Banned!!! Part 2

I see the pro's point too and I don't think you should have posted his e-mail on a public forum. If you think you have been wronged and should be able to shoot, there is only one you thing should do. Go see a lawyer and get professional advice.

If its public property your shooting on, you can do what you want. I can't see how they can't force you to do anything - including having to pay $1500 to shoot. You have every right to be there as anyone else

I was shooting a little league game for my neighbors (their son was in the game) at the park in my neighborhood. Had another photographer ask why I was shooting, then told me something similar to you - he had a "contract".

I pretty much told him its public property, I can do what I want and that I was hired privately. They can't kick you off public property. period.

Sledhed wrote in post #5790861
I see the pro's point too and I don't think you should have posted his e-mail on a public forum. If you think you have been wronged and should be able to shoot, there is only one thing should do. Go see a lawyer and get professional advice.

What's wrong with posting his email? No names were given, therefore it's fair game.

musicmaster wrote in post #5792093
If its public property your shooting on, you can do what you want. I can't see how they can't force you to do anything - including having to pay $1500 to shoot. You have every right to be there as anyone else

I was shooting a little league game for my neighbors (their son was in the game) at the park in my neighborhood. Had another photographer ask why I was shooting, then told me something similar to you - he had a "contract".

I pretty much told him its public property, I can do what I want and that I was hired privately. They can't kick you off public property. period.

I'm curious, how did this turn out? Did anyone else try talking to you?

musicmaster - I must disagree with you concerning public property. The White House and Pentagon is public property but you can not go take any pictures you want. Most league have a contract with the local park & recreation dept and as a visitor you must abide by the league's rules.

The House and Pentagon are two completely different scenarios, nothing at all like a ballpark that's open to the public.

I, for one, disagree with how other photographers are trying to scare off their competition by telling them to get lost because they have a contract with the league. Unless that contract has some kind of exclusivity clause where they're there to shoot ALL aspects of the league's photography, they really have no recourse. If they do, then the league must prevent the moms and aunts with their point and shoots from shooting as well, because that's violating the terms of exclusivity with the contracted photographer.

I think the OP has the right to shoot just like anyone else. For profit or not, they're his images. He can do with them as he wants, since he's shooting on public property, yes?

qtfsniper wrote in post #5792683
I'm curious, how did this turn out? Did anyone else try talking to you?

No. What's he going to do? I pay taxes and a yearly fee for maintenance on the neighborhood park-- which this guy doesn't even live in the same city as us.

lauderdalems wrote in post #5792979
musicmaster - I must disagree with you concerning public property. The White House and Pentagon is public property but you can not go take any pictures you want. Most league have a contract with the local park & recreation dept and as a visitor you must abide by the league's rules.

Or what? They are "rules" not law. Unless ratified by the local jurisdiction, they can't actually enforce those rules.

Just because of a rule, doesn't mean you have to abide with them if they conflict with your freedoms and there is no actual law saying otherwise

It should be noted that there's a big difference between public property and publically accessible property. It may be that the park is, in fact, privately owned, in which case the OP could be asked to leave.

And as for the "depriving of business" argument...are you serious? That's like saying that no one should be allowed to sell baseball mitts, because it might cause people who would otherwise buy boxing gloves to play baseball instead. Business is about competition, not getting along...

SBCmetroguy wrote in post #5792192
What's wrong with posting his email? No names were given, therefore it's fair game.

Because if that other photographer is a member and he sees his email (knowing it's his email) posted and then every comment to pursue from this person he may not be to happy and say forget trying to work with the OP and just tell the league to make camera rules more strict. I'm pretty sure the photog who sent the email would recognize it pretty easy.

musicmaster wrote in post #5792093
If its public property your shooting on, you can do what you want. I can't see how they can't force you to do anything - including having to pay $1500 to shoot. You have every right to be there as anyone else

I was shooting a little league game for my neighbors (their son was in the game) at the park in my neighborhood. Had another photographer ask why I was shooting, then told me something similar to you - he had a "contract".

