PDA

View Full Version : Do I need permission to post sports pics online?


paulhillion
8th of March 2005 (Tue), 16:56
I went along to watch my young cousin play football last weekend and managed to grab some some decent shots of him playing. Over the weekend I sorted out the keeper shots and posted them on my online gallery. I informed his parents that they were online and they could go along and view them and order any prints if they so wished, this they did, no problems!

Tonight I get a rather stroppy email from my uncle saying that having been advised by another parent they're now worried about upsetting the football club and would I remove all the photos, this I have done.

Before taking the photos my uncle had checked with a club official that it was ok for me to take photos of my cousin and was told no problem.

How do I stand here, was I in the wrong?

IndyJeff
8th of March 2005 (Tue), 17:17
Paul were you basically offering just images of your relative online? If so, his parents are really the only ones who can object.

You did right by seeking permission from the club before shooting however, you should also have informed them that you would be posting the images online. Approach the club again and explain that you miscommunicated your intentions but not purposely by shooting and then posting online. Explain that you had some good feedback from some of the parents (who has to say it ws your aunt and uncle) and would like to continue to provide this service for the parents. The best part about it is you won't charge the club anything for being there shooting. "I will waive my usual fee for your league because my cousin is a player on one of the teams." Make em think your giving them a deal.

paulhillion
9th of March 2005 (Wed), 11:32
Paul were you basically offering just images of your relative online? If so, his parents are really the only ones who can object.

You did right by seeking permission from the club before shooting however, you should also have informed them that you would be posting the images online. Approach the club again and explain that you miscommunicated your intentions but not purposely by shooting and then posting online. Explain that you had some good feedback from some of the parents (who has to say it ws your aunt and uncle) and would like to continue to provide this service for the parents. The best part about it is you won't charge the club anything for being there shooting. "I will waive my usual fee for your league because my cousin is a player on one of the teams." Make em think your giving them a deal.
I only put the images online for my relitives to view and for ease of ordering if they so wished. I'm guessing they were a bit pissed at me for charging them a small fee for prints!

However as I do enjoy taking sports pictures (strickly as an amateur) I guess I need to know the following...say I go to a local football match as a spectator (no relatives involved!!) and shoot a few shots of the game. I then post a few shots on my website gallery, not for sale, just for viewing. Do I need permission from the 2 clubs involved to do so?

Thanks for any advice.

Paul.

paulhillion
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 08:51
Anyone?

steven
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 08:56
The location of the sports event, is it public access?

If it is then I would say you have no problem posting them.

If the location is a private site then you may have restrictions depending on what the policy of the sports site.

IndyJeff
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 09:18
I only put the images online for my relitives to view and for ease of ordering if they so wished. I'm guessing they were a bit pissed at me for charging them a small fee for prints!

However as I do enjoy taking sports pictures (strickly as an amateur) I guess I need to know the following...say I go to a local football match as a spectator (no relatives involved!!) and shoot a few shots of the game. I then post a few shots on my website gallery, not for sale, just for viewing. Do I need permission from the 2 clubs involved to do so?

Thanks for any advice.

Paul.


If I were you, I would contact the relatives and ask if they would like me to refund their money. It is not that I wanted to make money off you it is just I had expenses and I didn't think you would mind paying for the end product. Granted I did discount the price but if you feel like I should pay for the prints you wanted, I will.

As for the local football match, contact someone with the league first before you begin shooting. Ask if they have a website? Would they like some images for the website? Two ways to do it, one would be to charge them per image used or, if they would rather, you can post the images online and parents and players can view and purchase prints from your website. If the latter is the choice you would be happy to provide say, 10 images to the league in exchange for a little league promotion to the parents and for the access.

It is always better to do it with league permission. If a parent comes up and asks what you are doing you can then reply, "I am providing images which the league will use on their website and the parents and players can view and purchase from my website if they would like too."

paulhillion
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 13:08
Thanks guys, I guess the only way to be sure is to ask whilst there, either before or after taking the shots. However if like you say the event is taking place on public land then I guess it's ok to post without any permission?

