Exclusivity contract in public places?

karobinson wrote in post #11901751
they were prohibited from using any other photographer then their official one

This sounds extreme.. did they sign a contract that made this condition binding on their participating in the team? Did it clearly state the reasonable limitations of this prohibition? Did it mention possible consequences of going against it? It seems to me it wouldn't be enforceable after the end of the season. It's like Coca-cola preventing its employees from drinking pepsi...

lustylook wrote in post #11904318
It's like Coca-cola preventing its employees from drinking pepsi...

It wouldn't surprise me if Coca-Cola prohibited Pepsi products in its cafeteria. And I doubt they allow delivery truck drivers to consume Pepsi products while wearing their Coke delivery uniform.

Oddly enough, for some stores to sell coke, they have to sign a clause not to sell pepsi. It's a wicked world.

You won't see coke n pepsi on the same NASCAR but, that's gone around and around before.

Oh Look! There mak'nn another left turrnnnnn!

karobinson wrote in post #11901751
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....

The team was prevented from buying them as a team, but individual parents were not--could not--be prohibited from buying them as individuals.

As I've alluded before, this has gone around and around among photographers. The school's contact covers things the school and its officials do--they can't inhibit what individuals do on their own.

RD,
The problem with this thread is that it hasn't dealt with the other realities
like:
the OP could be banned from stepping on the property
The photographer could sue the league for lost income (if it is customary for the league to enter into verbal rather than written agreements these could be golden in that state)
the "official" photographer could report the OP to the authorities if he is selling illegally.
OP have you got insurance?
Have you got your tax license?
Have you paid your county use tax on your gear?

MikeR summed it up with it's just a poor practice. I am more blunt, "pond scum". The official guy has likely jumped through a lot of hoops to get there and spent a lot of money. Others need to compete to get the contract, verbal or written at the beginning of the season like everyone else. The fact that the OP justifies shooting on the basis that there are fields with no photographer is evidence that he has no idea on what goes into shooting a baseball league.
People that live their life on the edge of legality live in the ethical gutter.
OP- go do all the things listed above and see how much better a job you can do covering the league.

The OP can not be banned from public areas.

That one would hit a higher court so fast you'd get dizzy from the crosswind.

The league did not give him a written contract, because the could not. It is a public style event.

>>>> I agree that stepping into an others hard sought work arena is a cheesy thing to do <<<<<<

They can make a bad name for him, carefully ( slander is something to sue over ) they can not sue him.

Can the tax boys play with him, maybe, maybe not, hobby business rules are strange.

I know it tweaks many off but, push come to shove, there is little if anything legal they can do to the photog.

Now if it was privet land ( or lease for that time and place ), that's another story, then the league has to cover insurance, lights, crowd control. They become liable for a host of things, they are not set up for.

I get so ticked sometimes, I wanna wrap them in the jaw for stepping into something I worked for, ( don't it a fine and maybe 3 days in jail, depending on how hard you wrap them )

Emotions run hard at times and try to trump facts but, Public is Public, the same fight photographers struggle with since 9/11, over where we can and can not shoot on public land.

"The team was prevented from buying them as a team, but individual parents were not--could not--be prohibited from buying them as individuals."

Exactly...the parents had no contract with the said photographer to use them at all let alone use no other photographer. And I would like to note that the exclusive photographer was very kind and brought to my attention that he had his strobes in the ceiling and to be aware of his flashes going off while I was shooting. His concern was that his flash would mess up my shots....

That was a nice thing for that photog to do.

I generally let them figure that out on there own

I can be a stinker at times.

wyofizz wrote in post #11906271
RD,
The problem with this thread is that it hasn't dealt with the other realities

Check the title of the thread. You appear to have a problem with people insisting on sticking to the topic. Start your own thread.

No, he can't, unless it's private property, which it isn't. Localities can't even ban convicted sex offenders from public kiddie parks.

Maybe, if the league had access control of the venue and failed to exert that control--presuming the league had such a contract with the locality.

But that has nothing to do with the second photographer.

That has nothing to do with the contract.

RDKirk wrote in post #11905783
The team was prevented from buying them as a team, but individual parents were not--could not--be prohibited from buying them as individuals.

As I've alluded before, this has gone around and around among photographers. The school's contact covers things the school and its officials do--they can't inhibit what individuals do on their own.

Help me out here. The text you quoted was referring to a "professional indoor football team ", but you mention a school. Do the same rules apply to both?

RDKirk wrote in post #11906995
No, he can't, unless it's private property, which it isn't. Localities can't even ban convicted sex offenders from public kiddie parks.

Yes, they can, and they do:

"As of August 2006, at least 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency restriction laws and ordinances, respectively, according to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-free zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified distance of designated places where children congregate."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/​2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm

Some points to ponder. If the league has a contract with the city, then they do have control over who does and does not have access. Municipal stadiums, swim centers etc all could fall under that catagory.

In many cities professional photography cannot take place in public parks without the cities permission and the purchase of a permit. Often those permits are quite expensive and 300/500 per year and require proof of insurance and a rider that lists the city as a payee of property is destroyed.

Also most team photographers go to a lot of trouble to get those contracts, provide a service, and keep costs within reason while still turning a profit. To tell the truth it is a lousey way to make cash, more work than it's worth and then there are the parents that want it all on a golden platter for free...

Just my .002 worth.

moose10101 wrote in post #11911426
Help me out here. The text you quoted was referring to a "professional indoor football team ", but you mention a school. Do the same rules apply to both?

She was referring to the cheerleaders...who may or may not also be "professional"--indoor football is not nearly as established as the NFL.

My point, though, still stands that a contract is only enforceable upon its signatories. Perhaps if the cheerleaders are professional, they have a contract stating that they can only be photographed by contract photographers. I tend to think not--I've certainly seen photographs of Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders by darned near everyone under the sun.

Yes, they can, and they do:

"As of August 2006, at least 21 states and over 400 local governments had adopted sex offender residency restriction laws and ordinances, respectively, according to the California Research Bureau in an August 2006 report entitled The Impact of Residency Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review. These laws are modeled after nuisance codes, creating sex offender-free zones like drug-free zones. They typically prohibit sex offenders from living, and sometimes working or loitering, within a specified distance of designated places where children congregate."

http://www.cga.ct.gov/​2007/rpt/2007-R-0380.htm

Notice it takes passing specific laws to prohibit convicted sex offenders--major felons--categorically from such areas, and there is a heck of a lot of space between convicted sex offenders and a photographer shooting from the stands.

If it takes passing a law to prohibit convicted felons from an area, that's negative evidence that a photographer can be permanently banned from a public area just because he was shooting from the stands.

I pointed 'way up above that the league might have such a contract with the city. That contract does not prevent someone from taking pictures from the stands--the league organization would have to exercise such access control--i.e., kick someone out.

People are arguing that a contract between A and B is somehow legally binding on C, but that's just not the case.

RDKirk wrote in post #11912776
People are arguing that a contract between A and B is somehow legally binding on C, but that's just not the case.

No, but the contract could say that if "C" is shooting and selling photos that "A" has a responsibility to remove him from the event (assuming A has the authority).

RDKirk wrote in post #11912766
Notice it takes passing specific laws to prohibit convicted sex offenders--major felons--categorically from such areas, and there is a heck of a lot of space between convicted sex offenders and a photographer shooting from the stands.

Yes, and yes; however, your statement that localities can't ban sex offenders was patently wrong, since many have passed a specific law to do so. Why even make the statement when it's obviously not true and not germane?