Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Camera's are allowed at TC. Can I take the pictures I shoot and put them on a photo disc and sell them? I know I couldn't make posters of the players and sell them. Does the same thing apply here? I would assume so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Camera's are allowed at TC. Can I take the pictures I shoot and put them on a photo disc and sell them? I know I couldn't make posters of the players and sell them. Does the same thing apply here? I would assume so. Haven't seen the policy (and I am a little rusty on these things) but usually the right to take photos at a camp or sporting event is based on the photos being for personal use. Selling the photos would probably require a license or "express, written consent" from the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 Haven't seen the policy (and I am a little rusty on these things) but usually the right to take photos at a camp or sporting event is based on the photos being for personal use. Selling the photos would probably require a license or"express, written consent" from the NFL. That's what I figured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 First off - IANAL. That said, do you need a ticket to go to training camp? If so, the ticket will probably say whether you can sell the photos or not. If there's no ticket, and you can just walk in, it's a little more gray. The parade, I believe, is in public space -- therefore you'd be able to sell those if you want, even pictures of the players since they have no "expectation of privacy." Or at least that's my understanding of it. Of course if you're trying to sell the photos for commercial use (ie: sell it to Coke for their new ad campaign, as an example), then you need waivers and such. But selling the photo itself should be allowed I believe. This is a nice printout to keep you in camera bag (and he IS a lawyer ): http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf He has a book that's supposed to be really good too - I haven't read it though: http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 First off - IANAL. what ever USAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 what ever USAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 First off - IANAL. That said, do you need a ticket to go to training camp? If so, the ticket will probably say whether you can sell the photos or not. If there's no ticket, and you can just walk in, it's a little more gray. The parade, I believe, is in public space -- therefore you'd be able to sell those if you want, even pictures of the players since they have no "expectation of privacy." Or at least that's my understanding of it. Of course if you're trying to sell the photos for commercial use (ie: sell it to Coke for their new ad campaign, as an example), then you need waivers and such. But selling the photo itself should be allowed I believe. This is a nice printout to keep you in camera bag (and he IS a lawyer ): http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf He has a book that's supposed to be really good too - I haven't read it though: http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm Thanks, moo-chose grassy ass! How many have been directed at Deerball's posts do ya think? I'm guessing in the millions. Just sayin. BTW, IANAL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Thanks, moo-chose grassy ass! How many have been directed at Deerball's posts do ya think? I'm guessing in the millions. Just sayin. BTW, IANAL? I think IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Either that or a vanity license plate for a porn star. I looked at the PDF Fez linked, and it's good stuff for the most part. The only thing I noticed was that it seems to deal more with where you can and can't shoot and less with what you do with the pictures afterwards. I tried a quick Google search at work but didn't find much on "selling photos taken at a NFL game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I think IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Either that or a vanity license plate for a porn star. I looked at the PDF Fez linked, and it's good stuff for the most part. The only thing I noticed was that it seems to deal more with where you can and can't shoot and less with what you do with the pictures afterwards. I tried a quick Google search at work but didn't find much on selling photos taken at a NFL game." Yes, that's what IANAL means -- if you put it in Google, the first hit tells you what it means. Basically means, "Don't get pissed at me if the info I gave you is wrong." Agreed that the PDF doesn't really cover selling too much -- I think the book the guy writes does cover that though. Also, this is training camp, not an NFL game. Not sure if that changes anything or not. Check out the forums at Photo.net -- there's lots of questions about legalese stuff there, although nothing replaces talking to your lawyer. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I believe the NFL changed the rules for image sales a couple years ago so now you are taking photos of their "employees" (players) and their "work places" (stadiums). So beware if you want to sell those images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I haven't practiced in New York for many years, but there was a statute that prohibited commercial use of a likeness without written permission. Might want to check that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I think IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. I thought you just forgot to put the heart inbetween the I and ANAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 I thought you just forgot to put the heart inbetween the I and ANAL. I wondered if it had something to do with too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I haven't practiced in New York for many years, but there was a statute that prohibited commercial use of a likeness without written permission. Might want to check that. My understanding of the difference between commercial and non-commercial use was that commercial use is promoting a product/service (ie: using a picture of TO writing with a Sharpie to sell Sharpies), whereas non-commercial use would be taking a picture and simply selilng the image itself. Non-commercial use does not require a release. Of course this is all gathered from reading the web, so who knows how accurate that is. However, if it were illegal to sell pictures of people without written permission, then wouldn't the Paparazzi be out of business...