Photo Sale Dilemma

[Scout7id]

Long story short...

I took a photo of the New Orleans Saints during the team photo session prior to Super Bowl 44. I emailed a lo-res (email only) image to a few people, who sent it to a few people and so on and so on. Well, now I'm getting requests to purchase a copy/copies. Can I do so? Should I do so? Will the NFL and the Saints make my life a living hell? Please give me some advice on this. I'm not looking to make a mint off of this photo, originally it was intended as a nice screensaver for me and my kids.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Don

[ssim]

Long story short...

I took a photo of the New Orleans Saints during the team photo session prior to Super Bowl 44. I emailed a lo-res (email only) image to a few people, who sent it to a few people and so on and so on. Well, now I'm getting requests to purchase a copy/copies. Can I do so? Should I do so? Will the NFL and the Saints make my life a living hell? Please give me some advice on this. I'm not looking to make a mint off of this photo, originally it was intended as a nice screensaver for me and my kids.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Don
If it was intended for the screensaver then why not simply say no to every one that is asking. Legally, I would think that you would be in the wrong if you sold the image. I am assuming that there was a designated photographer that you shot over/around to get your shot. Most sports teams are pretty picky about who can sell their likeness. Chances are that you probably wouldn't get caught but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes if you did.

[FlyingPhotog]

Will the Saints/NFL make your life a living Hell? Hard to say for sure...

Could They? Not just Yes but OH HELL YES they could (and the NFLPA which basically owns the likeness of every player in the league...)

[Scout7id]

Thanks for chiming in guys. That's pretty much what I thought. I have had many voices, since I took the photo, in my ear telling me that I hit the lottery. But, I've had an uneasy feeling about the thought of selling the photo. Sure, I'd like to make some money from this hobby, to pay for this hobby, but I don't need lawyers involved. I think at best this has been great advertising for me, for other potential shooting jobs.

[Huskers69]

You will probably need to hit the lottery if you're gonna be messing around with the NFL and NFLPA. ;)

[asysin2leads]

You will probably need to hit the lottery if you're gonna be messing around with the NFL and NFLPA. ;)

Nah, just more for them to take. :D

[Tom Reichner]

I think if you sell some prints and don't try to use it in any publication you'd be safe. There's alot you can do and get away with, just so long as you don't try to make too much off of it. By all means try to accept only cash in payment, and don't have your name or anything on the print that would identify you. Surely, don't put the image on your website, or advertise it on any site such as eBay. If you're just selling prints, collecting only cash, and not claiming any credit for being the photographer, then who's going to find out you've been selling the image? I think you'd only get into trouble if the image ended up being published somewhere, or if there was some kind of evidence showing that you received $ for it (such as a PayPal transaction record), or if it was "for sale" on the internet. Keep it very private. Keep it low-key. Keep it cash. Then you'll be safe. Of course, if you do this you can only expect to sell a few dozen prints, so there really won't be much $ in it for you.

[redeveloped]

^----- I like this guy

[Huskers69]

I think if you sell some prints and don't try to use it in any publication you'd be safe. There's alot you can do and get away with, just so long as you don't try to make too much off of it. By all means try to accept only cash in payment, and don't have your name or anything on the print that would identify you. Surely, don't put the image on your website, or advertise it on any site such as eBay. If you're just selling prints, collecting only cash, and not claiming any credit for being the photographer, then who's going to find out you've been selling the image? I think you'd only get into trouble if the image ended up being published somewhere, or if there was some kind of evidence showing that you received $ for it (such as a PayPal transaction record), or if it was "for sale" on the internet. Keep it very private. Keep it low-key. Keep it cash. Then you'll be safe. Of course, if you do this you can only expect to sell a few dozen prints, so there really won't be much $ in it for you.

your first sentence tells him you THINK he'd be safe. Then the rest of the paragraph tells him how to hide and disguise everything because he ain't gonna be safe if caught. LOL ;)

[PhotoMatte]

I think the real question is: let's see the photo!! :)

[zagiace]

your first sentence tells him you THINK he'd be safe. Then the rest of the paragraph tells him how to hide and disguise everything because he ain't gonna be safe if caught. LOL ;)
haha.. its true..
I try to respect the copyright of others. I expect they do the same. If there is a question I would either contact them or turn down the offers.
Is there any reason not to give them a call and ask?

[crimsonblack]

Your images can only be used for news reporting. If you sell the prints and get caught it is copyright infringements. You do not have a model or property release to sell them.

I wish you could trust me on this. it was not pleasurable when the "copyright infrngement" folks for Warner Bros showed up at my doorstep two weeks after I moved into my new address. i wasn't guilty of what they were concerned about and it wasn't fun. I spent some time with a copyright infringement lawyer to find out my rights, which I had none.

Don't sell them. I wouldn't even admit to having taken them since they are floating around.. As you say, they were lo-res images.

I am sure you can remember George lucas and the studios going after fan created websites for their favorite movies and shows. These were non-money making websites they went after over copyright laws.

[wyofizz]

I think if you sell some prints and don't try to use it in any publication you'd be safe. There's alot you can do and get away with, just so long as you don't try to make too much off of it. By all means try to accept only cash in payment, and don't have your name or anything on the print that would identify you. Surely, don't put the image on your website, or advertise it on any site such as eBay. If you're just selling prints, collecting only cash, and not claiming any credit for being the photographer, then who's going to find out you've been selling the image? I think you'd only get into trouble if the image ended up being published somewhere, or if there was some kind of evidence showing that you received $ for it (such as a PayPal transaction record), or if it was "for sale" on the internet. Keep it very private. Keep it low-key. Keep it cash. Then you'll be safe. Of course, if you do this you can only expect to sell a few dozen prints, so there really won't be much $ in it for you.

