Do I need permissions to post tournament photos?

My question: Should I be worried that our Volleyball Club doesn't have photo waivers? They want some of my images for their website.

My situation:
The tournament is in a big private gym with about 10 courts. Every court is lined with parents sitting on beach chairs - so hundreds of parents, many with cameras.

I put about 200 photos on Smugmug and sent it around to the other parents (copied the club owners). The club owners are super nice, incredible (ex-volleyball pro) people, just trying to get this business off the ground. I want help and burdening them with legal demands just doesn't seem nice, but I'd rather not find myself (or see them) in a sticky legal situation either.

I should mention that it's a well-off area and several of the other parents are lawyers.

To give an idea of what it's like, here's an image where only my daughter is clearly recognizable.

The photo doesn't seem to be loading for me in the forums or when clicking the link. (link just takes me to a blank white page without an error message. Seems odd.)

I'm not aware of any part of the world that doesn't require some form of a release agreement for using someone's likeness in an ad, so the club would want to get releases signed by the person/guardian of anyone who is clearly identifiable in any images they're using for ads. (Art hung on the walls is another matter, but I would still want releases for anything large and as much of the smaller photos as I could get just to cover my own backside.)


Personally I would contact the other parents and let them know what's going on (The club is looking for images to use to promote the itself so it can keep expanding/supporting the players) and ask if anyone is interested in allowing photos of them to be used. Get them to sign a general agreement suitable for your area, and then make sure you're only using people who have properly signed off in any of the photos.

Good luck with the project.

If you have permissions for the "team photographer" -- and you are the team photographer, you need no further permissions. When the kids/ adults are playing in a public venue and join a public team, it is implied that you have permission to shoot photos of everyone.

You can post in a website and sell the photos to people who are in them, provided you have a contract with the sponsor to post. Most generally, the people buy themselves or their kids.

I did this exact thing with a college baseball league (a non-profit) and sold images to the public and donated the money to the league. There was one other photographer allowed to shoot there, and he paid a fee to the league, and sold photos of the players on a website. He kept the money, but paid a portion to the sponsors for the rights to shoot the players.

Neither one of us had signed permission from the players - and both of us sold images. I'd suspect here the trick is "get the league permission in writing" ... if you give all the images to the league, and sell none yourself, you will not need permission. If you sell independently of the league, you should / must get permission from the league AND from the individuals (that last is a guess)

I'm not an attorney, so you should verify all this will the league before you start shooting and posting. But, this above is from my personal experience with the Cape Cod Baseball League (a college league) for ten years as the team photographer.

monkey44 wrote in post #17403895
I did this exact thing with a college baseball league (a non-profit) and sold images to the public and donated the money to the league.

That's not the same thing as the OP's situation. You are selling the image, the OP is talking about his client using the image for promotional purpose in relation to a business. Legally totally different and they would require a model release from people featured in the images.

Does this issue ever technically become the photographer's problem? My understanding of it within Canadian and US law was that the end-user, the company the images are being used to promote, is the one on the hook for whether or not everything was properly lined up and signed off for.

The fact that photographers will often deal with the releases is more a courtesy/efficiency thing, as they're usually the ones with direct contact with the photo subjects, where as the end-use client will often never meet the people in the photos. Not to mention that having the paperwork ready up front makes it easier for a photographer to seal a deal with an ad client because the client can be sure there are no random hiccups that will suddenly pop up when the photo-subject decides they don't want to sign off on the project.

But as far as I'm aware the photographer is not really on the hook if a photo they produced and sold is used without proper authorization from the subject. (Assuming they didn't misrepresent the rights being transferred.)

Yes, I get it, that's why I said in the middle if the "sponsor only" gets the images, no permission needed.

And for commercial use, you need it - any commercial use -- you need a contract that defines it, or a release from the person in it.

