D2 university bans photographers

[Ralpho]

I have been shooting sports at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan and selling prints to parents for seven years. But not this year. Sports information director told me this week that he has a new policy. No one who sells photos of SVSU athletes is welcome on campus anymore. He said he is taking precautions lest a photo fall into the wrong hands and get an athlete and the university in trouble. I asked if he has ever heard of that happening. He has not. Neither have I.

I asked if he had a problem with me shooting SVSU away games. No problem, he said, but he would appreciate it if I don't put any pictures on http://rodcannon.com in which an SVSU player is the focal point.

Does he have legal standing to do this at a D2 university?

[OdiN1701]

Yes. I don't think that their stadium is considered public land, and they have the right to bar anyone should they so choose.

[MMD]

If this guy denies access to usual photog's, i'd be very curious to see or know if he is paving the way for someone new, who is a friend or has paid for the priveledge. The excuse he has offered does not line up. Has there been any recent smearing incidents of the school?

As for legal, i dont know. Ask to see the dean or principal, he will have the overiding decsion capability.

[FlyingPhotog]

Don't know about the question of "Public Lands" but they do control the rights to their events.

That whole "Pictures, Descriptions and Accounts..." thing that's usually printed somewhere on every credential...

[Ralpho]

I don't doubt that SVSU can legally ban me or any other photographer from shooting on university property. What gets me is that the SID is worried about a potential outcome that, as far as he knows, has never happened.

This development doesn't hurt me much, though, because this same SID is giving away (to student athletes) .jpg copies of pictures that university photographers take.

[basroil]

I have been shooting sports at Saginaw Valley State University in Michigan and selling prints to parents for seven years. But not this year. Sports information director told me this week that he has a new policy. No one who sells photos of SVSU athletes is welcome on campus anymore. He said he is taking precautions lest a photo fall into the wrong hands and get an athlete and the university in trouble. I asked if he has ever heard of that happening. He has not. Neither have I.

I asked if he had a problem with me shooting SVSU away games. No problem, he said, but he would appreciate it if I don't put any pictures on http://rodcannon.com in which an SVSU player is the focal point.

Does he have legal standing to do this at a D2 university?

They have legal standing to require a permit/credential/pass to shoot during university events or classes. If it was a private university, they would be able to dictate even buildings and such, but even for this they have all the legal right to kick anyone out for creating a disturbance (unless you shoot with a point and shoot, your camera is enough to justify that) or failing to comply with university rules (they probably have the photo rule posted publicly, in which case the only recourse is to be on good terms with the right people).

The key is to have a good relationship with university officials, especially sports info, publications, public relations, and the sports director. I had a similar thing happen last year, I just happen to be on good terms and we worked out a solution that is greatly better than I had hoped for. Also, talk to the university's public relations chair, (s)he is usually a great person to have on your side if you can (and never have them against you, you'll have a hard time ever shooting there again)

[Dennis_Hammer]

Ask to meet with the Info director and the AD and find out what they are worried about and how you can assure them nothing you shoot will end up like what they fear. If you explain that your business is basically to parents of the players that may relieve some of their anxiety. Maybe offer them photos for their web site, newsletter and university use. But they can keep you from shooting. Another thing to do is maybe get a press credential to get there anyway.

[joedlh]

It sounds like an anti-competition rule. I think perhaps he did not give you the real reason, which might be: "We don't appreciate you coming here, taking pictures of our athletes at our stadium, and selling them without an agreement with us that includes giving us a percentage, especially when our own yearbook and student newspaper photographers do it for free."

My sense of the legal issues (I am not a lawyer) is that he is within his rights setting policy on property owned by the university. However, as sports events are public, he has no legal grounds for setting policy on what you do with pictures taken elsewhere.

Clever little pitch for your website in your original post.

[tomcat360]

I started shooting for App State recently and I just got off a guy from a website called Replayphotos.com, he was saying that their company is accredited with the NCAA or something, and he pretty much made it sound like people who shoot and sell pictures of NCAA games, without NCAA licensing(?) are illegal.

I wasn't 100% sure where he was going with it. But he also said something about the school owning MY photos......that's not gonna fly.

[FlyingPhotog]

I started shooting for App State recently and I just got off a guy from a website called Replayphotos.com, he was saying that their company is accredited with the NCAA or something, and he pretty much made it sound like people who shoot and sell pictures of NCAA games, without NCAA licensing(?) are illegal.

I wasn't 100% sure where he was going with it. But he also said something about the school owning MY photos......that's not gonna fly.

The NCAA does have a licensing agreement. How do you think the schools collect on jersey, hat and stadium blanket sales?

Do you think EA Sports creates their NCAA Football or NCAA Hoops games for free?

