Photographer Rights And Un-Written Rules

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=masdog]Hi Janet.
Generally, something along those lines requires at least one of a few things. In order to legally sell them on the Internet, you need permission from the school AND permission from the parent. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, you may also need permission from the sanctioning body (High School Athletic Agency).QUOTE]

To be contrary, you definitely do not need permission from the school or the sanctioning body. A school event can certainly NOT be copyrighted by a school or an athletic association. Only a photo can be copyrighted and the first owner is the photographer.
You may need a release from the student if a minor, or the parent to use a shot but that depends on the nature of the use. Shots used in a journalistic way in local papers or publications promoting such events do not require permision. Advertising and other uses may require releases.

Ronnoco

[terryger]

"They deleted them and ordered him not to return to the school. Since then the school came up with the AUP to protect the kids. It allows for, amongst other things the arrest of anyone taking inappropriate photos. "


and who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"?

so what you are saying is this AUP has been codified into law as it allows for arrest powers for violation from law enforcement. what would be the exact charge? what state are you in? i would like to look up the code.

you alluded to the fact that several entities were being sued. this would fall under civil litigation which can commence from anybody with a filing fee. what exactly was the "complaint" in these cases?

thanx for the clarification!

[Ronnoco]

"They deleted them and ordered him not to return to the school. Since then the school came up with the AUP to protect the kids. It allows for, amongst other things the arrest of anyone taking inappropriate photos. "


and who gets to decide what is "inappropriate"?

so what you are saying is this AUP has been codified into law as it allows for arrest powers for violation from law enforcement. what would be the exact charge? what state are you in? i would like to look up the code.

you alluded to the fact that several entities were being sued. this would fall under civil litigation which can commence from anybody with a filing fee. what exactly was the "complaint" in these cases?

thanx for the clarification!

Terry makes some good points and a few things should not be forgotten.

Anyone can take photos pretty well anywhere with few exceptions. Violating the secrets act and sneaking a camera into Area 51 would probably not be recommended or anything of a similar nature. Shooting someone in a place where there is an expectation of privacy such as a washroom or change room would obviously also be illegal

It should also be pointed out that the law is not made by schools, school boards, athletic associations, corporations or owners of property. They may have created policies to deter and limit photography but that is all they are...policies. The only one with any power is the property owner or their representative and their only power is to tell you that you are trespassing and must leave the property. You still retain all rights to any photos you have taken, both physically and in terms of copyright while on the property whether with or without permission.

In terms of use, journalistic photography in a public place does not require any releases. A photo of people using park facilities used to promote the park would likely not require releases either. Candid photography is certainly permiited as well.

On the opposite side, using a photo of a child in a park to promote peanut butter who by chance has a nut allergy would get the photographer into deep problems. Linking a person in a candid photo to something unrelated to the picture might also constitute defammation and leave the photographer open to a law suit as well. Common sense would indicate that for most photos used for advertising, a release is necessary.

Ronnoco

[JSPhoto]

Wrong on that one, masdog! In both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere, whether you are trespassing or not, does not relate in any way to taking pictures. You can take photos while trespassing and the only possible consequence is being thrown off the property. Trespassing is illegal but taking photos is NOT, even while trespassing.

Ronnoco

Ronnoco,

No, your wrong, the question was specific and dealing with schools and MINORS. Schools that have AUP's require a parent/guardian signature, and even with a minor and no AUP you need parental permission to SELL the photos. On my high school website I also have to have have written permission for certain students even though I don't sell those photos because of the schools AUP.
As for tresspassing, your wrong there too, you may not photograph on private property without permission and the owner can force the destruction of negatives etc. You can however photograph from a public area/right of way though.
Even some public areas require permits or special permission to photograph such as the anywhere on the New York city subway. Local ordinances may prohibit photography in public areas whether it's public or private property.
JS

[masdog]

Wrong on that one, masdog! In both Canada and the U.S., as well as elsewhere, whether you are trespassing or not, does not relate in any way to taking pictures. You can take photos while trespassing and the only possible consequence is being thrown off the property. Trespassing is illegal but taking photos is NOT, even while trespassing.

Ronnoco

That depends on the laws and the people you're dealing with. You could easily end up in jail, your photos destroyed, or worse.

IANAL, but its reasonable to assume that if you're trespassing, you're not supposed to be taking photographs.

[masdog]

Hi Janet.
Generally, something along those lines requires at least one of a few things. In order to legally sell them on the Internet, you need permission from the school AND permission from the parent. Depending on the circumstances of the contest, you may also need permission from the sanctioning body (High School Athletic Agency).