Photoguy22
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 13:24
Asking permission is the best idea. If they say no, or seem hesitant, offer to put the photos for non-profit usage (not selling). If they say no, better safe then sorry.
Ask relatives if its ok too

GAJulie
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 16:50
What exactly did they have a problem with?
That you took photos and posted them on a website that anyone could see?
why don't you put them in a password restricted area, then only the people you want to have them are the only ones who even have access to the shots.
Julie

paulhillion
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 19:13
What exactly did they have a problem with?
That you took photos and posted them on a website that anyone could see?
why don't you put them in a password restricted area, then only the people you want to have them are the only ones who even have access to the shots.
Julie
Reading between the lines even though they said they didn't want to upset the football club what they were really concerned about was having pictures of their 6 year old son posted "all over the internet' where anybody (paedophiles) could download them!!! Believe me I had to bite my lip so as not to get into a full blown argument on the subject.

It's a shame because all this hysteria builds up to form a certain unease when wanting to shoot pictures that may contain juniors.

I'm in the process of uploading all my images to 'Smugmug' which does indeed offer the facility of having password protected galleries.

froman98
11th of March 2005 (Fri), 23:41
Reading between the lines even though they said they didn't want to upset the football club what they were really concerned about was having pictures of their 6 year old son posted "all over the internet' where anybody (paedophiles) could download them!!!

Well I guess having a pedophile look at pictures online is better than having the criminal in the stands watching in person, eh? Weak argument, I know, but if you're proud of your shots I strongly believe you should be able to display them as you please. I'm still very new to the business and it's a shame that you have to tip toe around people to not anger them.

IndyJeff
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 00:10
While this game may be played in a public place, once you post that first image for sale it is a whole new ballgame.

Yes you can photograph anyone in public (no right to privacy is expected when in the public view) however by offering these images for sale it is a commercial venture and if they don't want you to profit from their, or their kids, images you must cease & desist.

Try to work with it instead of around it. Trust me you will be better off.

GAJulie
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 04:15
While this game may be played in a public place, once you post that first image for sale it is a whole new ballgame.

Yes you can photograph anyone in public (no right to privacy is expected when in the public view) however by offering these images for sale it is a commercial venture and if they don't want you to profit from their, or their kids, images you must cease & desist.

Try to work with it instead of around it. Trust me you will be better off.

But if he is only offering to sale the pictures to those that the picture is of, why should he have to unless the actual parents of the kid object? If they object, then they wouldnt buy the pictures anyway, so he wouldn't have a resaon to keep them online anyway. But the parents didn't object, in fact, they bought some photos from paulhillion. Seems like some other parents were objecting. Just some other parents. NOT the owners of the football field. What right do some other parents have to tell him to remove the images?
And what would be so bad about putting them in a password protected gallery? Basically the same thing as putting them on a cd and handing it to them. No one else would be viewing them unless the parents show them.

Julie

pcasciola
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 06:42
I'd like to throw another wrinkle in here. I will remove any pictures a parent asks me too, because some people are just plain paranoid about their kids pictures being on the Internet, or for whatever reason. But what if I have a great shot of a player making a diving catch in the end zone to win the game, with a bunch of other kids in there that many of the parents, the league and the newspaper want to buy, and there is a kid in there whose parents want the picture removed. He may even be barely recognizable in the bokeh, or with his back turned or head cut of with his number showing. Do I still have to remove the picture, even though the profit is clearly not being made from their particular kid in this case?

And don't say clone him out or crop, because that's what I'd obviously do in this extreme case. :D

jimsolt
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 07:20
I'd like to throw another wrinkle in here. I will remove any pictures a parent asks me too, because some people are just plain paranoid about their kids pictures being on the Internet, or for whatever reason. But what if I have a great shot of a player making a diving catch in the end zone to win the game, with a bunch of other kids in there that many of the parents, the league and the newspaper want to buy, and there is a kid in there whose parents want the picture removed. He may even be barely recognizable in the bokeh, or with his back turned or head cut of with his number showing. Do I still have to remove the picture, even though the profit is clearly not being made from their particular kid in this case?

And don't say clone him out or crop, because that's what I'd obviously do in this extreme case. :D

If someone participates in a public event in a public place, they have little right to "privacy", so when you sell your picture of that event to a NEWS organization, that is probably fair game. If you sell that picture privately for profit from the picture, not for its NEWS value, you are opening lots of other doors and you probably should have obtained releases for this type of venture. I understand that in the case mentioned profit was not the motive, but the rules are probably the same.

