 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006Photos and Rights
Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right to sell, print or place them on a website for viewing? I was sure some of you would know. Thanks, Dave >Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game and >took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right to >sell, print or place them on a website for viewing? I was sure some of you >would know. Read the back of your ticket, but likely: >Do I have the right to sell, no. >print Yes. You can print anything - but cannot sell that print. >or place them on a website for viewing? I don't think there'd be anything against that, unless you charged access to the website. >> Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball >> game and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I don't think there'd be anything against that, unless you charged > access to the website. Every major league team whose Web site I have seen spells out their policy. Whatever they say, I'd be surprised if you had any trouble from them, unless you really went out of your way to slip into a market they participate in and monitor. My remembery is that they are all like the San Diego Zoo: feel free to photograph and enjoy, and share, but don't try to sell photos.  SignatureFrank ess > >Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game and > >took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes. You can print anything - but cannot sell that print. Does Sports Illustrated? Do newspapers? Do these companies PAY the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines and newspapers? I doubt it. > Does Sports Illustrated? Do newspapers? Do these companies PAY > the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines > and newspapers? I doubt it. Apples and oranges. Major news agencies are not the same as private individuals, and may well negotiate for the image rights with the teams. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com >> Does Sports Illustrated? Do newspapers? Do these companies PAY >> the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines >> and newspapers? I doubt it. > >Apples and oranges. Major news agencies are not the same as private >individuals, and may well negotiate for the image rights with the teams. Right. For a start, they are using the images for bona fide news reporting, which falls unde the 'editorial use' provision of the Berne Copyright Convention. But they will almost certainly have a contractual arrangement with the sanctioning body (MLB, NHL, NASCAR, ...) and/or the venue; most of these events take place on private property, and admission to the event (let alone admission to the press photography areas) will be subject to any limitations the property owner chooses; if you don't like their rules, that's tough. I've done motorsports photography, off and on, for the last decade. I've had a season photo pass issued by a sanctioning body, and/or one issued by a track. But in each case, before I get my photo vest, I have to sign an undertaking that the photographs will only be used for the purposes spelled out when I was granted my access. I can, of course, make any prints I like for hanging on my own walls, and I can make the images available on the website that I shoot for. But I certainly can't make a print of one of my images and sell it to you. Even putting the images up on my own personal private web site is legally questionable. >>>Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game and >>>took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines > and newspapers? I doubt it. A media distribution company always negotiates for their contract. Negotiation is typically a bidding war. Private use is always exempt from the bidding process. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >Does Sports Illustrated? Do newspapers? Do these companies PAY >the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines >and newspapers? I doubt it. Probably. If not, they have an agreement with that agency. The ticket you get when you buy a ticket states what rights you have. The right to take pictures and then sell them is not one of them. If I went to a sports event as Media, I'd have different access than the people in the stands, and likewise, would be there under a different contract than the $10 ticket holders. >>Does Sports Illustrated? Do newspapers? Do these companies PAY >>the baseballs teams to be allowed to cover them and sell the magazines >>and newspapers? I doubt it. > > Probably. I don't know of any sporting event or organization that charges the news media for media passes. It would be counterproductive. > Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game > and > took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right to > sell, print or place them on a website for viewing? I was sure some of > you would know. Do you have your ticket stubs? If so read the fine print. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any information about the game to which it grants admission, including but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game. (b) the Braves are the exclusive owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights in the game and Game information". It goes on to say they have the right to use holder's names and images in any and if my head was taken off by a foul ball or broken bat, then too bad! I know I have seen photos from professional games on other photographer's websites. But if I can't use the photos to make a profit directly, why would using them to promote my ability as a photographer (hence a possible future financial benefit) be any different? Guess I am playing devils advocate. Regardless I am sure I wouldn't want to be in a pissing contest with the Braves attourneys! Dave >> Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game >> and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you have your ticket stubs? If so read the fine print. > Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by > use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Dave Here's my opinion, and I used to work for AP. Based on your ticket stub, the team owns the rights to any photos you take. Now, if they were that insane about it, they wouldn't allow any photography in the stadium, and wouldn't allow cameras at all. So, they know people are going to take pictures and share them with their friends. I would definitely