I pretty much told him its public property, I can do what I want and that I was hired privately. They can't kick you off public property. period.

The league can charge a licensing fee to use the trademarks in the images (logos) just like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. charges companies to use.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #5793398
The league can charge a licensing fee to use the trademarks in the images (logos) just like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. charges companies to use.

Professional sports take place on private property. These kiddie leagues tend to take place on full public property (local parks owned by the city). The league can charge whatever they want, doesn't mean you have to pay. If say Michael Jordan was wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey walking downtown chicago, and I took a picture, the Bull's logo would be there -- yet I could still sell the picture as it was on public property.

Again, it goes back to my issue of "rules". If they legally can't enforce them on public property, you don't have to abide by them just because they tell you to.

musicmaster wrote in post #5793412
Professional sports take place on private property. These kiddie leagues tend to take place on full public property (local parks owned by the city). The league can charge whatever they want, doesn't mean you have to pay. If say Michael Jordan was wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey walking downtown chicago, and I took a picture, the Bull's logo would be there -- yet I could still sell the picture as it was on public property.

Again, it goes back to my issue of "rules". If they legally can't enforce them on public property, you don't have to abide by them just because they tell you to.

Well it also goes back to public vs. private - schools for example are not as public as people think they are. Parks owned by the city yes, but locally one of the parks is not considered public even though tax dollars paid for it (the park down the road though is). There was a debate about it years ago here in town and the town of course won the battle of it's not public when some people tried to say it was - not photography, some usage battle.

Then you get into is a print commercial or editorial - if it's commercial you need permission to use the trademarks and model releases, if its editorial you don't. They may view the photog being hired to come shoot as commercial enterprise and if a court agrees they can charge, if the court doesn't agree then it's open game. Or the league can say they had an expectation of privacy as the games are their league and only players/family were invited and they rented the public field for private use (a stretch of course)...so many diff. things can happen, but overall the league can make it hell for the person without permission to shoot as well as the other photog could to.

musicmaster wrote in post #5792093
They can't kick you off public property. period.

Let me guess. You're not a lawyer, right?


Your words exceed your knowledge by quite a wide margin. Plenty of people with attitudes such as yours have wound up muttering similar words from the back seat of a squad car.

Curtis N wrote in post #5793628
Let me guess. You're not a lawyer, right?


Your words exceed your knowledge by quite a wide margin. Plenty of people with attitudes such as yours have wound up muttering similar words from the back seat of a squad car.

What can they arrest you for though if you aren't breaking any law

I'm not trying to create an argument though, just trying to protect your rights as a US citizen and a photographer. I would check into seeing if the park is a fully public park. If it is, I don't see how they can legally limit you shooting and selling.

musicmaster wrote in post #5793653
What can they arrest you for though if you aren't breaking any law

I'm not trying to create an argument though, just trying to protect your rights as a US citizen and a photographer. I would check into seeing if the park is a fully public park. If it is, I don't see how they can legally limit you shooting and selling.

well, what about a private event on public property? The game may be a private event. A public park here "closes" every year on certain days for private events, sometimes even just a portion of the park...so it in turns becomes private - sure you can stand on public property and shoot into a private event but won't get the results you want.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #5793398
Because if that other photographer is a member and he sees his email (knowing it's his email) posted and then every comment to pursue from this person he may not be to happy and say forget trying to work with the OP and just tell the league to make camera rules more strict. I'm pretty sure the photog who sent the email would recognize it pretty easy.

This still doesn't make posting the email wrong. No names were given, and I'd bet after his dealings with this guy he probably couldn't care less if he's a member here or not. If the other guy gets his feelings hurt from seeing his email posted here, he's got bigger problems than a little competition. The OP didn't call him a numbnuts (which he probably is) or anything like that, he merely posted the email as an example of the correspondence.

Living in this modern world, one should know by now that they shouldn't expect full privacy or anonymity on the internet. Email is no more private than a phone call, which can easily be listened to by someone with a scanner ... or better yet, by our own government.

Give me a break. He posted an email. Big deal.