Banned!!! Maybe, Maybe not.

LeeSC wrote in post #5758914
Let's throw a twist into this.

Let's say Snyper's son plays in this league and he is there as a father taking photos. During the games, he not only shoots his child but many of the others. He then takes and puts the photos on his site for sale. Is there an issue with this?

For fun? No problem, For sale? Yes, if the contract states as such.

LeeSC wrote in post #5758914
Another issue I have is the fact that this sounds like a public parks and rec league which are open to the public. Just because a professional company has the "rights" to take team photos does not mean they can prevent others from shooting, and profitting, for shots taken during the games.

Public park or not, money was paid for time on the park, and those who spent the money can take existing rules and tighten them at their discretion. If a photography contract states that no other person may photograph the event for profit then so be it, the board can enforce that issue, even legally. It is no different from a wedding contract or a school yearbook contract.

I agree that free enterprise is bogged down with legality issues, and it gets murky and messy, but that is why contracts are put into place.

also, if you have "1" parents asked you to shoot their son playing ball and want action shots, then you are essentially hired by that person to do so. it does not matter what the other companies contract states. then by chance you are there shooting that individuals photos, other parents "ask" you if you would mind getting some of the kids in acton? then again you become hired by them. don't matter what the board votes and decides. they cannot dictate you being "hired" by individual parents. they can only not allow you to be there just sooting pics freely and handing out business cards afterwards.

Granted you want to keep things calm and thats understandable especially if you know the people on the commitee.

bacchanal wrote in post #5758910
The only problem with "joining forces" with the hired pros is that the OP would possibly lose the right to distribute and display his images.

But if the OP "joined forces" then the images would be the company's property. So the OP would have no right to distribute or display, the company is responsible for that.

rabidcow wrote in post #5758981
But if the OP "joined forces" then the images would be the company's property. So the OP would have no right to distribute or display, the company is responsible for that.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

I would have asked the league if they already have a contarct photor or not. And if it is OK to take action pictures and get all that in writing. if contract is only for T&I stuff and doesn't specifically ban others from taking action shots then there is nothing wrong in you taking the pictures (assuming league gives you the ok). Lot of times contract photog say they have exclusive right to control their turf even when they have no such clause.

kimmie wrote in post #5757917
I can see two sides to this, one being a parent of baseball playing kids and I'd LOVE to have action shots of my kids because let's face it, the league's photographer ONLY takes those Posed photos (group shot, one with your child posing). However with that said, it's like Rabid said, you just don't go out onto that track of the Indy 500. I'm sure the pro photographers having that contract don't shoot action shots, but I think it would have been better had you sought league permission to do action shots if you are going to sell them. Otherwise just be a hobbyist, take action shots and not solicit.

I was told by my boss that the profit for them is in the head shots and posed team shots because parents are going to the games getting the "action" shots on their own. So perhaps this is why you are seeing less and less of it. Our company also gives options of putting pictures on other items such as t-shirts, banners, etc. So these companies know they have to be competitive and offer more options.

You should also remember that a lot of the photographers working for these business often have their own kids enrolled in these programs, which is the same in my boss's case. So it's not like they are always these odd people taking random pictures of kids. They often have their own personal reasons for getting involved in the first place, just like the parents.

LeeSC wrote in post #5758914
Let's throw a twist into this......

...Another issue I have is the fact that this sounds like a public parks and rec league which are open to the public. Just because a professional company has the "rights" to take team photos does not mean they can prevent others from shooting, and profitting, for shots taken during the games.

Unfortunately that is not correct at many public fields, at least here in my city. We have a sports complex that is a public venue, anyone can come in to watch the games. There is an entrance fee tho, just like any other public venue. The local pro studio has an exclusive contract that allows only them to take the pictures of the games in session, and they have gone as far as enforcing that against the parents taking pictures of their kids. It went to court, the studio won. All because of the contract.

Good grief...

sidx001 wrote in post #5759212
Unfortunately that is not correct at many public fields, at least here in my city. We have a sports complex that is a public venue, anyone can come in to watch the games. There is an entrance fee tho, just like any other public venue. The local pro studio has an exclusive contract that allows only them to take the pictures of the games in session, and they have gone as far as enforcing that against the parents taking pictures of their kids. It went to court, the studio won. All because of the contract.

A controlled venue, where there are gates and entrance fees charged, is a different story. IMO, once an entrance fee is charged the venue is no longer public and has every right to control photography.

As far as the photographer going to court over parent's pics, I think the solution is simple. All the parents needed to band together and refuse to sign model releases for their children. Whether the Studio was right or wrong, it seems just like bad business.

And on the parent photos deal, do I have the right to sue the Studio for missing a pic of my son hitting a game winning home run?

LeeSC wrote in post #5759371
A controlled venue, where there are gates and entrance fees charged, is a different story. IMO, once an entrance fee is charged the venue is no longer public and has every right to control photography.

As far as the photographer going to court over parent's pics, I think the solution is simple. All the parents needed to band together and refuse to sign model releases for their children. Whether the Studio was right or wrong, it seems just like bad business.

And on the parent photos deal, do I have the right to sue the Studio for missing a pic of my son hitting a game winning home run?