Jim

Mike H
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 07:30
... what if I have a great shot of a player making a diving catch in the end zone to win the game, with a bunch of other kids in there that many of the parents, the league and the newspaper want to buy, and there is a kid in there whose parents want the picture removed ...

If a photographer selling photos of this nature, they need to get a good book on the subject (there are a couple) and find out how all of this works before they have trouble, rather than afterward. It's always best to plan ahead on something like that.

In the situation that you've described, my limited understanding is that you would have to remove the pictures or the kid from the pictures if they objected. Any identifiable person in a photo that is being sold has the right to be compensated and can withhold permission from anyone to sell it, except if it is of a celebrity or the shot is taken in a context that makes it somehow newsworthy. For example, if the kid with objecting parents is scoring the winning goal in the state championships and you are trying to publish it in the newspaper, they won't prevail since that would impinge on freedom of the press. In that instance you don't need a release from the child's parents.

I hope some of that helps.

Mike H

Mike H
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 07:49
One more wrinkle to this. The person claiming to be damaged by the sale of a photo that they or their child is in would likely have to show how much damage occured to them as a result of the sale if they went after you for damages. (Remember, this is likely a civil, not criminal matter, so they'd have to sue for relief.)

If their child is one of five in the shot, and you made $3 on the sale of that photo, I would argue that at a maximum their amount of damages is a share of the profit (not revenue) that you made from the sale. So, after netting your expenses, dividing by the number of kids in the shot ... ask them if they want it all in one check or installments. You'll want to give them a check to prove that you paid! :-)

As an economist (my profession), I would argue that the value of the damages is zero unless they could prove that they could have made some profit from the sale of similar photos that they had the rights to and now have been robbed of the opportunity to do so. This came up recently when a celebrity (I can't remember which) got married and sued an uninvited photographer since the wedding was not in a public place (so it *might not* be a news story) and they were planning to market the wedding photos taken by their photographer. In that case, they probably had an argument that they lost market share (and therefore some money) because of the outside photographer.

An important question would be if they could get punitive damages. I would be really shocked if they could in this context, but only a well researched book on this subject or an attorney specializing in such things could answer that.

Mike H

rufis6
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 22:29
If someone participates in a public event in a public place, they have little right to "privacy", so when you sell your picture of that event to a NEWS organization, that is probably fair game. If you sell that picture privately for profit from the picture, not for its NEWS value, you are opening lots of other doors and you probably should have obtained releases for this type of venture. I understand that in the case mentioned profit was not the motive, but the rules are probably the same.

Jim

As an attorney I can tell you this without fear of being repudiated. First, if the persons portrayed are juveniles then you'd better make damn sure you have the permission of their parents/guardians. If the persons are adults and are recognizable,you'd be smart to obtain release forms before you make them available for ANY public display, if not you can be liable, not only for invasion of privacy, but if it was for a profit-making venture, any profit obtained shall inure to the benefit of the person whose photograph and/or likeness is displayed, at the very least. And in some cases mere compensatory damages may not be adequate; in extreme cases a court could award exemplory, i.e., punitive damages.

O/confusion
12th of April 2005 (Tue), 15:46
As an attorney I can tell you this without fear of being repudiated. First, if the persons portrayed are juveniles then you'd better make damn sure you have the permission of their parents/guardians. If the persons are adults and are recognizable,you'd be smart to obtain release forms before you make them available for ANY public display, if not you can be liable, not only for invasion of privacy, but if it was for a profit-making venture, any profit obtained shall inure to the benefit of the person whose photograph and/or likeness is displayed, at the very least. And in some cases mere compensatory damages may not be adequate; in extreme cases a court could award exemplory, i.e., punitive damages.

Ouch!! rufis6; glad to have a legal brain around to spell this out. (Now I'm really happy I mainly shoot scenics and architectural stuff.) Is this state of affairs about the same, would you know, in both Canada and the U.S.?