use them in your portfolio, but if you decide to sell them you should contact the team. And, it's possible if they are that good the team may very well buy them for their own use. Either way you own the photos, but the team owns the rights to them and can dictate how they are used. Will they? Probably not, unless they show up in an "Enquirer" article about steroid use. lol THEN you'll hear from their lawyers. >> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by >> use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> > Here's my opinion, and I used to work for AP. Which means that you were an accredited press photographer and likely not subject to the same rules. > Based on your ticket stub, > the team owns the rights to any photos you take. Now, if they were that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > used. Will they? Probably not, unless they show up in an "Enquirer" > article about steroid use. lol THEN you'll hear from their lawyers. Talk to a lawyer _first_. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by >>> use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Which means that you were an accredited press photographer and likely not > subject to the same rules. True, but that was only for publication through AP. What if I made a print for myself? The photos could be published by anyone who subscribed to AP, but we couldn't do "anything" we wanted with them. And, most of our work was on public property with no invitation, so we were subject to the same rules as anybody else with a camera. Again, IMHO, depending on the photo and the use it's very doubtful that a sporting franchise would prosecute anybody, especially if it's to be used in a portfolio. Many of the restrictions franchises are worried about is, say, someone filming the entire game and then showing it and charging money. It's when you profit from their facilities that lawyers begin to fly. Otherwise, I wouldn't put a photo in my portfolio and lose sleep over it. >>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>> "by use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > for myself? No commercial interest there. > The photos could be published by anyone who subscribed to AP, > but we couldn't do "anything" we wanted with them. Precisely, you could only do those things with them which your contract with AP allowed you to do. > And, most of our work > was on public property with no invitation, so we were subject to the same > rules as anybody else with a camera. Is a baseball stadium public property? > Again, IMHO, depending on the photo and the use it's very doubtful that a > sporting franchise would prosecute anybody, especially if it's to be used > in a portfolio. It's very doubtful, but it is not certain. > Many of the restrictions franchises are worried about is, say, someone > filming the entire game and then showing it and charging money. It's when > you profit from their facilities that lawyers begin to fly. Otherwise, I > wouldn't put a photo in my portfolio and lose sleep over it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) J. Clarke (jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > > And, most of our work > > was on public property with no invitation, so we were subject to the same > > rules as anybody else with a camera. > > Is a baseball stadium public property? That's a big "it depends". There are many definitions of "public" in the law that really mean "anybody can legally enter with little to no difficulty". In other words, laws that ban smoking in "public" places still affect restaurants, even though they are technically "private" (like damn near every non-government building). Likewise, if you took off your clothes at a baseball game, you could be charged with "public nudity". The Washington Nationals baseball team has a tough photo policy, though, in that they don't permit cameras with detachable lenses in the stands... only in the press area. Thus, most cameras that are good enough to get a usable picture from far in the stands aren't allowed in. Since this is enforced by the search at the gate, it's pretty effective. SignatureJeff Rife | "As usual, a knife-wielding maniac | has shown us the way." | | -- Bart Simpson >> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by >> use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Here's my opinion, and I used to work for AP. Based on your ticket stub, > the team owns the rights to any photos you take. I highly doubt this. Using your logic, the Braves could tell this guy he must let them use any photos he takes. That's not what the ticket says. The "transmitting" clause refers to in-game reporting, so you can't, say, give play-by-play over your cell phone to a radio station that broadcasts your play-by-play. It would also cover videotaping a game and then rebroadcasting it. Or even somehow transmitting still photos during the game. The Braves could in no way prevent anybody from merely publishing photos of a game, because that would run afoul of the First Amendment, and no court would try to enforce such an interpretation. Nor could the Braves prevent anybody from publishing an essay, commentary, straight news story, a personal score sheet, etc. >>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this "by >>> use of this ticket the holder agrees that (a) holder shall not transmit [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I highly doubt this. Using your logic, the Braves could tell this guy he > must let them use any photos he takes. Actually they could but that is not what they did. > That's not what the ticket says. > The "transmitting" clause refers to in-game reporting, so you can't, say, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of a game, because that would run afoul of the First Amendment, and no > court would try to enforce such an interpretation. I'm afraid that you have the common misunderstanding of the First Amendment. The specific wording is that "Congress shall make no law". This has under the Fourteenth been extended to the legislatures of the several states and is generally taken to be a restriction on the power of government. A baseball team is not the government and its actions are not subject to the same limitations. Specifically it can make you accept a contract waiving your right to publish images of the game as a condition of being admitted into the stadium. The real issue is not whether they are legally entitled to enforce such a restriction