Then why would you hire them in the first place? Wouldn't you want them to be able to get that pic without all the other parents there budging in front with their cameras and flashes? I mean, how many people should realistically be there getting photographs? Can't you see how it could be more convenient for people to just have one photographer who has done this before? Or is it better to have all the parents with flashes going off every which way with no one standing in quite the right place, etc.? For once, I was on the other side of this thing... I have now witnessed two shoots for swim teams and realize just how much work goes into it. If the parents are able to set up the shot - pose the kid properly, have an assistant to hold the reflector, make sure you can crop the shot properly, and pose a hundred kids and keep their attention for the group shot, then go for it. Start your own business. It's worth it to check with the photographers covering the event to see what they plan to shoot. You'd be surprised how much more respect you'll get if you show respect to begin with.

Sorry Mum, must have been some misunderstanding. I didn't mean budging in on professionals taking team and individual photos.

I am talking about taking the action photos during the game.

Sorry, guess this hit a nerve for some reason. If I were you, I'd ask the people who've been hired what the deal is up front. Were they there to take action shots, or just posed shots? If they weren't hired for action, I don't see why it should be an issue.

I am in no way a pro, or been hired to do many gigs. Photography is still a hobby of mine, but I would like to voice my opinion...

Where I live, the baseball fields are in a public park. It is not a controlled environment, nor do I know if they have photographers there to even take pictures. However, if they did, I would like to see them try and stop me from taking pictures of my neice or nephew playing a sport!

Everyone here is talking about the "contract"...what about it? The pro-studio signed a contract with the town. I didn't sign anything. That contract has nothing to do with me, with an exception if the contract states that no other photographers can shoot the game. However, it is no longer my problem. It is now the town's responsibility to confront me, not the pro-studio's. If the pro-studio did confront you as you stated, it just shows their lack of respect to another individual. How dare YOU, a photographer, tell ME that I have to leave. it's not your park. You have only ben hired to shoot certain things. This does not make you the owner of the entire field. I didn't sign a contract, and if you did and have exclusive rights, then it's your job to have the TOWN contact me and tell me to stop shooting the event.

Case in point, if they force you to leave or stop taking photos, then they better force every other parent in the stands to keep their camera's home. Just because you own expensive equipment doesn't mean you should be singled out in the crowd, unless ofcourse, it's a controlled environment.

Not to mention the fact that they do not take action shots. I seriously see NO problem in you shooting what you've been shooting, unless the park is a controlled environment (to where you have to have a ticket or pay a fee to enter).

Side note
My cousin recently got married and of course, hired a professional photogrpaher. That same week, I received my 17-40L and wanted to give it a test. So when we got there, the pro-photog was already taking the posed shots. When he was done and the ceremony started, I just gave him a nod of recognition from my seat, of which he returned. I shot the cermony portion without getting in his way. Once inside, during the cocktail hour, I introduced myself to him. He was down to earth and was polite as could be. I flat out told him that if I get in his way, to just let me know and I'll back off. I even asked him if he wanted me to turn my flash off. He said, quite pleasently "Don't worry about it! Shoot to your hearts content. We'll both be fine!"

I got to chat with him a bit more, and he checked out my gear, and I got to check his out. I was stoked! He actually let me hold his Mark II (I think..definitely a Mark, not sure which generation though) with the 70-200 2.8IS and his 40D with the 24-70L. I was in heaven .

My point is, when confronting another photographer, make sure you show them the respect they deserve. Who knows, you could possibly open yourself up to more gigs, or just gain a new friend. I know I did!

jnick wrote in post #5759669
I am in no way a pro, or been hired to do many gigs. Photography is still a hobby of mine, but I would like to voice my opinion...

Where I live, the baseball fields are in a public park. It is not a controlled environment, nor do I know if they have photographers there to even take pictures. However, if they did, I would like to see them try and stop me from taking pictures of my neice or nephew playing a sport!

Everyone here is talking about the "contract"...what about it? The pro-studio signed a contract with the town. I didn't sign anything. That contract has nothing to do with me, with an exception if the contract states that no other photographers can shoot the game. However, it is no longer my problem. It is now the town's responsibility to confront me, not the pro-studio's. If the pro-studio did confront you as you stated, it just shows their lack of respect to another individual. How dare YOU, a photographer, tell ME that I have to leave. it's not your park. You have only ben hired to shoot certain things. This does not make you the owner of the entire field. I didn't sign a contract, and if you did and have exclusive rights, then it's your job to have the TOWN contact me and tell me to stop shooting the event.

Case in point, if they force you to leave or stop taking photos, then they better force every other parent in the stands to keep their camera's home. Just because you own expensive equipment doesn't mean you should be singled out in the crowd, unless ofcourse, it's a controlled environment.

Not to mention the fact that they do not take action shots. I seriously see NO problem in you shooting what you've been shooting, unless the park is a controlled environment (to where you have to have a ticket or pay a fee to enter).

I don't think the photographer(s) confronted him, I think they complained to the board. Also, I think the pro photographer is complaining about him potentially selling images...which their contract with the park or league or whoever may or may not prohibit.