Just to get this absolutely straight in my mind: this thread has dealt with the issue of a public sportsg event--but does this extend to other public situations? I've always had the impression that if you are snapped out in a public space you have no control over your image unless it's used in a defamatory or embarrassing context. Does your post (quoted above) mean, for example, that in the absence of signed releases, anyone recognising themselves (even if only in the background, or as a passer-by in the street) in any of the thousands of images people have been posting on this site and elsewhere, has a legal right to sue if the images are sold in any form other than for journalistic purposes?

(Apologies to all if I'm asking something that's already been discussed elsewhere--I'm pretty new here, and this is the first time I've seen someone with both photographic and legal experience post such an emphatic response to a serious issue like this.)

Thanks,
Terry

skyphix
12th of April 2005 (Tue), 16:35
Im sticking with Still Life.

byso
14th of April 2005 (Thu), 23:34
If you pay $20- to enter a stadium to watch a professional game and you're allowed to take you're camera inside. Is it OK too?


1. Post photo's of cheerleader & Players on the gallery website, without a players knowledge?

2. Post photo's of fans who know there photo will end up on the gallery website?

3. Sell the photo's of the Athletes etc from the site. This could be without there permission!

I was talking to a pro photographer and he said that you can sell them, but you can only sell the print twice. Then you should DELETE the file!

FYI the club is happy for me to place my photo's on my site, but what if I didn't ask permission or if they decided to saying NO?

trefor
15th of April 2005 (Fri), 00:39
I think , in the UK at least, if any sports player in your photos is under the age of 16 you will need permission from their parents before you publish, online or in a publication. This of course is much more difficult in team sports (you may have up to 11+ people in a shot!) and is really a political hammer to crack a nut.
Because maybe 1 in a thousand people at sports events may be a pervert with a camera who gets a thrill out of filming kids, the rest of us have to be extra careful.
Of course political correctness always gets out of control but at the end of the day the welfare of minors is paramount
Trefor

chris.bailey
15th of April 2005 (Fri), 04:02
If it is a formal football club, even for Juniors, the parents "should" have been given a form to sign agreeing to the taking of photographs for the purposes of promotion and sales in relation to the club. If you then get the agreement of the club to take and sell photos then you come under that agreement though with our Rugby Club we reserve the right to veto pictures offered for press use and would normally expect a proportion of sales revenue.

If you are just taking pictures of a kick about in a local park then despite it being a public place I would be very careful as any of the parents could lodge a police complaint if some of the kids are under 16 and the police have few options other than to consider such complaints seriously.

Its a sad world we live in spoilt by a small minority of sicko's but there you go.

Titus213
18th of May 2005 (Wed), 08:16
I think there are too many lawyers in the world and not enough photographers.

symes
18th of May 2005 (Wed), 08:53
If you pay $20- to enter a stadium to watch a professional game and you're allowed to take you're camera inside. Is it OK too?


1. Post photo's of cheerleader & Players on the gallery website, without a players knowledge?

2. Post photo's of fans who know there photo will end up on the gallery website?

3. Sell the photo's of the Athletes etc from the site. This could be without there permission!

I was talking to a pro photographer and he said that you can sell them, but you can only sell the print twice. Then you should DELETE the file!

FYI the club is happy for me to place my photo's on my site, but what if I didn't ask permission or if they decided to saying NO?

Please see INDYJeff's sticky - he covers this through and through...

rdenney
18th of May 2005 (Wed), 09:39
Reading between the lines even though they said they didn't want to upset the football club what they were really concerned about was having pictures of their 6 year old son posted "all over the internet' where anybody (paedophiles) could download them!!! Believe me I had to bite my lip so as not to get into a full blown argument on the subject.

It's a shame because all this hysteria builds up to form a certain unease when wanting to shoot pictures that may contain juniors.

I'm in the process of uploading all my images to 'Smugmug' which does indeed offer the facility of having password protected galleries.

People have a right to their privacy even if in a public place. To display photos publicly, you really do need a model release in some form. The only people who give up that right to privacy are "public figures"--those who have chosen to become celebrities. Thus, politicians, sports professionals, and movie stars usually can't prevent someone from posting an image of them, even if it's unflattering.

There's a reason why my web site images do not include the many portraits I have made.