To be contrary, you definitely do not need permission from the school or the sanctioning body. A school event can certainly NOT be copyrighted by a school or an athletic association. Only a photo can be copyrighted and the first owner is the photographer.
You may need a release from the student if a minor, or the parent to use a shot but that depends on the nature of the use. Shots used in a journalistic way in local papers or publications promoting such events do not require permision. Advertising and other uses may require releases.

Ronnoco, you're wrong. I will simply point you to the NCAA. Their bylaws state something to the effect that they retain all rights to the contests. They also limit what you can do with images. Other sports leagues have similar rules. Most sportscasts have disclaimers at the end saying the contest is owned by the league and the network transmitting it. Please check Chapter 12 (I beleive) of the NCAA DI, DII, and DIII bylaws if you don't believe me.

While you may own the copyright to the photography, you don't own the intellectual property that is captured in the photograph. Team names, logos, and the like is all copyrighted and trademarked, and selling images of it is a huge violation of the law, especially when you don't have permission to do so.

It is currently against NCAA rules to sell images from NCAA events to non-journalism groups without permission of the school you're shooting for. Doing so has resulted in a number of cease-and-desist letters, denied credentials, and its hinted that sale of the image may effect the eligibility of the athlete in question (there is currently a bylaw amendment in D1 that would remove this intonation).

Sportsshooter.com got into trouble last year with the NCAA because they felt that images displayed on the website were in violation of their rules. Even though the photographers weren't selling the image, the fact that they were "advertising" themselves with the images caused a potential problem that resulted in the "accepting freelance" designation being removed.

When I was doing my internship for my DIII college last year, I did a lot of research on this subject. I spent hours reading the DIII, as well as the DI, bylaws to find out what it would take to sell photos without hearing from a lawyer representing my college. To legally sell the images on a website, according to the bylaws, I needed written permission from the athletic director. I didn't get that, so I couldn't sell.

Please stop giving bad advice on this subject. The last thing you want is to tell someone its OK to sell images and have them end up losing their access or getting sued. When in doubt, get permission is always a good rule to go one.

[masdog]

In terms of use, journalistic photography in a public place does not require any releases. A photo of people using park facilities used to promote the park would likely not require releases either. Candid photography is certainly permiited as well.

Janet's question had nothing to do with journalistic photography, though. It had everything to do with sale of photographs to non-journalism end-users from an athletic event.

[Ronnoco]

Ronnoco,

As for tresspassing, your wrong there too, you may not photograph on private property without permission and the owner can force the destruction of negatives etc. You can however photograph from a public area/right of way though.
Even some public areas require permits or special permission to photograph such as the anywhere on the New York city subway.
JS

Well, the Media Law Handbook produced by lawyers states that you are not prohibited from photographing, filming, recording whatever you see on private property, even while trespassing, unless it violates the secrets act or the privacy of an individual in an extreme manner. Now granted that is Canadian but they have a Seattle office. I don't pretend to understand the US legal system but I have seen nothing in federal law which suggests a drastic difference with Canadian legal concepts in the area of photojournalism.

Permits to photograph in public areas relate to interfering with pedestrian traffic with tripods, light stands etc. I have never been bothered because I have avoided interfering with pedestrians. I have even shot moving film in major hotels without being bothered by either security or police.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Further to American photography and the "need" for permits in some public parks in California etc., the legal intent is to limit and control "high impact commercial photography". By high impact however, one lawyer has indicated film, television, large crews, generators, large light boxes, models, multiple light stands, wiring, sets, etc. and their interference with the normal operation of the park.

The only still photographer requiring such a permit would therefore be one with a six figure
assignment who can afford to hire a crew, a truck, and a considerable amount of auxiliary lighting, equipment, models, and crew etc.

I don't think there are many here who need to concern themselves with such permits or restrictions.

Ronnoco

[masdog]

Further to American photography and the "need" for permits in some public parks in California etc., the legal intent is to limit and control "high impact commercial photography". By high impact however, one lawyer has indicated film, television, large crews, generators, large light boxes, models, multiple light stands, wiring, sets, etc. and their interference with the normal operation of the park.

The only still photographer requiring such a permit would therefore be one with a six figure
assignment who can afford to hire a crew, a truck, and a considerable amount of auxiliary lighting, equipment, models, and crew etc.

I don't think there are many here who need to concern themselves with such permits or restrictions.

Ronnoco

Local laws vary widely. Don't just assume that you can shoot in public where-ever you would like. Its always good to double check to make sure you're not violating local ordinances (your legal handbook won't have local ordinance information for the thousands of municipalities in the US...and it should include a disclaimer saying to check for local rules).

[Ronnoco]

Local laws vary widely. Don't just assume that you can shoot in public where-ever you would like. Its always good to double check to make sure you're not violating local ordinances (your legal handbook won't have local ordinance information for the thousands of municipalities in the US...and it should include a disclaimer saying to check for local rules).

