to participate and compete on the teams. It would be easy to include a clause in that informing them and getting their signed acknowledgment that photography will be done at team events and the photographs will be displayed publicly, with prints will be available for purchase. In fact, the teams may wish to use the photos in other ways, and might spell that out in the clause as well.

Heck, they might even already have a clause like this in their waiver. Some event organizers I work with do address photography right up front and require everyone who participates to sign on the dotted line.

Just note that this waiver does not constitute an adequate model release, for commercial usage. The terminology is usually not sufficient and you won't get a copy to keep on file with the images.

[Aaagogo]

nice detailed and informed write up.

nah, mine is an aerospace college, and half the girls are doing majors like meteorology or business or communication. I think definitely no pre-law here. LOL

i feel that the issue or the mis-direction started from the people that use to run the college newspaper and the athletic department.

maybe they had the conception that images should be given out for free, almost zero to no cost. but at that time, no one wanted those images.

things started to change, things as in the quality and standard of sports image, when i started shooting at the start of the year, the athletics like the free use of their images, those that i posted on facebook, with my huge watermarks. a couple of them asked for non watermarked versions, once i direct them to my site, they stopped contacting me.

I did however, gave an 8x10 to the basketball coach and graduating senior during the final home game which also happens to be senior night too. B'ball coach is also the AD, and he and his wife mentioned about buying prints, but that didn't fall through, the AD's son is on the B'ball team.

he allowed me to shoot by the bylines at the B'ball games. that's why i gave him an 8x10 as a way of saying thanks.

Thanx to POTN, for all the threads and posts on how a photographer should value his/her work and not give it out for free.

i did tell the team, if anyone doesn't want their images on display, i will gladly take it off my site and facebook.


anyway, as the tennis coach was the only coach that responded in kind to my article proposal, and I really thank him for his trust, that was why I offer a discount to the team. However, I didn't want to come across