Exclusivity contract in public places?

moose10101 wrote in post #11885125
You get your facts straight. Obviously he has the right to shoot; however, you also insisted he has the right to sell. If the league has a contract with another photographer, you'd be wrong. So instead of stating "you have the right to sell YOUR photos as well", as you flippantly did, the proper action would be to contact the league and ask them.

The league may have an exclusive contract with a particular photograph. That means only that photographer would have access to the prime vantage points which the league may control (if they've so contracted with the local government).

But a contract between the league and the photographer has absolutely nothing to do with any other photographers. We've gone around about this with school prom photography. A school might have a contract that permits only one photographer to shot prom shots at the school's premises, but that has nothing to do with other photographers having a "special prom session" at their own studios on the same night.

If another photographer has a vantage point outside the area controlled by the league, that photographer is free to shoot what he can see.

He is also free to sell those photographs to the parents without a release. A model release is only needed for commercial use, which states define as meaning "soliciting business or products," and not the sale of the actual photographs themselves.

asysin2leads wrote in post #11885049
Why would he need a lawyer? Public park is public property and he has the legal right to shoot whoever, whenever and wherever (including minors without a release).

That is incorrect, in many areas if it is a private event even in a public in a public park then the event organizer or an agent thereof as a lessee has the right to include or exclude anyone they wish including photographers.

Now if the photographer wants to remain on the perimeter of the event and continue to photograph he can do so, but reentering the event for any reason without permission (at least down here) constitutes trespassing with forewarning.

Wayne

asysin2leads wrote in post #11885138
I served on the park board for a several years. The only control they have control over admission/access (for a lack of a better term) is if it is gated. If the baseball field has bleachers outside the backstop or outside the fences and is in a common area of the park, they cannot control who has access to them. Anyone can walk up to the fence line and shoot pictures, regardless of any agreement the organizers have with the park and/or league. I've dealt with this personally, both as a park board member and as a photographer.

You're right, it only applies to an area that is sequestered in some respect. That might not, however, be a specifically fenced area, but it will have to be sequestered--a temporary boundary might suffice, depending on what the locality permits.

I would spend my time shooting the heck out of the events and getting good practice time in without selling any images. Then next season, bid against the league photographer showing samples of your portfolio.

Naturalist wrote in post #11885299
I would spend my time shooting the heck out of the events and getting good practice time in without selling any images. Then next season, bid against the league photographer showing samples of your portfolio.

Naturalist that was always my first intention( I wanted to test the speed of my 7d and my 70-200L MK II)
I call an hour ago to the organizers and it seem they dont have any contract, only WORD arragement. the guy organizing ask me not shoot even from behind the fences because he gave his word to the other photog to shoot. For me words contract are worth a lot but wath about those field wher nobody is shooting, NOBODY!!!

ernestoqr wrote in post #11885518
Naturalist that was always my first intention( I wanted to test the speed of my 7d and my 70-200L MK II)
I call an hour ago to the organizers and it seem they dont have any contract, only WORD arragement. the guy organizing ask me not shoot even from behind the fences because he gave his word to the other photog to shoot. For me words contract are worth a lot but wath about those field wher nobody is shooting, NOBODY!!!

Wow.....what if what they agreed upon with WORDS only aren't even legal..... This is what I would do. Remember, I am from NYC. If he isn't there, I would just go shoot all I want. If he is there, you walk to him and telling him that a verbal contract worth squat in the court of law. Tell him to leave you alone and you both shoot the same game. Hopefully you have better gear and perspective to generate more sales. Now, if he is too unconcern about having a written contract, I would predict that he would leave you alone or at least he would avoid shooting the same game with you.

Now, if you are really, really hardcore, you can work out a deal with the league official to see if you can be the official photographer. Do this with a written contract.

If the OP is in California, verbal contracts can be binding and legal...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11885836
If the OP is in California, verbal contracts can be binding and legal...

Remember that this verbal contract is to exclude other parties, not party A performing goods for party B. Also, this exclusion is not legal, barring him from shooting a public venue.

This is sort of like my daughters dance recitals. They have a company come in to shoot video of the shows and then they sell the videos. But they also allow people to come and record with their own cameras as well.

Your situation would be like them telling us that we can't bring video cameras in to the show because we won't buy their videos.

I'm sure we'd catch hell if we tried to sell the videos but that's a whole other ball of wax.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11885836
If the OP is in California, verbal contracts can be binding and legal...

If it's done properly. It still has to be formal and witnessed, with all the necessary enforceable provisions of a written contract. A beer bet, to state an extreme, is not an enforceable oral contract.

I'm thinking a photographer establishing the ground rules of covering a sports league with the organizers probably crosses all the "i's" and dots all the "t's"

TooManyShots wrote in post #11885792
This is what I would do. Remember, I am from NYC. If he isn't there, I would just go shoot all I want. If he is there, you walk to him and telling him that a verbal contract worth squat in the court of law. Tell him to leave you alone and you both shoot the same game. Hopefully you have better gear and perspective to generate more sales. Now, if he is too unconcern about having a written contract, I would predict that he would leave you alone or at least he would avoid shooting the same game with you.

Maybe legal but a very poor way of doing business IMO.

This would be a much much better way of doing business.

If you're trying to make money and run a business, you've gotta fight hard for your contracts but I think you'll make things much more difficult in the longrun if you just go around basically telling people to "stuff it" and making people angry. Always try to be legitimate and work with proper permissions...even if it's just a formality. Just because it's legal doesn't make it a good business practice.

I would also suggest having respect for your fellow local photographers. If another photographer has an agreement with a league (verbal or written), don't step on their toes. Instead, work to get that contract next season fair and square.

Ever wonder why it's hard to make a buck !

Na, I got the ink and paper all worked out, they print just fine now.

As far as I understand it, the following basic rules of photographic freedom apply in this situation as well:

1 - you are free to take pictures from a public place as long as it doesn't infringe on personal privacy (person typing code at atm, trade secrets using a telescope, upskirt shots, etc) or "national security". Reasons of privacy can only be invoked when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. inside your home) and reasonable measures have been taken to protect your privacy (curtains, clothing, etc)

2 - if you attempt to shoot in a non-public place without permission (barring the special cases above), at most you can be asked to leave/reasonably forced to the door. Any "damage" (e.g. picture) is already done. In this case it would be illegal for anyone to seize your camera and/or force you to delete your images, even if you weren't allowed to take them in the first place

3 - you own the copyright on all your shots

4 - all the images you own can be sold for "editorial" use

5 - as to commercial use in general: to protect yourself from lawsuits, all recognizable people will need to be released (as well as personal info such as number plates, or logos and visual works of art, which can simply be edited out instead). *This means the kids you photograph (or their legal guardian) are the ones who would need to give you permission to use the images, and nobody else!* Therefore make sure your subjects haven't signed any photography exclusivity agreements (these might be hidden somewhere in the league registration contract); their parents will hopefully be informed about this.

RDKirk wrote in post #11885197
a contract between the league and the photographer has absolutely nothing to do with any other photographers

You don't need to take into account any institution/photograph​er/cat/dog/hamster squeaking at you trying to hinder your work.

Note however that simply selling prints (in the US) doesn't require model releases (provided the images are not altered in a demeaning way). If you plan on using the images further down the road (e.g. to advertise your website, or to license as stock), you're better off with releases.
http://www.danheller.c​om/model-release.html#summary

As a last point, if you're selling the images to the parents in good faith, one could argue that you're acting as their agent in photographing their kid, implicitly releasing you from liability...but it's always best to have the details in writing.