Banned!!! Part 2

penodr wrote in post #5809141
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

If you start yelling that, you most likely will get laughed at and you will make yourself look like an idiot. You are not a member of the media and 1st amendment has no effects on commercial business.

cory1848 wrote in post #5813649
If you start yelling that, you most likely will get laughed at and you will make yourself look like an idiot. You are not a member of the media and 1st amendment has no effects on commercial business.

True, which is why I said not to. But since when does the first amendment only apply to the press? Am I mistaken in thinking that a newspaper is a commercial business? Private businessmen are protected by the 1st amendment just as any other citizen is, they do not have extra protection but they don't have less either.

Dave

cory1848 wrote in post #5813649
If you start yelling that, you most likely will get laughed at and you will make yourself look like an idiot. You are not a member of the media and 1st amendment has no effects on commercial business.

Looks like somebody needs to reread the first amendment. It certainly has no bearing on the situation at hand, but it does a lot more than you give it credit for...

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.

No. That's really not the norm yet in the U.S.

In some case you might be charged a "vendor fee" to set up, plug in and pitch your wares. Not quite the same thing as the "pro" in this thread did.

I think this sort of thing is more common in England, just judging from discussions I've seen on various blogs.

Basically, yes, you can shoot (unless photography is prohibited, as others have responded).

Selling the images may well be entirely another story though. That's the real issue here.

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

The photogs you see on the sidelines at ball games are credentialed (in the case of college or prosports) photographers. They are being paid to be thier, either by a sponsor, a team, or what have you. They do not pay a fee to shot. Now if they want to sell images they must obtain a license just like a hat make must do to reproduce a team logo on a ball cap. Then they will pay a fee and can sell their images. High shcool and below is different. The photogs that shoot/sell at that level have to have permission from the governing bodies. Which is about the same a credentialing. But I do not know anyone personally that has to pay a school or league a fee to sell thiers. I did not to sell to the parents of my son's team and his league is one of the most prestigous in the state.

As for going to an event an making photographs, as long as there is nothng posted - a sign or on the back of a ticket - you can shoot until your heart is content. But selling is a whole different animal. It is best to get permission from whomever is in charge. Shooting from the swing set across the street, nothing they can do about it.

This might help.

bieber wrote in post #5815136
Looks like somebody needs to reread the first amendment. It certainly has no bearing on the situation at hand, but it does a lot more than you give it credit for...

Before you pull things out of context, I was only applying it to the situation at hand...If your acting as a commercial business, when asked to leave or stop shooting, citing the first amendment as freedom of the press will get you no where. What else in the 1st amendment is relevant to this situation?

cory1848 wrote in post #5813649
and 1st amendment has no effects on commercial business.

This statement is the one causing the problem. I said it would be bad to yell at an officer and quote 1st amendment rights. You said that 1st amendment right have no effects on commercial business. The fact is that the 1st amendment affects everyone and since the news is a business and the freelance photographers they use are a business, this makes your statement even more confusing.

Also I created a new situation in a public park, a place where a little league offical has no authority to throw you out or ask you to leave. What protections do you think the 1st amendment gives a person with a press pass that it does not give me or anyone else? If you think the freedom of the press is for news people only you are mistaken.

It looks like we have gotten off the track here, if you like we can open a new post on the 1st amendment then I will join you over in the new thread, as for this discussion here, I am finished.

Dave

Pendor did you follow that link in my previous post?

cory1848 wrote in post #5817608
Before you pull things out of context, I was only applying it to the situation at hand...If your acting as a commercial business, when asked to leave or stop shooting, citing the first amendment as freedom of the press will get you no where. What else in the 1st amendment is relevant to this situation?

The first amendment isn't relevant to the situation at hand in any way, which is where our confusion is coming from. It does, however, certainly apply to commercial ventures, with regard to publishing and such...

penodr wrote in post #5818038
This statement is the one causing the problem. I said it would be bad to yell at an officer and quote 1st amendment rights. You said that 1st amendment right have no effects on commercial business. The fact is that the 1st amendment affects everyone and since the news is a business and the freelance photographers they use are a business, this makes your statement even more confusing.

Also I created a new situation in a public park, a place where a little league offical has no authority to throw you out or ask you to leave. What protections do you think the 1st amendment gives a person with a press pass that it does not give me or anyone else? If you think the freedom of the press is for news people only you are mistaken.

It looks like we have gotten off the track here, if you like we can open a new post on the 1st amendment then I will join you over in the new thread, as for this discussion here, I am finished.

Dave

If you are going to quote me, quote the entire post. The whole together doesnt lead to confusion. It stated pretty clearly. I think you are reading into to deep.

So let me try and clear it up a bit. I wasnt the one introduce the 1st amendment issue, I was just responding to it...

Some people believe that all because you have a camera in hand and you say you shoot pictures that could be used for editorial, commercial or any other use, that they can scream out my rights are violated when being told to stop shooting or being told to leave. That is not the case. Some think that they can avoid a trespass warrant by stating this as well. "I have a right to be here" "You cant kick me out" those types of situations. Fact is, and this does relate to the OP, is that once asked to stop shooting, if you keep shooting, next step is trespassing. No amount of complaining about public land, public parks, rights, etc will get you out of that.

IndyJeff wrote in post #5800711
IMHO the pro guy here isn't complaining so much that the OP is shooting and selling as much as he is complaing that he had to pay $1500 to do his shooting and the OP didn't pay anything.
Well if the pro had half a brain he would make sure the league includes a memory mate in their sign up fee. I ran a basketball league for 3 years and $7.50 of each childs fee was for a memory mate. The photographer was paid around $5.50 -$6.00 per kid out of that $7.50. Whatever else he sold, buttons, magnets, extra prints etc etc was where he made his real money. We didn't need a kickback.

If the league includes the memory mate fee and can make $1.50 - $2.00 per kid they will probably comeout ahead and so will the photographer because eveyone will be buying at least the MM.

The league would be losing money, not coming out ahead with the math you mentioned here. The pro studio currently pays a $1500 fee to shoot the T&I. If he let the league keep $1.50 per child on a memory mate, and there were 500 children, then we are talking $750, which is half of what the league collects from him now. I see where you are coming from..... but after this guy has been paying $1500 all these years, there's no offering them $750 instead.

And he has ruined it for every other photographer on the planet too.

cory1848 wrote in post #5820187
So let me try and clear it up a bit. I wasnt the one introduce the 1st amendment issue, I was just responding to it...

True, but your lack of knowledge on what it does, is clearly shown by your belief that the 1st amendments "freedom of the press" only applies to news people. Quoted fully here...

cory1848 wrote in post #5813649
If you start yelling that, you most likely will get laughed at and you will make yourself look like an idiot. You are not a member of the media and 1st amendment has no effects on commercial business.

It does, it applies to all citizens of the US and now in some cases the constitition and its amendments apply to non citizens as well.

penodr wrote in post #5828214
True, but your lack of knowledge on what it does, is clearly shown by your belief that the 1st amendments "freedom of the press" only applies to news people. Quoted fully here...

It does, it applies to all citizens of the US and now in some cases the constitition and its amendments apply to non citizens as well.

Once again you are reading into it too deep. Please point out where I said it ONLY applies to news people or the media? You stated that, not me.

I stated a specific example which is part of the 1st amendment, not the entire 1st amendment. You really need to stop analyzing my words making them into something you want them to be and not what they really are.

Let's try to get this thread back on topic please. A first ammendment debate is not OT.
Thanks.