but what specifically the wording of the contract means and whether a contract written on the back of a ticket is legally binding. > Nor could the Braves prevent anybody from publishing an essay, commentary, > straight news story, a personal score sheet, etc. In law these are different from photographs. You can publish all the essays, commentaries, straight news stories, etc that you want to about your girl friend and as long as they are not both damaging and demonstrably false there's little she can do about it. Publish a single photo of her without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it the courts will slap you silly. If you are going to publish images of a person and you (a) are not a newspaper or other established news service with lawyers on staff and established legal rights as an accredited member of the press and (b) have not obtained written permission to publish the images then you should talk to a lawyer first and make damned sure that you aren't jumping into the threshing machine. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >The real issue is not whether they are legally entitled to enforce such a >restriction but what specifically the wording of the contract means and >whether a contract written on the back of a ticket is legally binding. Interesting. I suspect the actual sequence of what happened is: (a) punter goes to ticket window, says "one adult please"; (b) guy in booth says "$20 please; (c) punter tenders $20 bill - CONTRACT MADE - (d) man in booth takes $20, gives ticket; (e) ticket purports to contain highly restrictive terms and conditions AFTER the contract is made. The English courts have on several occasions resisted application of such restrictive, retrospective terms, unless it can be shown by the party seeking to apply them that the other party, through previous dealings or other prior notice, had notice or constructive notice of them. Of course, although much contract law in the USA derived originally from English contract law, centuries of legislation and judicial interpretation may have made it different where you are. And, to echo what someone else said, you wouldn't really want to get into a pissing match with lawyers from major league team anyway. >> Nor could the Braves prevent anybody from publishing an essay, commentary, >> straight news story, a personal score sheet, etc. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it the >courts will slap you silly. Well, t he law must definitely be different where you are, in that respect at least. Here, no-one owns their own image. You can only get into trouble for publishing pictures on another person without their permission if (a) you use it in such a way as to defame them (e.g. by implying they use drugs or do something else socially undesirable) or (b) use images of them taken when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This latter - and deeply regrettable - piece of nonsense seems to have been invented relatively recently, and entirely by judges, and it is time it was struck down. David SignatureDavid Littlewood This is just not very straight forward. I work for an outdoors magazine. If we publish or print a photo of a minor child, they demand that we have a release from the parents because of laws protecting children (this may or may not just be our lawyers). Yet if a child is holding that Braves ticket the Braves can not only use the minor's image, but the name too, any way they want. At least that is what they are saying. Children are protected under separate laws. I do think my photos are good and want to put them up for display. I doubt people will be knocking down my door wanting to buy them though. Not from any legal standpoint whatsoever, I just "feel" that if a person chooses to become a celebrity of any sort and profit from that status financially, then when they are in public their images should be public domain. I am sure the that Inquirer virtually never has a release for a photo printed in their publication. You hear celebrities complain about the Inquirer, but never about the photo, it is always about the "story" or headline. Thanks for all the insightful discussion on this! Dave >>The real issue is not whether they are legally entitled to enforce such a >>restriction but what specifically the wording of the contract means and [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > David > This is just not very straight forward. I work for an outdoors magazine. > If we publish or print a photo of a minor child, they demand that we have [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >> >> David You are correct. Once you become a public figure you lose a lot of rights, including the right to privacy when you are in public or a public place. You even lose some rights when it comes to slander. Watch Leno's monologue any night of the week. If Bush could sue him Leno would not only be broke, he'd be in jail. I just wouldn't lose sleep over this. Unless there's a reason they want to make an example of you forget about it. Besides, while you may have accepted the ticket, and whatever is printed on the backside, you never signed anything to agree to it. >> This is just not very straight forward. I work for an outdoors magazine. >> If we publish or print a photo of a minor child, they demand that we have [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > accepted the ticket, and whatever is printed on the backside, you never > signed anything to agree to it. This is how many small businessmen come to grief. They assume that the law is what they want it to be instead of finding out what it is. The same happens to large corporations when they ignore the advice of counsel, but at least they know that they're running a risk. It's kind of like unprotected sex--lots and lots of times nothing happens at all, but the one time it does the results can be _real_ bad. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Sheldon (sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > You are correct. Once you become a public figure you lose a lot of rights, > including the right to privacy when you are in public or a public place. > You even lose some rights when it comes to slander. Watch Leno's monologue > any night of the week. If Bush could sue him Leno would not only be broke, > he'd be in jail. That actually has nothing to do with Bush being a public figure. It has to do with laws that protect free speech about government actions. Then, for other public figures, you still have to prove that the statements were damaging in some way. It's assumed by courts that nobody takes a comedian's statements seriously, so they can't be damaging. SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/BrokenInternet01.gif >>The real issue is not whether they are legally entitled to enforce such a >>restriction but what specifically the wording of the contract means and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > originally from English contract law, centuries of legislation and > judicial interpretation may have made it different where you are. There is also the little issue that the law is different in each of the 50 states. > And, to echo what someone else said, you wouldn't really want to get > into a pissing match with lawyers from major league team anyway. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to have been invented relatively recently, and entirely by judges, and > it is time it was struck down. Here there are exceptions for "public figures" but Joe Schmoe has a reasonable expectation that his likeness won't be used, at least not commercially, without his consent. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Publish a single photo of her > without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it the > courts will slap you silly. You sure about this? If this is true, then every time the "Celebrity Dirt News" publishes a photo of some star with his beer gut hanging out as he shops at the 7-11, they've gotten a release, which strikes me as unlikely. Or every time the media publish an photo of some defendant being led out of a courthouse in handcuffs, they've gotten his approval to publish that picture? Again, seems unlikely to me... I think we need a real lawyer's advice here. SignatureOh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -- William Cowper >> Publish a single photo of her >> without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to > me... I think we need a real lawyer's advice here. The way it seems to be going these days is: you'll never know, even if you've had the benefit of Intellectual Property specialist counsel beforehand, until 1) You try it 2) Your case is resolved Many courts are making orders "for this set of facts only", so precedent value is limited. Once again: How much do you value your opportunity or "right" to make and share images? The OP's circumstance appears to be of the nature: buy a ticket, declare immunity from 'contract' terms, decide whether or not benefits of contemplated violation of the terms outweigh the likely negative consequences, violate the terms or not. Regardless of the legitimacy of the 'contract', if the organization somehow feels its 'ownership' of the product of its endeavor must be defended, resistance by the usurper will in one way or another be costly to the latter. How large is the risk that such a thing will happen? How willing is the 'little guy' to assume the risk and potential liability? Only he can answer. If someone takes some neat-o photos at a ball game and posts them on Flickr.com or other display site, in a size that can be enjoyed onscreen and printed to a 4x6 without too much uggle, no one of any consequence is going to object. If the neat-os are on offer as 8x10s or larger prints, or in file sizes that could yield such, still not likely that anything untoward will happen. Maybe. Could happen, though. First response in that kind of case is likely to be a note from the organization's attorneys, appreciating the photog's skill, interest, and enthusiasm, but noting the 'violations', and suggesting the on-offer be withdrawn within a certain time period. That amounts to a statement of fact: 'From here on in it gets progressively more costly'. Pays you money and makes you choice. As far as the 'star' and the 'dirt news' situation goes, the 'dirt news' builds a whole First Aid Emergency department, designed to deal with such inevitabilities, into its organizational chart. And the 'star' budgest for the same kind of thing. Strangely, some of the 'impartial' decision-makers have been ruling on the side of the 'stars', chipping away at the Rights of the People on yet another front. Comes the Revolution, we'll all shoot celebrities. SignatureFrank ess >> Publish a single photo of her >> without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gotten his approval to publish that picture? Again, seems unlikely to > me... I think we need a real lawyer's advice here. There is a "public figure" exception. Celebrities are by definition "public figures". So is anyone who is on trial. If your girlfriend is Julia Roberts or she's in jail then by all means have at it. But first weigh carefully the wisdom of pissing off someone who can afford enough lawyers to make Hell seem like a relief or who has spent several years surviving in a prison. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > [..] A baseball team is not the government and its actions are not subject > to the same limitations. Specifically it can make you accept a contract [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > restriction but what specifically the wording of the contract means and > whether a contract written on the back of a ticket is legally binding. The stadium is private property, and someone attending a game is a guest. The rules are probably not only posted on the ticket; they're probably anywhere you care to look. It's less a contract and more a promise to litigate if you try to make money on pictures taken without special contract. And anyway... A real professional who wants to have a future in photography will work out the deal beforehand. > If you are going to publish images of a person and you (a) are not a > newspaper or other established news service with lawyers on staff and > established legal rights as an accredited member of the press and (b) have > not obtained written permission to publish the images then you should talk > to a lawyer first and make damned sure that you aren't jumping into the > threshing machine. If the person is in a public place you can pretty much do what you wish with the photo as long as you do not profit from the image of the person. That would make the person a "model," entitled to compensation. What you are forgetting is that your First Amendment rights fly out the window when you are on private property. And even then those contracts are pretty loose. Trust me. If you get beaned by a foul ball