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.

Everyone in the U.S. and Canada has the freedom to take photos in a public place as long as they are not interfering with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or any other normal activity that takes place there. As I said, permits are only required for "high impact commercial photography or film-making", which is understandable.

As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.

Ronnoco

[terryger]

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.

Everyone in the U.S. and Canada has the freedom to take photos in a public place as long as they are not interfering with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or any other normal activity that takes place there. As I said, permits are only required for "high impact commercial photography or film-making", which is understandable.

As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.

Ronnoco

what we have here is a difference of attitudes as opposed to a "right or wrong" situation.

ronnoco tends to think more like i do. "that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission"

john and masdog prefer to "err on the side of caution."

both sides have advantages and disadvantages.

"american wise at least, I AM INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"

if an entity wishes to persue any avenue of recourse open to him, for photos i have taken then he has that right but i refuse to live in fear of what "might happen".

everything i do is based on the fact that i am willing to live with the consequences. this is just my credo and not something i push on others and ask the same of them in return.


masdog said:

"Please stop giving bad advice on this subject. The last thing you want is to tell someone its OK to sell images and have them end up losing their access or getting sued. "


attorney's are the only ones allowed by law in either the u.s. or canada to give legal advice, an then it is still just THEIR INTERPRETATION, not a fact.

if one chooses to accept leagl advice off the internet or from any other random source it is the individual's responsibility. not mine, ronnoco's or anyone elses!

have a good day!

[masdog]

Local ordinances and bylaws are on the books, often out-of-date, and are very limited in terms of any enforcement potential, particularly if they conflict with constitutional or other civil rights in state or federal law.



As to use, photojournalists do not require a release from any individual, neither do candid photographers. Most photography for advertising purposes requires releases from individuals in the photos but it depends on the nature of the shot and its use. A shot of a Québec street with a bunch of tourists used to promote the province for example probably would not require individual releases. A shot of one street artist with a tourist/model would.

Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures.

Information on tourism or shooting in other public areas does not apply here as it deals with a specific instance.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.

[masdog]

Terry,

There is a reason why John and I both err on the side of caution. We're both sports photographers. In our field, if you're found in a spot where you don't have permission to be, its likely that you won't be able to get that permission when you're caught.

Generally, you need permission from someone so we can do our job. Its not a matter of asking forgiveness if we don't.

[terryger]

Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures.

Information on tourism or shooting in other public areas does not apply here as it deals with a specific instance.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.

now who's spittin out legal advice????

as i said, anyone that gets legal advice from the internet has gotten legal advice worth exactly what they paid for it!

i wouldn't want reality get in the way of you "sports photojournalists"

[Ronnoco]

Ronnoco, please stop. You're splitting hairs now. First, just because an ordinance might conflict with civil rights doesn't mean that it isn't still on the books - in order for a court to overturn it, it has to be challenged first. That means lawyers and money for a minor fine..

Well, having watched local ordinances at work in my own municipality, here is what happens. A complaint is made. No response from authorities. It is made again. The local ordinance enforcement officer in 2 or 3 weeks may check out details and issue a warning. If the activity continues and the ordinance officer actually sees it, and there is a further complaint, a second warning may be issued a month or more down the road. It seldom gets past this stage because the ordinance officer is overworked and the person making the complaint gets tired from the constant repetition and phone calls necessary to get any action. Of course, the cost to prosecute a minor ordinance violation is another reason why it seldom happens in my area and I suspect many others.

Two, the question that Janet asked has nothing to do with the situations you're posting. She was:
A) Referring to photographer who are NOT photojournalist
B) Taking pictures at an athletic event
C) Run by a high school
D) Who was interested in the selling these pictures...

The laws relating to photojournalism and taking photos generally refer to all photography. The difference is that other photographers may be subject to personal releases for identifiable people in shots used for advertising purposes.

And yes what I posted has everything to do with Janet's question. If she took photos at a high school athletic event, then she owns the copyright to the photos. If she is selling the photos to the person in the shot, then she is not violating any laws. If she is selling them to some journalistic/sports publication then she is probably covered under photojournalism rights.

In shooting athletics, you need the following -
1) Permission to photograph the event from non-spectator areas. At professional level events, spectators may not be allowed to bring in "professional-looking" cameras.
2) Written Permission from the host, school, organizing body, or league in order to sell those images to end-users other than journalists and certain licensed companies.

I asked you this before and you failed to answer. What STATE or FEDERAL law, requires you to get written permission from the host, school, organizing body, in order to sell the images to end-users?

I don't think there is one, and that is the bottom line.

Ronnoco