I usually carry releases with me everywhere -- and it I even think for one second it might someday be required, i ask right then, and get it signed. If no sign -- then I at least KNOW it then. Otherwise, you're half the time hunting down folks you don't even know, at least no well ...

There is an exception for journalism -- and it assumes any one in a photo is part of the documentation of the moment ... But that's not really 'commercial use', even tho we sell the image and get paid. It's an entirely different set of legal rules. that's why journalists CANNOT modify or 'doctor' images -- it gets one fired instantly.

Luckless wrote in post #17403981
Does this issue ever technically become the photographer's problem? My understanding of it within Canadian and US law was that the end-user, the company the images are being used to promote, is the one on the hook for whether or not everything was properly lined up and signed off for.

If/when the professional photographer wishes to use the photos taken by his business and used for promotion of his OWN BUSINESS -- whether in window displays, website, printed matter -- then the photographer falls under the same requirements of any other enterprise seeking to use the photos

Wow, some great info here. THANK YOU ALL! I think this does answer my questions.

A few things:

- I'm not a pro, I'm just a parent sharing privately with other parents. The club now wants to *also* post a few on their website.

- It's a private club. We each pay about $2K for the season. Seems like a lot but for 3 practices a week, clinics, tournament fees, etc, it's actually about right.

- Tournaments compete with other clubs (think Misty May's club, etc).

I asked a fellow parent who's a lawyer for an opinion - here's her response. It's fairly in-line with the advice above - essentially to get ahead of it, use precautions to ensure privacy, and get waivers as needed for commercial use (advertising).

I subsequently sent this out to the other club members:

I've told the club owners that I'm happy to contribute photos but they must acquire releases. I suggested they spend a few hundred $$ for proper legal council - that it's far cheaper than having legal worries.

I guess I could try selling the photos or letting the club try to sell them. Frankly; I don't think they're all that good and IMHO the return wouldn't warrant the effort. I'd rather collect the Good Will from people that, who knows, contact with them may lead to a top job some day.

QUOTE: "I've told the club owners that I'm happy to contribute photos but they must acquire releases. I suggested they spend a few hundred $$ for proper legal council -

That it's far cheaper than having legal worries. I guess I could try selling the photos or letting the club try to sell them.

Frankly; I don't think they're all that good and IMHO the return wouldn't warrant the effort. I'd rather collect the Good Will from people that, who knows, contact with them may lead to a top job some day."


Monkey44 says:

Right on all three counts ... it's not truly a money maker unless you set it up as a business. But the "good will" is a amazing commodity, it will gain you much more than selling a few photos to parents. You'll eventually gain contacts, more importantly, the kids will love you, and kids grow into adults that will remember your good will as well. And both you and the kids will have fun, something beyond a value.

monkey44 wrote in post #17405398
QUOTE: "I've told the club owners that I'm happy to contribute photos but they must acquire releases. I suggested they spend a few hundred $$ for proper legal council -

That it's far cheaper than having legal worries. I guess I could try selling the photos or letting the club try to sell them.

Frankly; I don't think they're all that good and IMHO the return wouldn't warrant the effort. I'd rather collect the Good Will from people that, who knows, contact with them may lead to a top job some day."


Monkey44 says:

Right on all three counts ... it's not truly a money maker unless you set it up as a business. But the "good will" is a amazing commodity, it will gain you much more than selling a few photos to parents. You'll eventually gain contacts, more importantly, the kids will love you, and kids grow into adults that will remember your good will as well. And both you and the kids will have fun, something beyond a value.

I usually catch grief for "giving it away". Finally; someone agrees that good will is a valuable commodity - as is simply doing something to feel good about!

Even if, in some small way, my kid catches a break in life because she's known as the daughter of that guy who made saving those memories possible, it'll be worth it 100x over.

I've probably distributed photos for over 100 soccer games; now I'm at 4 volleyball tournaments. Then there's 5 annual talent shows and various other school outings.

The cosmic "goes around comes around" is ever so true - albeit that's not my motive.