you can probably sue and collect. I live at a ski resort and people sue over broken bones all the time and win, regardless of what it says on the ticket. >>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>> "by [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Actually they could but that is not what they did. No, they couldn't. There is nothing on the ticket as described that says the Braves own the rights to all photos of a game. Or to any photos of a game. >> That's not what the ticket says. >> The "transmitting" clause refers to in-game reporting, so you can't, say, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > your right to publish images of the game as a condition of being admitted > into the stadium. And no such clause is in the "contract" on the ticket. The First Amendment most certainly does apply in a relationship between two private parties. For example, it applies when you sell or publish photos of someone who doesn't want you to sell or publish. The courts weigh the First Amendment's application to the situation, just as they apply the First Amendment to harassment cases. In this case the First Amendment would be weighed against contract law and whether the ticket constitutes a contract and whether any clauses in the contract are enforceable. Anyone can discuss a baseball game, no matter what the ticket says. To even suggest otherwise is ludicrous. >> Nor could the Braves prevent anybody from publishing an essay, >> commentary, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > without obtaining a release and if she wants to get nasty about it the > courts will slap you silly. No they won't. No release is necessary if it's used for editorial purposes. > If you are going to publish images of a person and you (a) are not a > newspaper or other established news service with lawyers on staff and > established legal rights as an accredited member of the press and (b) have > not obtained written permission to publish the images then you should talk > to a lawyer first and make damned sure that you aren't jumping into the > threshing machine. Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such thing as an "accredited newspaper." We don't license or register journalists in this country. We can't. >>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>>> "by [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > thing as an "accredited newspaper." We don't license or register > journalists in this country. We can't. You, sir, are going to have a close encounter of the worst kind with the legal system one of these days. Believe whatever you want to but the law is not what you believe it to be. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Believe whatever you want to but the law is not what you believe it to be. I was at the top of my mass media law class, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. The First Amendment applies equally to the New York Times and John Doe. >>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what I'm talking about. The First Amendment applies equally to the New > York Times and John Doe. You do not have to be at the top of your class to understand #1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Most folks believe it means you can say anything anywhere to anyone short of a few things like inciting fear of fire or violence or slander. Now as to the way it has been extended by the case law and courts in the different districts is another story. Bottom line is that it protects "political" speech like burning your flag (not mine). Try exercising your freedom of speech on non-political topics, say at work, and see what happens. Today, with great enthusiasm woops enlightened the readership thusly: >>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>> individual out taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > flag (not mine). Try exercising your freedom of speech on > non-political topics, say at work, and see what happens. wrt newspapers, the main thing that the First Amendment says is that Congress may not pass any laws restricting the right of papers to print the news. However, newspapers, like ordinary citizens, must still obey all local, state, and federal laws, including not shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre and not revealing confidential or classified information. The First Amendment provides no protection against the latter any more than it "protects" a reporter's "confidential" sources if a court, Congress, or a grand jury demands to know the source of a story. SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein > Today, with great enthusiasm woops enlightened the readership > thusly: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > it "protects" a reporter's "confidential" sources if a court, > Congress, or a grand jury demands to know the source of a story. Where does it say anything about newspapers ? does it say anything about tv or internet since newspapers will be defunct in a few more years ? >> Today, with great enthusiasm woops enlightened the readership >> thusly: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Where does it say anything about newspapers ? What do you think "the press" presses? Linens? > does it say anything about > tv or internet since newspapers will be defunct in a few more years ? The courts have extended the definition of "the press" to include other media than printed newspapers. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Most folks believe it means you can say anything anywhere to anyone short of >a few things like inciting fear of fire or violence or slander. Most people also believe it means you are free to say anything, without fear of having to answer for your actions. It doesn't, of course - it just means that the act of publication can't be suppressed beforehand (except in well-defined circumstances, none of which are relevant to personal issues). >>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > freedom of speech on non-political topics, say at work, and see what > happens. You have completely missed the point. >>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>>>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > You have completely missed the point. No, you have. The First Amendment is a restriction on the power of government, not a restriction on the power of baseball teams. