Exclusivity contract in public places?

If the league photographer has a contract there are a few things to be aware of;
1. That exclusivity clause is not binding on anyone except those who were a party to it. In other words, if some other photographer - ie parent, friend of player wants to shoot then there is nothing that is enforceable upon them - they were not a party to the contract.
2. The team photographer has a right to shoot because he is most likely giving a percentage to the league. That's normal and it helps support the league.
3. The OP does have the right to shoot anywhere he wants to - but the sticky point is when he begins to charge for his work. NO DOUBT that the parents asscoiated with the league know that a photographe has been contracted.
4. No need for a release from each player - because there is no expectation of privacy and it is a public place. Unless the OP decides to use these images as stock or for advertising. Portfolio usage is OK.
5. The LEAGUE can restrict who shoots at their events, but it usually requires posting the restrictions somewhere, and making the information available to everyone easily.

LBaldwin wrote in post #11897618
5. The LEAGUE can restrict who shoots at their events, but it usually requires posting the restrictions somewhere, and making the information available to everyone easily.

... and noone can restrict the rights of others on public grounds. Some public parks have a no-photo policy though. This comes from the local government, who can also strike a deal with the sports league granting an exception to the photographer of their choice (automatically making it an exclusive right).

ernestoqr wrote in post #11884899
I live relativily close to this field and sometimes I just go there to take pictures for my own, not for sale. Out of the league games, sometimes parents wants the picture of their kids and I sale them. This time it seems it was the play off of the league (I didnt know it) and when the guy told about the contract I went to the other field and continue shooting there from outside. Some parents ask me for the photo and told they didnt know about any "official photographer for the league" thats why I am asking the opinios of people.

So do you have all the required licenses to do business?

LBaldwin wrote in post #11897618
If the league photographer has a contract there are a few things to be aware of;
1. That exclusivity clause is not binding on anyone except those who were a party to it. In other words, if some other photographer - ie parent, friend of player wants to shoot then there is nothing that is enforceable upon them - they were not a party to the contract.
2. The team photographer has a right to shoot because he is most likely giving a percentage to the league. That's normal and it helps support the league.
3. The OP does have the right to shoot anywhere he wants to - but the sticky point is when he begins to charge for his work. NO DOUBT that the parents asscoiated with the league know that a photographe has been contracted.
4. No need for a release from each player - because there is no expectation of privacy and it is a public place. Unless the OP decides to use these images as stock or for advertising. Portfolio usage is OK.
5. The LEAGUE can restrict who shoots at their events, but it usually requires posting the restrictions somewhere, and making the information available to everyone easily.

Bad advice

12Rock wrote in post #11893418
Ever wonder why it's hard to make a buck !

I hear you, Lack of ethics.

wyofizz wrote in post #11899851
Bad advice

A contract is only binding on the signatories.

Right or wrong, Binding or not, If a photographer went through the work of getting the job and you show up not only to shoot, but to sell. You will quickly get a reputation that you really don't want. It could hurt your chances for a very long time.

Mike R wrote in post #11901379
Right or wrong, Binding or not, If a photographer went through the work of getting the job and you show up not only to shoot, but to sell. You will quickly get a reputation that you really don't want. It could hurt your chances for a very long time.

That's fine, but it's important to distinguish legalities from moralities. We can't really tell anyone what's moral for him.

It's also important for people who engage in those contracts to know what they're getting and what their not getting.

RDKirk wrote in post #11901552
That's fine, but it's important to distinguish legalities from moralities. We can't really tell anyone what's moral for him.

It's also important for people who engage in those contracts to know what they're getting and what their not getting.

I agree. How could he, the other photographer, be moral when his verbal contract was illegal in the first place? That is, he is barring the OP from even shooting a public place. That is tantamount to a group of thugs decided to bar the other gang members from entering their turf, which is publicly owned by the city.

My canons bigger than your canons, watch out or I'll shoot you.

Did you say that?

What, me, say I? As I set in the comfy bleachers with a 800mm. Na twernt me that said it!

Just a little twist....I am not the official photographer at our local professional indoor football team however I am by far not the only one in the stands with Canon L glass in the room and by far I do not have the best in the room either. However, I shot the cheerleaders and since my daughter was one of them they all got to see my work and wanted to buy their own copy. However, they could not purchase them as they were prohibited from using any other photographer then their official one. So, the coach's mother bought from me a copy to give to each cheerleader....

RDKirk wrote in post #11901552
That's fine, but it's important to distinguish legalities from moralities. We can't really tell anyone what's moral for him.

It's also important for people who engage in those contracts to know what they're getting and what their not getting.

I fully agree, but there is a lot of legal advice posted here by some that others say is wrong, Who really knows except an attorney from that state. My comment was an attempt to simplify things and just to say that regardless of the legal aspects, there is another thing to consider.

Mike R wrote in post #11902168
I fully agree, but there is a lot of legal advice posted here by some that others say is wrong, Who really knows except an attorney from that state. My comment was an attempt to simplify things and just to say that regardless of the legal aspects, there is another thing to consider.

There are some things pretty clear. If Joe and I write a contract, there is no state court in the US that will rule our contract, in itself, is binding upon you.

This is like the situation I mentioned earlier where a photographer who had a contract to shoot the school prom on school premises thought his contract prevented students from going to another photographer's studio to have their prom pictures taken.

His contract with the school was not in any way enforceable upon either the students or other photographers off school property--and there is no state in the US in which that is not true.

RDKirk wrote in post #11902261
There are some things pretty clear. If Joe and I write a contract, there is no state court in the US that will rule our contract, in itself, is binding upon you.

This is like the situation I mentioned earlier where a photographer who had a contract to shoot the school prom on school premises thought his contract prevented students from going to another photographer's studio to have their prom pictures taken.

His contract with the school was not in any way enforceable upon either the students or other photographers off school property--and there is no state in the US in which that is not true.

OK disregard "from that state" in my post. I just think this has gone much deeper than needed. If a team or leauge has even a verbal agreement with another photographer, I think most of us would respect it when it comes to selling prints.

There's a difference between whether or not such a contract can exist (it can) and whether or not it can be enforced or should even respected.