me vs. YMCA...Need some advise

[sonny_c]

Here's the deal,

On May 5, 2009 I was asked by a parent to take action photos of her son's flag football game at the YMCA. With the permission of the other parents I also photographed the other players. The parents knew I was there to take the photos and place the photos online for the parents to purchase.

Fast forward to today. I received a voice mail. The person leaving the voice mail notified me she just saw my posting on my website of the flag football game. She goes on to say, "unfortunately that's not something we do. That's something you need to come in and talk to us about. Talk about a partnership and submit a background check to be on their property"

I don't have a problem with their requests. I will most likely take them offline because enough time has pasted and I don't see anymore parents buying photos. For future reference I would like to know:

1. Legally what are my rights in this situation?
2. What are the right of the YMCA
3. If I want to do so, could I leave my photos online?

I'd appreciate any help and advise you may have to offer. Thank you in advance.
-Sonny

[saturnin]

unless you plan to do more photos for them, i guess go and do it

if i knew i wouldnt do more photos i wouldnt bother, they cant do anything

[hypertech]

I don't think they can do anything to compel you to take them down.

Are the events on their property? If so, they could trespass you so you can't do it again.

As with most of these type of situations - its best just to be reasonable about it.

The only part that would concern me is this talk of a "partnership". If they want you to do a background check before coming on their property - ok, maybe, but give them a cut of sales when the parents asked you to come - not a chance.

[tomd]

As far as the trespass, I agree with above post. If the games are on YMCA property, then they have the right to exclude you. If the games are on public property/park, then you have the same right as anyone else to be there.

[Concretin Nik]

You were asked to be there by a parent... one who pays the exorbitant yearly membership fees of the YMCA... be sure to get their input and perhaps have them and any of the other parents contact the office...

And apparently there were no YMCA 'officials' at said game as you were shooting? Or were you wearing your invisibility cloak that day... They obviously assumed you were allowed to be there then, so they obviously aren't checking to see who has had a background check and who hasn't... I see that as a bs policy considering their disregard of your presence in the first place.

My bet is: You must have taken some good photos that they want to use in their marketing...

[bwolford]

Exorbitant fees? Have you priced a YMCA membership against a private gym membership?

It all depends on where you are shooting the images.

[sspellman]

Sonny-

Without signs or clear policies evident at the event, they probably cannot require you to remove the photos unless they contain uniforms with trademarked names. However, every private organization can make rules to control their own property and business. I'm sure it is normal for people to apply and pass review to conduct business with the YMCA or any other organization that works closely with children.

The easiest course of action is to play dumb, say you were not aware of their policies, and remove the pictures. If you play nice and go through the review process, then you may be allowed back to shoot other games. If you don't, you will probably be banned from their property.

-Scott

[giuliasmith]

I was in a similar situation a couple weeks ago. We were hired by a PARENT to photograph their daughter's graduation. Long story short, we got kicked off the field because the school's photographer had exclusive rights to photograph the graduation.

My argument was - I was hired by a PARENT. I only shot photos of that girl. I wasn't shooting the other kids and trying to sell them to the parents.

I can understand where the Y is coming from regarding all of the other children, however I don't see what the problem is if you were hired by a parent to do it.

I would let them do the background check and everything, but I wouldn't give them a cut of your sales. Which is probably what the big deal is about anyways. But, it could be a good thing, you could get an opportunity to "partner" with them and do other games, etc. and possibly generate more business. Give it a try and see what they have to say.

[Karl Johnston]

I've had something like this recently; the YMCA is in the right, if they go by the same laws we do up here. Property release is what you need (or a variation). Also, from the sounds of it there is another photographer or studio that handles all of the photography for the YMCA through exclusive contract.

Or maybe they're just anal about who shoots on their property. Even if you are hired by the parent - unless the parent owns the building or has the permission of the owners/managers - it doesn't matter. You require permission from the YMCA to shoot on their property.

[Concretin Nik]

Exorbitant fees? Have you priced a YMCA membership against a private gym membership?

Sorry. Just irritating. And no, I haven't. I'm sure their fees are low compared to a "private" gym... however, I say exorbitant, because the Y used to be a FREE community thing... now over $1000 a year... yea, that's a lot o' money, to me anyway.
/end derail


OP, you'll def. have to play nice (dumb is a good idea, as you were asked by a parent) to shoot more work there... but don't let 'em push on ya either...

[Dennis_Hammer]

They have the right to ask you to leave, its their property. You need no property release if nothing is identifiable. I would send them an email stating that you were not there shooting on speculation of selling the pictures you were hired by one of the parents to shoot their child and a couple of others asked you to do the same. You see they probably think you came shot pictures unsolicited and then offered them for sale. First explain everything to them and then wait for their response.