I'll bet you have quite a collection of pirated music too:D

[JeffreyG]

I'll bet you have quite a collection of pirated music too:D

Off topic, but I'd have a lot more sympathy for the RCIA's fight against piracy of music if they treated the music as content and not media since the beginning.

If I were a Beatles fan I would have to buy Sgt. Pepper on vinyl, and then again full price on 8-track, and then again at full price on cassette, and then again at full price on CD. And now they are selling content?

I already bought Sgt. Pepper content four times.

[Scout7id]

Your images can only be used for news reporting. If you sell the prints and get caught it is copyright infringements. You do not have a model or property release to sell them.

I wish you could trust me on this. it was not pleasurable when the "copyright infrngement" folks for Warner Bros showed up at my doorstep two weeks after I moved into my new address. i wasn't guilty of what they were concerned about and it wasn't fun. I spent some time with a copyright infringement lawyer to find out my rights, which I had none.

Don't sell them. I wouldn't even admit to having taken them since they are floating around.. As you say, they were lo-res images.

I am sure you can remember George lucas and the studios going after fan created websites for their favorite movies and shows. These were non-money making websites they went after over copyright laws.

I trust what you are saying and have decided not to sell them. My question is this though, I had permission (via Super Bowl credentials) to be there. The media was specifically ushered away from the area where the team photo was taken, my ID was checked and I was told that it was okay for me to be there. I didn't hide, I didn't hide my camera. All of security in the area saw me taking the pictures. (I took about 100 snaps of the Colts and the Saints before, during and after their team shots) Did they not do their jobs properly? I'm okay with them being out there because I am sure that I did nothing unauthorized. I know that the NFL and NFLPA could find a million things wrong with my having taken the pictures I did, but, I really don't feel like I've done anything wrong.

And like my friend Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that."

And here's the photo:
http://www.coastposters.com/img/v10/p120664400-3.jpg

[skywalkerbeth]

Here is an interesting question:

You took the photo so you have the copyright to it. Presumably you can use it for what you want as long as you don't sell it. You don't have the release rights to the people/team in the photo.

However, in the instance where your photo is OBJECTIVELY the best-est great-est photo of that team ever taken - it's the supreme money shot - it's so good the team would be crazy not to want it for themselves... would approaching the team and offering to sell it to them even be feasible or possible? Clearly they have no rights to forcibly take your photo away from you (though I'm sure they could warn you not to sell it to anyone) but would they, could they buy it? Or is that another "don't even go there" questions.


It's a conundrum b/c you have the right to TAKE the photo...

[FlyingPhotog]

Here is an interesting question:

You took the photo so you have the copyright to it. Presumably you can use it for what you want as long as you don't sell it. You don't have the release rights to the people/team in the photo.

However, in the instance where your photo is OBJECTIVELY the best-est great-est photo of that team ever taken - it's the supreme money shot - it's so good the team would be crazy not to want it for themselves... would approaching the team and offering to sell it to them even be feasible or possible? Clearly they have no rights to forcibly take your photo away from you (though I'm sure they could warn you not to sell it to anyone) but would they, could they buy it? Or is that another "don't even go there" questions.


It's a conundrum b/c you have the right to TAKE the photo...

You could absolutely approach the team and offer it to them and the rest of the scenario would play out pretty much as you described it re: warnings against commercial use, etc...

[skywalkerbeth]

You could absolutely approach the team and offer it to them and the rest of the scenario would play out pretty much as you described it re: warnings against commercial use, etc...

In that event, would the team then decline the Photo of the Century, or demand to be given it for free? I'm sure this scenario must have happened at some point.

What about newspapers - not mags, but daily papers? I know the press photogs have certain rights, but if you took "the definitive photo" of a private (or very public) person doing something newsworthy (or involved in something very unfortunate and newsworthy) - what then?

[FlyingPhotog]

In that event, would the team then decline the Photo of the Century, or demand to be given it for free? I'm sure this scenario must have happened at some point.[/qutoe]

They can demand 'til they're blue in the face but I definately would not cough it up.

[quote]What about newspapers - not mags, but daily papers? I know the press photogs have certain rights, but if you took "the definitive photo" of a private (or very public) person doing something newsworthy (or involved in something very unfortunate and newsworthy) - what then?

Then you're in the land of Editorial which is a different kettle of fish with different protections.

There are still "rights" obligations which must be met however. For instance, you'll see local "newsies" or news cameramen on the sidelines of NFL games but only the Network Rights Holder (FOX, NBC, CBS, ESPN) are allowed to broadcast the game live. The NFL will also further stipulate restrictions on how much footage of the game may be used after the fact based on type of show (News, Newsmagazine, Anthology, etc) and whether or not it's an original airing or a re-air (like Sports Center overnight reruns.)

Yeah, it gets complicated... The waters will get further muddied with the proliferation of the 1DMkIV as the first "Pro" body that can shoot video. There will be several new rules and restrictions put in place in relatively short order because now still photographers could fall into the same catagory of rights holders as their TV counterparts.