When I have participated in sports events (marathons and triathlons in my case), photographers have made images with the intent of selling them to the participants. Those photographs may be displayed online, but they usually require you to enter some identifying information, and their is always a clause in the race application that notes that promotional photographs that may include participants are expressly allowed by the participant.

Rick "who respects the right of people to remain anonymous, and who doesn't care why they want to" Denney

dmmiller
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 06:55
I understand this is an old thread.. but its something I'm currently going thru.
I'm wondering if anyone has a release form they would be willing to post so I can get an idea of what mine has to say to CMA.
Or is just a generic fill-out form legal and enough?

Thanks!

cwphoto
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 09:34
Asking permission is the best idea. If they say no, or seem hesitant, offer to put the photos for non-profit usage (not selling). If they say no, better safe then sorry.
Ask relatives if its ok too

You've got it arse-about-face: better to ask for forgiveness than permission IMO.

Capturing and posting images of people isn't unlawful outside a very narrow set of criteria. Asking permission just propagates the mistaken (but often wide-spread) belief that one has a right not to be photographed and published.

cwphoto
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 09:37
People have a right to their privacy even if in a public place. To display photos publicly, you really do need a model release in some form. The only people who give up that right to privacy are "public figures"--those who have chosen to become celebrities. Thus, politicians, sports professionals, and movie stars usually can't prevent someone from posting an image of them, even if it's unflattering.

There's a reason why my web site images do not include the many portraits I have made.

When I have participated in sports events (marathons and triathlons in my case), photographers have made images with the intent of selling them to the participants. Those photographs may be displayed online, but they usually require you to enter some identifying information, and their is always a clause in the race application that notes that promotional photographs that may include participants are expressly allowed by the participant.

Rick "who respects the right of people to remain anonymous, and who doesn't care why they want to" Denney

Not in your country or mine Rick. The only two jurisdictions I know of where one's image in public is protected by law is Quebec and France.

I'm a Civil Libertarian though and you appear to be a Privacy Advocate so we're bound to lock horns!

40Dude6aedyk
8th of October 2008 (Wed), 23:50
I have photographed my kids' sport events for many years. I have handed out photos to lots of 'subjects' and have had no complaints.

I now put pictures up on zenfolio without complaints. For school events, I get permission to shoot on the field. So far it has not been a problem, but I cannot say that the school administrators have been glad to have me take photos. The reason is that there is a photographer who has been doing this for more than 25 years for the local area. He makes his livelihood from selling his photos which he posts on the web for sale. The school administrator told me, "I won't give you permission to go on the field to take photos, but I won't stop you either." I took this as his way of remaining "true" to the pro photographer.

The school admin also did not want lots of parents running around on the sidelines with point and shoot cameras taking pictures. This is where a big white lens comes in handy.

In any event, I am sure the pro who sells his pictures does not get release forms from anybody. He just shoots away, puts his photos up and business as usual. Ain't it a great country?

dmwierz
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:19
The school administrator told me, "I won't give you permission to go on the field to take photos, but I won't stop you either." I took this as his way of remaining "true" to the pro photographer. If I were the historical photographer, I'd be a little pissed, and I wonder how is it you tell yourself it's OK to do what you're doing. It's one thing to take pictures when you don't know there is an approved shooter, but you admit to knowing all about this other guy. Is he under contract with the school? Do you have a clue what this contract contains? You readily admit that "He makes his livelihood from selling his photos which he posts on the web for sale" and you're fine with basically taking food off his table? Is he doing a good job? Let me ask you the cliched, proverbial, but still valid question - what if this guy showed up at YOUR workplace and started siphoning off your income? Man, this post got my "blood a-boilin' !"

n1as
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:23
With all due respect to the lawyer amongst us, I believe things (in the US) aren't quite that dangerous.

I believe an athelete is a performer who is putting on a public performance and as such they are fair game. They have stepped into the public eye for their performance and have therefore given up their rights to privacy for the performance. I suspect fans and observers do still have some privacy rights (i.e. model rights).

Asking permission all the time can be a bad thing if you're asking permission for something that is already yours by rights. I don't ask permission to vote and it would be wrong for me to do so.

cwphoto
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:26
If I were the historical photographer, I'd be a little pissed, and I wonder how is it you tell yourself it's OK to do what you're doing. It's one thing to take pictures when you don't know there is an approved shooter, but you admit to knowing all about this other guy. Is he under contract with the school? Do you have a clue what this contract contains? You readily admit that "He makes his livelihood from selling his photos which he posts on the web for sale" and you're fine with basically taking food off his table? Is he doing a good job? Let me ask you the cliched, proverbial, but still valid question - what if this guy showed up at YOUR workplace and started siphoning off your income? Man, this post got my "blood a-boilin' !"

My response: Tough ****.

n1as
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:28
If I were the historical photographer, I'd be a little pissed

Yes, I would too, but only for a moment. Unless the working pro has some sort of exclusive contract with the school, then he has no right to expect that he'd be the only one taking photos. Competition and the free market are NOT good things if you're the one who has been holding the monopoly.

If the pro is under contract with the school, that is no business of the other photographers who also shoot the event. The contract is between the pro and the school and it is up to the school to enforce any exclusivity.

dadCameraGuy
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:30
Dan Heller's model release primer (http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer) answers many of these questions about legality.

dmwierz
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:36
My response: Tough ****.

Nice. Classy response, mate.

dlpasco
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:37
I believe the OP is in the UK and the laws are different. IndyJeff's sticky does explore a lot of the issues. Public schools in the US are not considered to be public property and access can be restricted.

For our hockey club, there is a specific photo release section that each parent/player has to respond to during registration. That covers our players. Our club is a private non-profit and is not affiliated with any other public entity. I post photos online in a password protected gallery and then provide the password to any hockey player or parent who asks. I've never had a complaint.

dmwierz
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 07:51
Yes, I would too, but only for a moment. Unless the working pro has some sort of exclusive contract with the school, then he has no right to expect that he'd be the only one taking photos. Competition and the free market are NOT good things if you're the one who has been holding the monopoly.

If the pro is under contract with the school, that is no business of the other photographers who also shoot the event. The contract is between the pro and the school and it is up to the school to enforce any exclusivity.

I'm gonna make one more reply on this topic, then once again fade into the background. As one who has run companies much, much larger than a sole proprietorship for years, nobody needs to lecture me about competition or the free market. However, what almost EVERYONE on this board continually fails to understand (more so than any other photography forum I visit) is the fact that an "approved photographer" frequently would have had to spend a considerable amount of time securing that contract, and may also be under obligation to return some of his sales to the school. Again, I don't know the specifics of this situation, but you shouldn't just flippantly dismiss this as "all competition is good for everybody" 'cuz it ain't.

Imagine coming into work this morning and finding out that "in the name of good competition, we've allowed two new people into the office to do your job, and by the way, we have a fixed amount to pay you all, so we're going to pay them from your salary so you're now making less money" - I know this sounds far-fetched, but at least TRY to see things from the "established" photographer's standpoint.

And regarding your expectation that the SCHOOL enforce proper business etiquette and ethics, get real. If you violate the rules, what do you expect to get, a detention? It is each of our individual responsibilities to conduct ourselves to the highest standards regardless of what our existing or prospective customer might be doing. Ever hear of the Golden Rule?

You want to compete with this guy? That's great. If you have a better product and a good price, give it your best shot, but do it the right way. Find out how long his contract is good for, and how you get considered when it comes up for review. THEN, go to all the meetings to present your sales pitch, shake all the hands, prepare all the handouts, etc., in order to be in the competition, and good luck to you.

40Dude6aedyk
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 08:19
If I were the historical photographer, I'd be a little pissed, ....
Your response is exactly one of the responses I expected on this forum, so I want to thank you for the words. I hope that I do not ever turn into the hysterical photographer.

If the guy had a contract, the school admin could have told me about it. The guy could have told me about it as well. However, I'm pretty sure the guy has no contract. He just the local guy who has been doing this forever. But answer me this: what if I had a contract with the opposing team to take photos? Or with the news media? Or with a specific parent? Or someone else? How would that work out?

BTW, at my job, like just about everyone else I compete every single day with others who would like to have me out. It doesn't bother me at all. Why should it?

dmwierz
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 08:53
Your response is exactly one of the responses I expected on this forum, so I want to thank you for the words. I hope that I do not ever turn into the hysterical photographer.