[Karl Johnston]

You do need a property release to gain permission to take shots on their property, despite nothing being IDable. At least that's how it works for us up here. I don't know about your local laws.

I was shooting for a treatment center recently and was told by the admins that I needed a release from the head office before I could shoot in their center, or include any shots of the staff, or even my client within the center.

[dreamcatcher23]

I was in a similar situation a couple weeks ago. We were hired by a PARENT to photograph their daughter's graduation. Long story short, we got kicked off the field because the school's photographer had exclusive rights to photograph the graduation.

My argument was - I was hired by a PARENT. I only shot photos of that girl. I wasn't shooting the other kids and trying to sell them to the parents.

I can understand where the Y is coming from regarding all of the other children, however I don't see what the problem is if you were hired by a parent to do it.

I would let them do the background check and everything, but I wouldn't give them a cut of your sales. Which is probably what the big deal is about anyways. But, it could be a good thing, you could get an opportunity to "partner" with them and do other games, etc. and possibly generate more business. Give it a try and see what they have to say.


Regardless of who you were hired by, the organizer of the graduation would be in breach of their contract with the photography company if they didn't kick you out. How would you feel if you were the official contracted photographer and were dependent upon the work for your livelyhood and the organizer breached contract and allowed other pros to come in and take business away from you?

[mikekelley]

I would make sure that I did a better job then the random "pros" who showed up in an attempt to "take my business away".

There is a time and a place to be anal-retentive: throwing a fit because another photog showed up to shoot a graduation, when I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in the crowd with cameras is not the right thing to do.

It's a once in a lifetime thing for the parents and I'm sure they'd much rather have a photographer that they know and trust get pictures of their daughter instead of some random company hired by the school shooting the same pictures over and over and over again, with no attention paid to each individual person. More power to them if they can afford this.

And if some photog ever did that to me and my kid, you can be sure that they would lose far more business via word of mouth that I spread about how unprofessional they are then if they just kept their mouth shut and did their job professionally.

Edit: and re: the YMCA - I worked there many years ago. They are incredible over protective of the children that go in and out of that place. Frequent employee background checks, cameras everywhere, cops often showing up over the slightest thing related to a kid, etc etc. It's just the way it is - they have to cover their ass in case of some sex offender stuff going down. They don't want to be responsible for a pedo getting ahold of some pics of their kids, which I guess is understandable, but I've heard of them taking it a bit too far. Anyway, I would just meet with them and be polite and tell them what the parents told you. Something good might come out of it, e.g. business in the future or another contact.

[thebishopp]

You do need a property release to gain permission to take shots on their property, despite nothing being IDable. At least that's how it works for us up here. I don't know about your local laws.

I was shooting for a treatment center recently and was told by the admins that I needed a release from the head office before I could shoot in their center, or include any shots of the staff, or even my client within the center.

Not the same in the U.S. apparently.

Releases are only neccesary for commercial useage and that term is up for argument in several states. In fact you may actually sell prints and it still not be considered commercial usage. Ed Greenburg (well known 30 year IP attorney out of NY) did an excellent interview (http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1645) on this subject awhile back.

Now of course it's a lot less headache if one goes ahead and gets a release signed but it's not the be all end all of it all.

[sonny_c]

Thank you all so very much. I appreciate all the advise given.

I totally understand both sides of this situation. I've been shooting youth sports as a business for five years and I am a father of three young children, so I can understand them wanting to protect of the children.

This was my first time shooting a YMCA event. I believe I should of taken more responsibility to confirm the YMCA rules regarding commercial photography. I assumed the parent worked out the details. It's always a learning process :). In good faith I will take down the photos from that day and probably schedule a day to meet with them. Like some of you mentioned, it could be beneficial to both of us.

Thanks again,
-Sonny

[dreamcatcher23]

There is a time and a place to be anal-retentive: throwing a fit because another photog showed up to shoot a graduation, when I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in the crowd with cameras is not the right thing to do.

It's unlikely that it would be you doing the confrontation - that would be dumb. When my is company shooting an event on spec, possibly paying a fee to the organiser I make damned sure that if it's in the contract that there are to be no other pro photographers there that that's adhered to. I'd also put it in the contract that if the organisers don't deal with the other photographers that I wouldn't be paying any fees etc. if that was part of the arrangement. There's no need to be an ass about it though, and there's no suggestion in my original post that the photographer was/should be an ass about it.

It's business, pure and simple.

[Concretin Nik]

Do post up how it turns out please.

[mikekelley]

It's unlikely that it would be you doing the confrontation - that would be dumb. When my is company shooting an event on spec, possibly paying a fee to the organiser I make damned sure that if it's in the contract that there are to be no other pro photographers there that that's adhered to. I'd also put it in the contract that if the organisers don't deal with the other photographers that I wouldn't be paying any fees etc. if that was part of the arrangement. There's no need to be an ass about it though, and there's no suggestion in my original post that the photographer was/should be an ass about it.