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > No, you have. The First Amendment is a restriction on the power of > government, not a restriction on the power of baseball teams. And baseball teams have no power to track down all fans who took photos of a game and compel those fans to turn over their photos. >>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > And baseball teams have no power to track down all fans who took photos of > a game and compel those fans to turn over their photos. You and your straw man have fun. Nobody proposed anything that even distantly resembles such an action. The issue, from the outset, was commercial use. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > distantly resembles such an action. The issue, from the outset, was > commercial use. Merely selling a photo does not make it commercial use. I can photograph you walking down Main Street and sell a million copies without a model release and I wouldn't owe you a dime. >>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > you walking down Main Street and sell a million copies without a model > release and I wouldn't owe you a dime. Look, believe what you want to, but don't come crying to me when the world tears you a new a.shole. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Look, believe what you want to, but don't come crying to me when the world > tears you a new a.shole. It's not belief, it's fact. See ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing Inc., 2003 FED App. 0207P (6th Cir.), in which the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an artist who sold paintings commemorating Tiger Woods's winning the 1997 Masters golf tournament. Woods and his agents claimed the artist had no right to sell paintings of Woods. The 6th Circuit sided with the artist and cited a bunch of precedents in upholding the artist's First Amendment rights. >>>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > sell paintings of Woods. The 6th Circuit sided with the artist and cited a > bunch of precedents in upholding the artist's First Amendment rights. Paintings are not photographs. If you don't understand that then you shouldn't be pontificating about the law. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > Paintings are not photographs. If you don't understand that then you > shouldn't be pontificating about the law. Hey, I think we can officially conclude that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Hey, I think we can officially conclude that you haven't a clue what > you're talking about. And your sweet and helpful attitude have you traveling in the fast lane at 64mph. You can have the last word, since it seems so valuable to you. SignatureFrank ess >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > You can have the last word, since it seems so valuable to you. Whatever that means. The guy was wrong and couldn't come up with a citation, and I did to prove my point. That's all there is to it. >>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what I'm talking about. The First Amendment applies equally to the New > York Times and John Doe. So let's see, the NYT goes into the game on a press pass and you go on a ticket and so you are both bound by the same contract? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So let's see, the NYT goes into the game on a press pass and you go on a > ticket and so you are both bound by the same contract? So now you'd like to try to change the topic? Nice try. No dice. I don't play that game. >>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual out >>>>> taking photos as a hobby, writing a blog, etc. Also, there is no such [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > So now you'd like to try to change the topic? Nice try. No dice. I don't > play that game. What game? You're making assertions that certain things are so for the press, totally ignoring the fact that the OP did not enter the stadium on press credentials, he entered after buying a ticket. That makes his situation different from a reporter for the New York Times unless the Times reporters also enter the stadium on a ticket with the same wording. There is no change of topic, but if you are so ignorant of the law that you are unaware that two people standing side by side in the same place can be under very different contracts and have very different rights as to what they can do in that place then you should not be pontificating about the law. You might want to call your "mass media law" professor and ask him how protected you are when you buy a ticket to a baseball game, which ticket contractually restricts your actions. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > protected you are when you buy a ticket to a baseball game, which ticket > contractually restricts your actions. So if I sneak in without buying a ticket I can sell my photos then, right? I didn't accept the contract by buying a ticket! :D SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>> individual out [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > then, > right? I didn't accept the contract by buying a ticket! Seems as if the game has become "Yes, but". SignatureFrank ess >>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > So if I sneak in without buying a ticket I can sell my photos then, > right? I didn't accept the contract by buying a ticket! Well, there's still the trademark issue. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Well, there's still the trademark issue. There is no trademark issue. No law prevents any of us from photographing a baseball player wearing a uniform. >>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an individual >>>>>>>>> out [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > There is no trademark issue. No law prevents any of us from photographing > a baseball player wearing a uniform. No, the law prevents you making a profit off of a registered trademark without first licensing such use from the trademark holder. Since you seem to have missed the entire rest of the thread the issue is not whether some guy can take a photo and look at it at home, it's whether he can sell it. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>>>> Newspapers enjoy no more First Amendment rights than an >>>>>>>>>> individual [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > to have missed the entire rest of the thread the issue is not whether some > guy can take a photo and look at it at home, it's whether he can sell it. Show me a case in which a court said a photographer couldn't sell photos that containing incidental images of trademarks or service marks without getting permission from the owners. >>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>>> "by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>> other >>>>> proprietary rights in the game and Game information" >No, they couldn't. There is nothing on the ticket as described that says the >Braves own the rights to all photos of a game. Or to any photos of a game. What part of " ... including any picture ..." or " ... exclusive owner of all copyrights and other proprietary rights ..." don't you understand? >>>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>>>> "by [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > all > copyrights and other proprietary rights ..." don't you understand? Unless major league baseball has a script and the games are fixed, there is no copyright on the game itself. The copyright clause refers to broadcast rights. I can guarantee you that Stephen King and his writing partner for "Faithful" didn't even seek permission to publish, because there was never an issue with discussing what happened in a game. No court would ever entertain the notion that a spectator of a sporting event can't write about the event without permission, or that the teams involved could exert any editorial control over such writing. >>>>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like this >>>>>>> "by [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >no copyright on the game itself. The copyright clause refers to broadcast >rights. You're wrong again. The copyright clause quite explicitly applies to all copyrights and other proprietary rights. Even the clause before (which you mistakenly seem to think only applies to broadcast rights) explicitly lists "picture" as being distinct from "video". >I can guarantee you that Stephen King and his writing partner for "Faithful" >didn't even seek permission to publish, because there was never an issue >with discussing what happened in a game. No court would ever entertain the >notion that a spectator of a sporting event can't write about the event >without permission, or that the teams involved could exert any editorial >control over such writing. While Stephen King may not need to seek permission to publish, he does need to seek permission to use any images of team members, logos, etc. >>>>>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like >>>>>>>> this "by [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > While Stephen King may not need to seek permission to publish, he does > need to seek permission to use any images of team members, logos, etc. Which, since Stephen King's work product is generally presented in the form of typescript, would not be an issue. Now if he was a photographer instead of an author . . . Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>> Okay, it was a Braves game and the text on the ticket goes like >>>>>>>> this [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > lists > "picture" as being distinct from "video". No, I'm right again. I don't know what planet you're on, or what dimension. But you can't copyright a baseball game. Read the law. >>I can guarantee you that Stephen King and his writing partner for >>"Faithful" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > While Stephen King may not need to seek permission to publish, he does > need to seek permission to use any images of team members, logos, etc. Taking a photo of a player in uniform violates no copyrights. You're very foolish to think so. Otherwise, it would be illegal to take photos of anybody or anything because (1) clothes have been designed and copyrighted, (2) an architect designed a building, (3) whatever other objects are in a photo were designed by someone. >> While Stephen King may not need to seek permission to publish, he does >> need to seek permission to use any images of team members, logos, etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(2) an architect designed a building, (3) whatever other objects are in a >photo were designed by someone. Apparently you don't keep up with the law - there are cases where architects have sought (and, sometimes, been granted) copyright protection on their buildings, including photographic images. As for the team uniforms - use of an image of a team member in any context other than straightforward news reporting, can be protected, especially if there is any commercial consideration. Plus, despite your attempts to change the subject, we're not just talking about copyright protection. The contract (implicit in the case of a member of the public; explicit in the case of a credentialled photographer) places additional limitations on use. Nor are we talking about the act of taking a photograph (legal) - the question was whether a fan has the right to sell those images. >Apparently you don't keep up with the law - there are cases where >architects have sought (and, sometimes, been granted) copyright >protection on their buildings, including photographic images. You need to specify jurisdiction when making such statements. In the UK, whereas any architectural design is protected by copyright (as for any other creative work) photographs of any building [wherever situated], or statues or any other works of art if on public display, are quite specifically stated in legislation as not being in breach of copyright (S 62, The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988). I mention this as the NG *is* occasionally read by a few people outside the USA, and I would not want those in the UK to be deterred from photographing buildings here. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> While Stephen King may not need to seek permission to publish, he does >>> need to seek permission to use any images of team members, logos, etc. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > architects have sought (and, sometimes, been granted) copyright > protection on their buildings, including photographic images. Please provide citations. A photograph of a building would not violate copyright law because there are many aspects to a photograph, such as composition, lighting, angles. Plus, a simple photo of a building facade is fair game. It's strictly a free speech issue. > As for the team uniforms - use of an image of a team member in > any context other than straightforward news reporting, can be > protected, especially if there is any commercial consideration. News photos don't enjoy any more protection than photos taken by a hobbyist. > Plus, despite your attempts to change the subject, we're not > just talking about copyright protection. The contract (implicit > in the case of a member of the public; explicit in the case of a > credentialled photographer) places additional limitations on use. The argument was made that the baseball team owns the rights to any photos taken by fans. That's not true. > I know I have seen photos from professional games on other photographer's > websites. But if I can't use the photos to make a profit directly, why > would using them to promote my ability as a photographer (hence a possible > future financial benefit) be any different? Guess I am playing devils > advocate. Regardless I am sure I wouldn't want to be in a pissing contest > with the Braves attourneys! That depends on who's promoting themselves. If you're a pro sports photographer, and you've gotten dispensation from a team to make pictures, then you'd promote those pictures in order to promote yourself. This shows that not only can you take good pictures, but that you can navigate the legal issues of sports photography. > Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game > and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dave Necessary disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, you are not my client, and this is not legal advice. For legal advice on which you can rely, consult a competent attorney. Normally, you can do anything you want with photographs taken in public and/or where there is no expectation of privacy, notwithstanding right-of-publicity laws that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and other concerns such as false light defamation. Baseball games (and other similar events) are a different story, however. Admission to these events are by license -- usually, the license is printed on the back of the ticket, but not always. Major League Baseball usually has, as a term of the admission license, a restriction on the use of photographs taken inside. Violating that restriction results in a contractual violation, and provides a contractual remedy for MLB, if it chooses to enforce. Normally, contractual violations are compensated in terms of expectancy interest, and cannot result in the imposition of either punitive damages or injunctive relief. I would not be surprised, however, if MLB could enjoin commercial use of unauthorized photographs and, at minimum, an appropriate measure of damages would be whatever money a photographer was paid. Now, that just covers the contractual aspects. Also of concern is trademark infringement, trademark dilution and, potentially, copyright infringement with respect to very specific elements that might be found at a ballpark and included in a photograph. This is a far more complicated analysis than the contractual one, and also carries the potential for significantly greater damages. Without seeing specific photographs and knowing specific contemplated commercial uses, it is impossible to say whether a photographer has or has not run afoul of copyright or trademark law. These are not simple questions and absolutely cannot be answered by a layperson. Virtually all of the responses to your post are incorrect or, at minimum, very incomplete. If you're planning on selling your photographs, consult an attorney first. Ptravel, Esq. >> Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game >> and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this is not legal advice. For legal advice on which you can rely, consult > a competent attorney. If I have to call an attorney everytime I take a photo I'm gonna find another hobby. >>> Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game >>> and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If I have to call an attorney everytime I take a photo I'm gonna find > another hobby. Obviously, you do not. If, however, you're going to take photos at private venues and exploit them through public display or commercial sale, then you should make sure what you're doing won't result in liability. The erroneous information provided in this thread is a good demonstration of why legal advice, in such circumstances, is a good idea. >>> Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game >>> and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If I have to call an attorney everytime I take a photo I'm gonna find > another hobby. You don't need to call an attorney every time you take one, but you should every time you use one for a commercial purpose unless you are _sure_ that the use is legal. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >another hobby. > ...exactly....if you are talking about your hobby...then enjoy. (as you are enjoying this conversation :-) If you intend to publicly profit from the staging and brand-value of another organization that you have offered money to as an indication of acceptance of their contract (ticket) then you have chosen to be there and chosen to accept the contract. The reasonable assumption is that the image has cash value because of what is in it (someone elses visual property), not because you are some well known photog. Go sell pictures of kids playing stick-ball. > > Recently I paid high dollar for good seats a Major League Baseball game > and took photos. I eneded up with some great shots! Do I have the right > to sell, print or place them on a website for viewing? I was sure some of > you would know. Along the same lines..... One thing I noticed when looking for tickets on eBay is all the sellers who have pictures of their seat locations used picture taken before the game, not during the game. I'm sure it's not a coincidence! This old Bob (kilbyfan@spamnotmeAOL.com) wrote in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems: > Along the same lines..... One thing I noticed when looking for tickets on > eBay is all the sellers who have pictures of their seat locations used > picture taken before the game, not during the game. I'm sure it's not a > coincidence! Of course it isn't a coincidence, because most of these pictures were taken by the venue in question for the precise purpose of showing off the view from a particular seat. So, of course they took the pictures when there wasn't any event in progress. SignatureJeff Rife | | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/SportOfKings.gif |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.