I'm so glad I could oblige you.

BTW, at my job, like just about everyone else I compete every single day with others who would like to have me out. It doesn't bother me at all. Why should it?

Not surprisingly, you have totally missed my point. You have employment laws on your side to protect against exactly the thing you are doing to this other photographer.

Anyway, I don't know why I even bother on this board anymore.

dlpasco
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 09:50
Anyway, I don't know why I even bother on this board anymore.

Because you are a good guy and genuinely want to help. I, for one, hope you keep helping us out.

40Dude6aedyk
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 10:20
Not surprisingly, you have totally missed my point. You have employment laws on your side to protect against exactly the thing you are doing to this other photographer.

I am unaware of any employment laws that you wrote about.

Among other things that I do, I write and sell software. I compete with "open source" software where folks can download software for free from the internet. Folks buy my software because it is better than the free software found on the web. There are no laws that I am aware of that protect me in this regard. I need to provide a better product at a better value than the free stuff.

Anyways, I must be living in different world than you do.

dlpasco
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 11:41
I am unaware of any employment laws that you wrote about.

Among other things that I do, I write and sell software. I compete with "open source" software where folks can download software for free from the internet. Folks buy my software because it is better than the free software found on the web. There are no laws that I am aware of that protect me in this regard. I need to provide a better product at a better value than the free stuff.

Anyways, I must be living in different world than you do.
You need to research the law that applies to taking photographs and selling those photographs for profit and not using them for journalistic purposes. When an activity is covered by an exclusive contract then the time for competition has passed. Your time to compete is in negotiating with the entity to contract with you rather than some other guy. The same is true in selling software. Or coal. Or biscuits.

MJPhotos24
9th of October 2008 (Thu), 14:36
I am unaware of any employment laws that you wrote about.

Among other things that I do, I write and sell software. I compete with "open source" software where folks can download software for free from the internet. Folks buy my software because it is better than the free software found on the web. There are no laws that I am aware of that protect me in this regard. I need to provide a better product at a better value than the free stuff.

Anyways, I must be living in different world than you do.

This would be the open market and not the work place, which is competely different. It's common knowledge the work place has laws that protect it's workers. You've never heard of the many labor laws? If not then you are definately living in a different world than most, not just Dennis.



As for the original questions at hand - there's not enough of the info to know the clear cut answer so anyone trying to figure it out is guessing. The biggest debate is more about proper business behavior than legality since we don't know the legality behind what the contract says or if there is one. If it's obviously not making the administrator and other photog happy then it's just going to run your name through the mud and that doesn't help in the long run. I've worked in the school system and as a photographer for 10 years now, and adminstrators, coaches, photographers, teachers, etc. from all over TALK A LOT! So if you step on toes repeatedly it's going to give you a bad name. It's why the best way to land a gig is to follow the proper procedures instead of just showing up.

Now all that aside, the administrator is putting the school in a VERY bad spot and it has nothing to do with photography. This person should know better than allow some random photog or anyone on the sidelines. If that person is hurt in any way guess who's at fault for not removing the person? There's legal reasons for needing permission and a pass to be on the sidelines, since the photog doesn't have permission or anything it's the schools fault for not stopping him. That administrator should know better.

n1as
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 10:57
And regarding your expectation that the SCHOOL enforce proper business etiquette and ethics, get real.

That is not what I said, nor what I meant. My point is, if the school has a contract or agreement with a photographer giving exclusive rights to the photographer, then it is up to the school to deny permission to other photographers. It is not the job of the new arrival to figure out what contracts exist. He did the right thing by asking permission. The school granted it (in a way) which tells me they do not have a contract with the other guy, or, if they do, they just violated it. Either way, laying a guilt trip on the new arrival is inappropriate.

In my local HS, I'm the guy with the history. I'm the one who has been doing all photos and enjoying special access. In return for that access, I provide photos to the Yearbook for free. I have no official contract with the school, only a soft verbal agreement. If another photographer says they want to shoot a game, or play, or whatever, the school has NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to prevent him from doing just that and I have no legal expectation that I'm their "one and only". I'd wouldn't be surprised if the school said no in favor of keeping me as the official photographer but they are under no obligation to do so.