It's business, pure and simple.
How would you define pro photographer in this case?

When I graduted college I set my girlfriend up with a gripped 5d, 100-400L and 85 1.8 because she wanted to take pics. She got much better photos than the hired photogs. She was running all around the place making sure she got good angles. I also lost track of how many people were there with white glass and serious bodies.

Would a 21 year old girl with a $3k setup irritate you? How about the 70 year old grandfather with a 5d? He's paid his dues and wants to see his kids graduate. Where do you draw the line? What would it take for you to say something to another photog/event organizer? How can you tell the difference between a grandfather with some coin and a nice camera and a pro photog who was hired to shoot one person?

In my opinion, as a photog who has been paid more than his share for lots of hired work, this would not bother me at all. However...this is my only however...If another company rolled up in a van and got out wearing ABC Photography vests, and handing out business cards, then I would get pissed, because they are probably taking a significant amount of my money.

If it's one guy shooting one person, or his kids, or grandkids, it will benefit you more in the long run to keep your mouth shut. You weren't going to sell an image to every parent there anyway. Don't burn a bridge(s), and I certainly wouldn't have the evnt organizers confront someone about something so trivial in the grand scheme of things.

[dreamcatcher23]

I think we're talking cross purposes or you're missing my point. I would be civil and professional at all times.

It's happened, I've done it and been there. In May I was at an event where I was working on spec, paying a commission, paying my staff and overheads and it turned out I was competing for business with some guy who just showed up, was taking pictures of everyone and handing business cards out. The organizers saw him and asked him to stop without me intervening. He did, he was happy and understood what he was doing was wrong and there was no harm done.

As I said, I wouldn't be the one to comment - the event organizer would be compelled to do it. Especially as at large events like we're talking about it's likely they'd get a sales cut from my company and they wouldn't from the other pros so they'd want to keep me sweet / ensure they got as large a commission as possible. What's the point in having a contract if you don't stick to it? Perhaps you've never shot an event where your company pays say $2k to be there + 15% of sales and you actually want to make a profit (or at least break even!) rather than being all buddy buddy with random competitors.

In this instance I'd define a pro as someone selling their services, that's all. It doesn't matter what gear they're shooting or who they're shooting. If it's someone shooting their own kids then that doesn't bother me, but if they're shooting everyone's kids and undercutting me or distracting people from the contracted photographer, that would.

How would you know who's kids they were shooting, or if it was just one kid or more than one anyway?

I don't see why it would benefit me more in the long run at all. For instance, if my company shoots graduations and is hired by the college, and I don't shoot weddings, soccer games, personal portraits. or anything other than graduations, after the day is gone the contact is over and I wouldn't expect any further business from them anyway.

Why'd you assume I wasn't going to sell a photo there anyway? It's happened - I've seen it. As well as the time above, it's happened at my graduation - some people hired another pro, security saw him and confiscated his equipment (with no word from the contracted company - security were enforcing a contract that had been agreed in advance. The contracted company wasn't seen as a bad guy and the people understood they'd done wrong) for the rest of the day (rather than kick him out entirely). Instead the parents went to the proper photographer and got their pictures from them instead.

It's not just about money remember. As a paid pro you'd be expected to pass security checks, have PL insurance, fire and electrical safety checks on equipment and so on and the company couldn't guarantee that someone other than the contracted photography company had them, so they're protecting their own backs really. If something happened and there was an accident and no PL insurance, or a fire caused by faulty equipment that didn't have safety certificates then they organizer would be liable as their insurance wouldn't pay out.

As for your girlfriend, I'm sure she did get better shots than the hired pros. That's not inconceivable. It's likely they were shooting thousands of kids whereas she was only concentrating on one person, so it'd be worrying if she didn't get better shots.

[Rubi Jane]

You do need a property release to gain permission to take shots on their property, despite nothing being IDable. At least that's how it works for us up here. I don't know about your local laws.

I was shooting for a treatment center recently and was told by the admins that I needed a release from the head office before I could shoot in their center, or include any shots of the staff, or even my client within the center.
To clear it up, you only need a property release when you sell usage rights to images to be used commercially. If it's private property, ie a YMCA site, the property owners may require you to get "permission" to shoot at the site.

Permission is not the same as property release! Let's get the vernacular correct.

As for the OP,
I think what you're dealing with is the YMCA protecting their members and themselves. Anyone associated with working with, or in conjunction with the Y need to have a police background check usually every 2 years. See it from their side, some guy with camera taking shots of kids at a Y event on Y property (I'm assuming this) then selling them. All it takes is for one parent who didn't ask you to shoot their kid get upset about pics of their kid being online. They could easily make a stink legitimately or not) that the Y allowed this to occur.