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 My understanding of the difference between commercial and non-commercial use was that commercial use is promoting a product/service (ie: using a picture of TO writing with a Sharpie to sell Sharpies), whereas non-commercial use would be taking a picture and simply selilng the image itself. Non-commercial use does not require a release. Of course this is all gathered from reading the web, so who knows how accurate that is. However, if it were illegal to sell pictures of people without written permission, then wouldn't the Paparazzi be out of business...? Selling a product to someone = commerce. Celebrities may not like paparazzi - and they can and do sue them, and the media they sell to. But they also like publicity. If I take a picture of you, and sell it to someone else without either your permission or payment to you, you can sue me. No need to get into fine points; few have sued over snapshots. But if you sell it for profit, I believe it is actionable. Also consider the NFL threatening suit against organizations like churches for showing their games. I don't think they were charging for attendance (non-commercial usage). But there it is. NFL owns the images and demands payment whether or not a profit was realized by the user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Selling a product to someone = commerce. Celebrities may not like paparazzi - and they can and do sue them, and the media they sell to. But they also like publicity. If I take a picture of you, and sell it to someone else without either your permission or payment to you, you can sue me. The only times I've seen the celebrities sue is when photos are taken of them and they had an expectation of privacy (for example, in their backyard, surrounded by a high fence, and a photographer finds a way to take a picture of them from a tree or helicoptor). I haven't heard of any cases where the celebrity sued for a general shot. From everything I've been reading, if you took a picture of me and sold the image without my permission, I actually can't sue you because it's NOT commercial. Now if you took a picture of me surfing the web, and used it to advertise for your computer repair company, then I could sue you. From this thread: http://www.sandiegodslr.com/?q=node/977 "General consensus seems to be that if the photo is used to sell something else--a mug, a brand of auto, whatever--then it's commercial use. Although the above opinion goes against that idea, it seems to say that a photo on a shirt might be protected, it just wasn't in this case for other reasons." The thread also makes mention of: "Pro sports you also have league trademarks to deal with." That's where you might run into problems with the Bills -- the jerseys themselves might have trademark protection of some sort. It's all very grey. Just like most of our laws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Also consider the NFL threatening suit against organizations like churches for showing their games. I don't think they were charging for attendance (non-commercial usage). But there it is. NFL owns the images and demands payment whether or not a profit was realized by the user. Hey, no fair - you added to your post after I replied You don't have to SELL something for it to be commercial use. You're using the NFL to get people into your church which could be considered commercial. In addition, you aren't even the one who is shooting the game, so it really has nothing to do with the photography question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 The thread also makes mention of:"Pro sports you also have league trademarks to deal with." That's where you might run into problems with the Bills -- the jerseys themselves might have trademark protection of some sort. That is where you are going to have the problem. If you show the Bills or NFL logo, you can't sell it without permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I haven't read the whole thing (it's rather long), but this seems like a good read: http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer This part seems to agree with my statement about Cincy taking my picture and selling the photo: What people can do with those pictures is governed by publicity laws. Here, people have rights for how their "likeness" is used by others to promote ideas, products, other people, or other things. The tricky keyword here is "promote", which can also be replaced by "advocate" or "sponsor" or "agree with" and so on. In other words, can the use of the photo suggest the person (or thing) is tied to someone or something else? You might think that selling is requires a release because someone's "likeness" is being used. But, selling is not enough to trigger a "publicity law" violation. That is, selling doesn't imply that the person in the photo believes in anything, per se, or that they are a particular kind of person, or that they "sponsor" an idea, product, company or religion. The mere act of selling doesn't imply anything about anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Hey, if you read the whole thing, you get a real answer with a real court case and everything! http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Appe...ust/1060870.pdf The estate of James Brown sued Corbis for selling unreleased photos of him to licensees that used the pictures in commercial ways. The uses of the photos required a release, but the question is whether Corbis was permitted to sell such unreleased photos as well. The trial court held that Corbis's action as a stock photo agency does not require a model release, since the site's use of the photos is merely a "vehicle of information", therefore being noncommercial and therefore Brown has no actionable right of publicity either under common law or the Publicity Act. It's legal to sell unreleased photos to others to use, and it's incumbent on them to obtain permission before use (if such use requires permission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts