Banned!!! Part 2

breal101 wrote in post #5806515
I've read BOTH threads on this topic and one question keeps coming to mind. What the hell ever happened to ethics and professional courtesy? If the OP is taking the pictures for his own use no problem, if he starts selling pictures knowing a contract is in place that is unethical and unprofessional in my opinion. If someone were to come to a wedding and covered the shots the contracted photographer "missed" would it be OK for him to pass out business cards with the intent of selling pictures?

Completely false analogy. None of the parents have entered into any sort of agreement with the "pro" photographer, nor have any contractual obligation to any sort of business with him.

Who cares about the analogy it could be any shoot anywhere. It is still unethical to tread on another guys turf, period.

breal101 wrote in post #5806794
Who cares about the analogy it could be any shoot anywhere. It is still unethical to tread on another guys turf, period.

Why? That sounds an awful lot more like illegal collusion than any sort of honorable code to me. Competition is always a good thing in such a market, and I fail to see how the "pro" has any more right to operate here than the OP does, until such time as the club tells the OP not to.

Moreover, he's not treading on anybody's turf in the first place. As has been repeated over and over again, action shots were a completely empty market, until the OP came along. I suppose the professional photographer's "right" to an exclusive market is more important than all the parents' right to purchase a product they want? Need we reminding that this entire organization is, ultimately, for the benefit of the parents and the children?

Sorry, but I have a hard time buying the idea that acting with economic common sense is "greedy" or "unethical"...

snyper77 wrote in post #5797614
FOR THE RECORD:

I was told that the land is private property where these ball games are played. It is owned by the Echange Club. Even though it's "open to the public", I was told that they "could" ask me to leave if I don't play by their rules. So, my question is.... "legally".... can I be asked to leave if I ignore all their rules?

Ok if the property is Private Property owned by the Echange Club, would this not be simular to say Motorsports? Yes I can go to Road Atlanta and shoot NASCAR, ALMS etc. BUT I CAN NOT SELL my shots without paying a licensing fee ($1500.00 come to mind little high for baseball I'd say it is only $2500.00 for ALMS). The GAMES are their events they hold the rights to the events and what happens to your copyrighted images of their events. Your Copyrights their events. Now if one of the Parents hier you to shoot their child all summer then you need to apply for credentials just like I would have to do if DHL hiered me to shot their car - at Road Atlanta, Mid Ohio etc. I couldn't just show up and shoot for the team. I would have to have PERMISSION from the track. I think the tactics of the Pro may not have be right but he is not wrong as I see it from the information that I quoted from you.

bieber wrote in post #5806837
Why? That sounds an awful lot more like illegal collusion than any sort of honorable code to me. Competition is always a good thing in such a market, and I fail to see how the "pro" has any more right to operate here than the OP does, until such time as the club tells the OP not to.

Moreover, he's not treading on anybody's turf in the first place. As has been repeated over and over again, action shots were a completely empty market, until the OP came along. I suppose the professional photographer's "right" to an exclusive market is more important than all the parents' right to purchase a product they want? Need we reminding that this entire organization is, ultimately, for the benefit of the parents and the children?

Sorry, but I have a hard time buying the idea that acting with economic common sense is "greedy" or "unethical"...

I think I may be talking to the mortgage broker mentality here, anything for a buck. Sad really.

breal101 wrote in post #5806884
I think I may be talking to the mortgage broker mentality here, anything for a buck. Sad really.

What's sad is the "fair business is bad" mentality that seems to pervade today's society :/ There's a very big difference between using shady, borderline illegal tactics like a pushy mortgage broker, and doing the logical thing for the greater good. All too often, it seems that people lack the understanding to distinguish between reasonable self-interest and unreasonable selfishness: the OP's case is most certainly the former. Shall we look at the two possible scenarios?

OP doesn't sell: OP loses out on money, and the parents lose out on the photos they really want (hint: if they're flocking to these action shots in such a way that it impacts the sale of posed photographs, there's probably a reason for it). The paid (or should I say paying?) photographer retains his income source and doesn't have to change his business model.

OP sells: OP has some more money in his pocket, and the parents have the photographs they want to remember their children's baseball experiences by. The "paid" photographer has to either change his business model and offer some competition, or leave the market (which, it should be noted, is the natural economic course of things)

So, can we please quit with the "Stop offering a superior product, that's not fair!" arguments, and accept the fact that there's clearly nothing wrong with acting in your own interest, along with the interest of dozens of parents (who, if we take emotions into account, collectively have a lot more invested in this whole thing than either of the photographers involved) over that of one "professional" photographer?

Fair business isn't bad, and I certainly didn't say that. Fair business would be to compete fairly for the contract. If the parents feel shorted they can take it up with the organizers and get another photographer.

breal101 wrote in post #5807007
Fair business isn't bad, and I certainly didn't say that. Fair business would be to compete fairly for the contract. If the parents feel shorted they can take it up with the organizers and get another photographer.

How could he compete for a contract without knowing that one even existed? Obviously after he's told to stop shooting, he has to stop, but there's no obligation to go around asking "Are there any contractual obligations you'd like me to sign up for" any time he wants to photograph something

The OP admitted he knew someone had a contract for the field. He chose to sell pictures anyway, that is where he stepped over the line. He can take them but he shouldn't sell them.

