Sports Organizations

Enygma

I just received a statement from a sports organization that I am part of with regard to commercial photographers and juniors events. Basically they're saying you need to have permission from the organization and the parents when taking shots of juniors. Fair enough.

At the end of the statement this is tacked on:

On last thing on photos of XXXX events, it is expected that whoever is taking photos at an XXXX event and has prior XXXX permission to do so, will give the XXXX a coy of the photos for any subsequent press XXXX releases at no cost.

What do ye make of that?

Clseeper

Sounds very unfair, even a bit dodgy.

Where are these events held? Is it a public area?

Also what defines a 'commercial' photographer, someone who does if for a living or just an amateur who sells a few prints?

Fionn

i've heard a story of a photographer who was asked to take a shot of a school team, under 12's or something and the school had to get parents consent first and one child's parents didn't give it so that child was cloned out of the photo prior to publication.

I don't know whats the story about taking candids of street scenes etc. and some kids happen to get in the shots. Is it all just too much being PC or what?
If i'm at an event usually the kids parents or guardians or whatever are there so i'd always sorta nod to them (is it ok to take a shot?) usually they nod agreement anyway.
Lots of organisations have Health & Safety policies which include crises management which would have a section in them detailing terms of what limits on publicity are allowed including photographs interviews etc. so i'm not surprised about that

with regard to XXXX organisation I'd say they might have to pay a professional photographer to take shots for them if they're going to adopt that attitude. Why should they take advantage of the services of a photographer for free just because they have given permission.

Morlar

I have done sports events where you need to sign in and have your credentials checked - your then given a sticker to wear or put on your jacket which is fair enough and not that unusual imo.

The added on bit at the end where the organisers have decided to give themselves all usage rights to your images for free is completely taking the piss though. If they want pictures they should ask the photographer or hire one.

Chochese

I would refuse to cover this or any event being held by that company. This is totally taking advantage of photographers who don't know much about usage rights and are willing to sign away any images to them. Little disclaimers are starting to make thier way into shooting agreements in this country over the past while now. This is a big peoblem in the states for photogs who cover events like this regularly. It may be hard to turn down an offer to shoot a great event, but IMO it sometimes must be done to protect the work and image rights of a photographer

elven

Scheisters, the lot of them.

We live in a society where most people are out to get whatever they can for as little as possible in return, and the only thing it takes is the sheer cheek of asking for it.

Morlar

Any chance of telling us the name of the sports organisation your talking about here ?

Chochese

But who can really blame them as long as there's people willing to sell thier skills and themselves short by agreeing to such terms.

Who's the bigger fool, them for asking or the photographer for doing ?

It's unfortunate that people agree to terms like this.

Enygma

I'd rather not just now, this was just a statement issued today. They are in the process of drawing up a document but I'll be lodging a complaint with that particular part of the arrangement. In any case if you do a little digging about me you should be able to figure it out.

By commercial they mean anyone who plans to make money out of them, although they did cite "putting the pictures on a website" as an example??

I'll make the complaint anyway and let ye know how this turns out. Thanks for the comments folks!

Morlar

Chochese wrote:

But who can really blame them as long as there's people willing to sell thier skills and themselves short by agreeing to such terms.

Who's the bigger fool, them for asking or the photographer for doing ?

It's unfortunate that people agree to terms like this.

I have no issue with a company or organisation using my pictures - if its a matter of them either sitting on a usb drive indefinitely or of being put to good use then I am all for them getting out there - provided they ask for permission first (dont try and presume that its pre-given). Also that there is a photographers credit given.

Roen

From a legal standpoint, you can take a picture of who you like and when you like if you are on your own or public property. As long as you don't cause an obstruction you can shoot away.
Anyone that was in DIT will probably remember a story by one of the lecturers about a lad who was sure a dentist was up to no good with patients when they were conked out with gas. He erected some sort of system in his garden whereby he could photograph the dentist. Long story short..court case...dentist was told if he didn't like it he should get a pair of curtains.
How true that is I have no idea but our lecturer at the time told it regularly enough.
Back on topic, @ OP screw them and their attitude toward photographers. Do they think they are the only ones who have a right to make a living?

Enygma

Well, got a response saying it's "not about giving away photographs for free" but more about "promoting the photographer by having their
shots used by the NGB for the sport."

Oh well.

Morlar

Enygma wrote:

Well, got a response saying it's "not about giving away photographs for free" but more about "promoting the photographer by having their
shots used by the NGB for the sport."

Oh well.

Without having to pay them for it.

*Wallet inspector - coming through !/*

digitalbeginner

I have to agree with Roen. I always worked on the basis that you had no right to your image taken in a public place.

I do note however that iStockPhoto require a model release form for any recognisable indvidual in a photo submitted to them for sale, whether taken in a public place or not.

PS http://www.istockphoto.com is a good place to sell your images if they meet certain quality criteria. You don't need to be a pro to be accepted.