As an event photographer I request a police check every 2 years to have on file for the events that require one, usually any event involving children. I carry liability insurance and I work with the organizer rather than against them. This approach not only makes my job easier but gets me more sales as the organizers work to promote my shots of their event. In return all organizers get access to use some images for promotional purposes and sometimes some may get a small cut of sales depending on the circumstance and if competition is trying to get in on the act.

If I was you I'd make an appointment to go in and see the Y Director in person. Take in a portfolio including some prints from the event in question. Explain you were asked/hired by parents to shoot their kids. Ask how you can be permitted to cover such events in the future and request promotional support from the Y if possible. Start building a relationship with the Y rather than try and circumnavigate them. You will likely find having a good relationship a more rewarding opportunity than just showing up on spec and the hassle that can accompany that approach.

Good luck.

[WillMass]

I don't think they can do anything to compel you to take them down.

Are the events on their property? If so, they could trespass you so you can't do it again.

As with most of these type of situations - its best just to be reasonable about it.

The only part that would concern me is this talk of a "partnership". If they want you to do a background check before coming on their property - ok, maybe, but give them a cut of sales when the parents asked you to come - not a chance.

Just wanted to add, this is only part of the story.

Even if the event is held on public property (like a park), if the Y rents the the site from the parks commission, they have the same rights as a property owner to say who may engage in work for commerce on that site, while they are renting it.

I know this because we shoot several horse shows that are held on public property, but rented by private organizations. This subject has come up when we've had poachers attempting to photograph an event where we have exclusive rights to shoot the show.

[neil_r]

Just wanted to add, this is only part of the story.

Even if the event is held on public property (like a park), if the Y rents the the site from the parks commission, they have the same rights as a property owner to say who may engage in work for commerce on that site, while they are renting it.

I know this because we shoot several horse shows that are held on public property, but rented by private organizations. This subject has come up when we've had poachers attempting to photograph an event where we have exclusive rights to shoot the show.

Strong word ;-)

I am not trying to fan any flames here I am genuinely interested and given what you have said here you will know. I fully accept and agree that if you have negotiated the exclusive rights to shoot an event that right should be protected and your commercial interest safeguarded.

Here is my question:

Lets say the uncle of one of the competing competitors is a professional photographer and turns up to photograph his nephew with a couple of 1 series cameras and a 500mm L. He has no commercial aspirations towards the event he just wants some "expert" images of his nephew for himself and his family. What is his status here?

[mikekelley]

Ironic, I'm about to go do that at a horse event. I don't know if they have a hired photog or not but I was asked by my friend who is competing to get some shots of her.

My intention isn't to make a sale, it's to get some pictures of my friend riding a horse. I'm not going to sell them.

dreamcatcher: i think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about one person hired to shoot one person only...in that case I don't think there is any issue. Regardless, I'd just keep my mouth shut and shoot who I was being paid to shoot and not hand out a card unless approached by someone independently of the event at hand.

[basroil]

Just wanted to add, this is only part of the story.

Even if the event is held on public property (like a park), if the Y rents the the site from the parks commission, they have the same rights as a property owner to say who may engage in work for commerce on that site, while they are renting it.

I know this because we shoot several horse shows that are held on public property, but rented by private organizations. This subject has come up when we've had poachers attempting to photograph an event where we have exclusive rights to shoot the show.

This is highly dependent on the city, location, type of event, and the contract between the city and event sponsor (especially first and last ones). For examples, any movies, productions, ads, etc shot in NYC public property in a location other than outdoor concert hall, closed garden, etc (basically anything with a large fence and big "do not enter" signs) cannot prevent you from taking photos. The can ask you to refrain from taking them, and they have the right to have an officer escort you outside the designated areas, but as long as you don't get in their way (and sometimes even if you do), they can't really do anything about it. Not very nice of you to do it, but how do you think all these paparazzi get on set shots?

[WillMass]

Hi Guys,

Please note: I said "who may engage in work for commerce". We, nor the sanctioning body would ever try to limit friends or family from taking photos at an event. Regardless of the equipment used. That'd be bad business for both of us. In fact, I can frequently be found surrounded by Dads with (sometimes nicer than my own) camera gear, as I'm calling out the jumps to them. This little bit of goodwill usually results in the same Dads coming to my trailer to make purchases later in the day.

I can't speak to NYC or the rights/situations surrounding the Paps.

Our situation came to a head a couple years ago when, while shooting a show at this venue, someone came out took photos all morning, then went to Wally World 1 hour photo and had everything run off as 4x6's. He then came back and walked through the stabling area selling prints on spec. We found out about this when customers started coming in our trailer with prints in hand.

Like I said, we're not trying to abridge anyone's first amendment rights. They can shoot all day long if they want. They can give their photos away (and many do). They just can't sell them.