No, they pay the NCAA a licensing fee.

[S.Horton]

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26162

[bildeb0rg]

I don't doubt that SVSU can legally ban me or any other photographer from shooting on university property. What gets me is that the SID is worried about a potential outcome that, as far as he knows, has never happened.

This development doesn't hurt me much, though, because this same SID is giving away (to student athletes) .jpg copies of pictures that university photographers take.

There's your answer. Expect a pricing structure to be introduced real soon.

[stathunter]

Rod,
I would make sure you do a little homework and figure out what the real reason is. Because honestly even when I shoot for news organizations they all now a days even as news organizations give the reader the option to purchase photos online----- so even if you shoot the event for the Saginaw News -- someone could purchase a photo and "it could fall into the wrong hands" ? whatever that really means.

[tomcat360]

The NCAA does have a licensing agreement. How do you think the schools collect on jersey, hat and stadium blanket sales?

Do you think EA Sports creates their NCAA Football or NCAA Hoops games for free?

No, they pay the NCAA a licensing fee.

I knew it applied to all that other stuff....just didn't think about the photos.

Took this from that SS page:
"The bylaw also includes a relatively new exception that makes it clear that neither the school nor the player need be concerned about photos being sold for private use (which is not to say that the school has to permit all such sales under its credentials)"

So that means no licensing for photos sold for personal use? Such as a photo sold to a fan?

[MJPhotos24]

There was a case a couple years ago of a photo ending up on a website it shouldn't have been (XXX) when stolen, and there's the possibility of some fan making 100 copies at kinkos and striking up a deal to get them signed and re-sell or something. You just never know. The restrictions major sports like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. are now finding there way down through the ranks into high schools even. Credential agreements take away legal rights and if you don't sign on you don't shoot since it's not public property, and even in that case sometimes public property isn't public property (rented out to a league for example). In the U.S. a print is editorial, however the major sports view it as commercial so that's why they keep adding words in the credential agreement to take away rights of photographers.

[MJPhotos24]

So that means no licensing for photos sold for personal use? Such as a photo sold to a fan?

Interesting, never seen that bylaw...here's the problem that I've seen done already in pro ball - you start selling to fans for personal use (editorial right? you'd think at least) and then the league or team or whoever is in control says they don't like that - so they just say "so and so is no longer allowed in with a camera or at all". They can make up the rules and deny anyone they want.

[amfoto1]

You are shooting as a business, as a commercial venture... Not as a news organization.

As such, your business is not protected by the Constitution.

Any public or private university is fully able to control all commercial activities on their campus. In fact, any organization has that ability, even if it's events take place on public property. You can only shoot and sell with their blessing.

You can go and take photos, if it's allowed of the general public. But only for personal purposes. You can't market and sell them.

Sorry to say, I suspect your best hope would be if your past customers raised Cain because they can no longer get the photos that you provided to them.

As far as the NCAA clause and Sportshooter discussion, that's specifically regarding commercial products (i.e., "sports memorabilia") using photos of players who happen to still be in college. Unless you have signed model releases, you can't do that anyway. As far as model releases are concerned, your sale of prints to participants and their families is considered "editorial" in nature, so a release is not necessary. This does not change the fact that, in the bigger picture, you are a commercial enterprise who needs permission from the school to conduct your business.

Perhaps the SID is referring to this NCAA clause, when he talks about some sort of "usage" of the images you are taking. Perhaps he's unaware that a signed model release would be necessary for anything like that to happen.

[trollins]

NCAA manual 12.5.2.2 says you can sell for private use. You can't put the pictures on mug, posters, etc and then sell.

So if I am taking for a website or newpaper for editorial use, a parent or grand-parent, or whoever can buy a picture for their private use.


12.5.2.2 Use of a Student-Athlete’s Name or Picture without Knowledge or Permission. If a student-athlete’s name or picture appears on commercial items (e.g., T-shirts, sweatshirts, serving trays, playing
cards, posters) or is used to promote a commercial product sold by an individual or agency without the studentathlete’s
knowledge or permission, the student-athlete (or the institution acting on behalf of the student-athlete)
is required to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.
Such steps are not required in cases in which a student-athlete’s photograph is sold by an individual or agency
(e.g., private photographer, news agency) for private use. (Revised: 1/11/97, 5/12/05)

[DDCSD]

NCAA manual 12.5.2.2 says you can sell for private use. Can put the pictures on mug, posters, etc and then sell.

So if I am taking for a website or newpaper for editorial use, a parent or grand-parent, or whoever can buy a picture for their private use.


Yep, but the school could also refuse to let you shoot the game if they want to, even if you are shooting for an official editorial outlet.