Stocky wrote in post #5800870
The issue over commercial vs editorial photography gets awful confusing around here mostly because people still insist that selling prints to parents is commercial usage. ITS NOT. This is EDITORIAL USE, and the property owner can make any rules they want about what you can do while you are a guest on their field. The only way anyone can stop the OP from taking pictures here is by making it an issue about photography on their private property, and they have every right to tell him to either stop or leave. They have no recourse for the pictures he already took.

It's is definitely NOT editorial. Read the copyright laws regarding usage, and what the definition of editorial is. Its certainly not selling a print to an individual party.

Regardless if its editorial or commercial, I agree completely, the property owner has every right to refuse admission to anyone for just about any legit reason. If they want to deny access to anyone with a camera, they can. If they want to allow anyone access with a camera if they are wearing a blue shirt that day, and refuse others, they can. Its their event and their right.

I used to work for a police department and spent far too many hours doing just that Gillette Stadium in Foxboro. If the management asked to have someone evicted, that's what we did. Pretty much for just about any reason they wanted to give us. It was their right. If the person felt he was wronged, they could bring it up at court, but it wouldn't stop them being evicted from the stadium. Same works for movie theaters, restaurants, retail stores, and so on. All public places.

Now if the person evicted wanted to stand outside the property on say the public highway, and photograph anything they can see inside the stadium, that was also their right. They just can't do it from within the stadium if the owners of the property didn't want them to.

There is also a simple fix to this. The OP can bid for the project next year for more $$, add in team, individual, and action, and just take the business the good old fashion way. Competition

breal101 wrote in post #5807082
The OP admitted he knew someone had a contract for the field. He chose to sell pictures anyway, that is where he stepped over the line. He can take them but he shouldn't sell them.

Why? You're just making a massive non-sequitur here. One photographer being contracted to perform one set of services and offer one type of product has nothing to do with another one performing a completely different service and offering a completely different product.

bieber wrote in post #5807162
Why? You're just making a massive non-sequitur here. One photographer being contracted to perform one set of services and offer one type of product has nothing to do with another one performing a completely different service and offering a completely different product.

Apparently the Exchange club feel the same way I do about it (with the possible exception of the ethics issue) or they wouldn't have advised him to quit selling pictures. Also at least insinuated that he could bid on the contract. It wasn't up to the OP to decide what was lacking in the contract and act to correct it. That would be in the hands of the club, he was told it was OK to take pictures, he took it on himself to sell them. It is pay to play at that place those are the rules. Pay or don't play.

Just as an aside, I think these contracts suck. It seems to be a cut throat business and whoever decided to start paying for these contracts didn't set a good precedent. I wouldn't even think of entering into a pay to play contract.

I have a question. My understanding is that potogs pay a fee for access. They pay to be able to walk the sidelines, get inside the fence at a ballgame, etc. If I come to a public park with my 600mm lens and sit in the stands there is nothing the contracted potog can do about it correct? His contract means nothing to me. The best the league can do is ask me to leave the stands they rented from the county. I could just walk to the swingset next to the field and shoot from there. I understand private land is a different issue and they can do what they want. But the contracted photog can not kick me out of a public park. I can take pictures to my hearts content, right?

Dave

penodr wrote in post #5808063
I have a question. My understanding is that potogs pay a fee for access. They pay to be able to walk the sidelines, get inside the fence at a ballgame, etc. If I come to a public park with my 600mm lens and sit in the stands there is nothing the contracted potog can do about it correct? His contract means nothing to me. The best the league can do is ask me to leave the stands they rented from the county. I could just walk to the swingset next to the field and shoot from there. I understand private land is a different issue and they can do what they want. But the contracted photog can not kick me out of a public park. I can take pictures to my hearts content, right?

Dave

Hey Dave,

There are some points that you make that are correct. If the venue has NO PHOTOGRAPHY posted, or pasted onto tickets or signs than no you cannot take pictures. Whoever is running the venue has the right to control who accesses it and what they do while they are there.

No sign, no prior restraint than you have a case. If you go outside the venue and shoot into it, onto public land then you may do what you wish within reason. BUT in todays climate going over by the swings with a large lens is not going to sit well with the locals or the PD. Just because you are not breaking any laws does not mean that a self appointed doogooder or a cop won't come over to investigate.

Oddly enough sit in the stands with a P&S and take shots of every girl that passes by may not get a second glance if done on the down low. You have the right to take pictures from public areas, but in todays climate of the boogey man around every corner it is getting tough.

And to answer your question about the contract shooter, he can ask that the venue managment ask you to leave. But yes the images would be yours to do with as you wish including selling them. Now, not too long ago we had a post here where a photographer was acosted by the venue photographer and the management. They even went the extra stepof calling the cops. The cops were very irritated at the OP at first, until the cop found out WHY he was called, then he was doubly po'd. Turns out the OP had contract with a specific family to shoot just one player. The venue managment and the contract photographer thought they had the OP and was tryng to force him from a public venue. The cop told the contract shooter and the manager they would go to jail if he had to come back. It seems the players father was a well known lawyer in the area. The exclusivity contract between a photographer and a venue will only work if both sides enforce the rules. But it is not binding on others on public grounds without posting it, I would think.

LBaldwin wrote in post #5808264
Hey Dave,
Just because you are not breaking any laws does not mean that a self appointed doogooder or a cop won't come over to investigate.

Sure but if I talked respectfully with the cops and showed a business card and even better had prior understanding of the parents then they would more than likely ask a few questions then move along.

If when the cops come up and I start yelling about my 1st amendment rights and this is America then I can expect to get a much different response.

Dave