College sports pictures?

DodgeV83

I am on the verge of buying a DSLR to take pictures of my old college team. Do I need a license or anything to be able to make profits on the pics?

Andy

DodgeV83 wrote:

I am on the verge of buying a DSLR to take pictures of my old college team. Do I need a license or anything to be able to make profits on the pics?

you need permission from the ncaa, typically. go to the ncaa website, and poke around, you'll find their legal stuff.

flyingpylon

Depends on the school and how aggresively they want to enforce the protection of their name/mascot/brand. You might need to have a licensing agreement arranged with them.

That said, I'm no lawyer, and there's always the "do it and see what happens" approach...

Khaos

flyingpylon wrote:

That said, I'm no lawyer, and there's always the "do it and see what happens" approach...

I wouldn't recommend that.
Not only is college sports and the resulting mascots and school colors able to bring in money to the school, the school itself will be very reputation conscious.

I would see what their licensing stance is first.

DodgeV83

Khaos wrote:

I wouldn't recommend that.
Not only is college sports and the resulting mascots and school colors able to bring in money to the school, the school itself will be very reputation conscious.

I would see what their licensing stance is first.

I just graduated from the school, ran Track and Field there for the last 4 years and took a huge number of pictures and videos while I was there. Me and the coach have been talking about doing something like this for a while, but we haven't done anything OFFICIAL yet. I'm just wondering if I'd get in any trouble if I went to a meet next week and tried to profit from the pics I took.

Steve Cavigliano

DodgeV83 wrote:

I just graduated from the school, ran Track and Field there for the last 4 years and took a huge number of pictures and videos while I was there. Me and the coach have been talking about doing something like this for a while, but we haven't done anything OFFICIAL yet. I'm just wondering if I'd get in any trouble if I went to a meet next week and tried to profit from the pics I took.

As you mention, you can take hundreds of pics no problem. The problem comes when you bring "profit" into the equation. Just as you can bring cameras into pro sporting events and as long as the pics are for personal use, you'll seldom have an issue. If, on the other hand, you attempt to sell those pics (ie:make a profit on them) they will sic their lawyers on you so fast you'll think you were public enemy #1....lol


Steve

coach-al

profit - dirty word?
In the last few years I've done free websites and took thousands of sports pictures for my kids' school. I did websites for a business and was good at it. Lots of people asked for freebies which I mostly said I couldn't handle. Then I started getting good at the photography. People asked for prints. I couldn't handle the prints. Decided I loved to do sports photography but with all the time I was spending I needed to get paid or I couldn't afford to do it.

I bought pro equipment, practiced, studied, practiced, studied. Before I started selling my photos I made sure the right people at the school knew. They were very grateful for all the free work I'd done and have given me no problem about selling photos. They actually help me.

But, I wouldn't try it unless you lay the groundwork or you may irritate the wrong people. My groundwork took over 2 years and lots of donated time...and I still don't know if I can afford to do it but there is some revenue coming in now.

Good luck.

cornerketch

Best to Talk to the Sports Information Director (SID)

DodgeV83 wrote:

I am on the verge of buying a DSLR to take pictures of my old college team. Do I need a license or anything to be able to make profits on the pics?

I have taken pictures of St John's soccer team. Before showing up, Always contact the SID of the sport. He get's passes etc. let's the other team's SID know that you are coming on the Field.

I always give a CD of all the pictures I take. they use it for their internal use..

I post the pictures on my web site (sode.smugmug.com/sports) for the friends and families and alumini to puchase pictures..

As you can imagine, I don't make much money off the pictures, But I have pictures (with my copyright) on the cover of a number of programs etc.. I also get to get on the field for any game, including NCAA finals..

pat.kane

cornerketch wrote:

...As you can imagine, I don't make much money off the pictures...

Especially since you're allowing them to download the original files that they can take anywhere to print. Not sure if that was intentional. If not, you might want to fix it.

DodgeV83

Do you guys think my perception (motives?) would be alot different if I took off the PROOF watermark on the pictures I take, but still kept the right-click protection and disable large images on?

The big PROOF says to me "This person's main goal is to make money", where when its off, the motive to make money is more discrete. My perception could shift from "Trying to make money" to someone just taking pics for fun/hobby, but not giving away PRINTS for free. What do you guys think?

Khaos

DodgeV83 wrote:

Do you guys think my perception (motives?) would be alot different if I took off the PROOF watermark on the pictures I take, but still kept the right-click protection and disable large images on?

The big PROOF says to me "This person's main goal is to make money", where when its off, the motive to make money is more discrete. My perception could shift from "Trying to make money" to someone just taking pics for fun/hobby, but not giving away PRINTS for free. What do you guys think?

I don't think that the perception is one of making money more as that the viewer wishes the proof symbol wasn't there so they could view the photo better. Many find the Proof mark annoying and will skip viewing and purchasing because of it.

Also, realize that right click protecting is good, but every image on a web page is loaded into a cache of files on your hard drive and can be accessed from there.

patrickbeil

to watermark or not...
Before I started using smugmug, I watermarked my photos. As Khaos said, people complained that they could not see the photos. Since smugmug, I no longer watermark, but I have disabled right click, etc. The kids like it much better. My son tells me that his friends and teammates say I take "Awesome" pictures! At least they like them. I am thinking (justifying in my mind?!) that it does build some goodwill. The parents have bought a few pictures, but nothing to get excited about. Perhaps at the end of the season the parents will come through and buy some more.

I am low key about making money at it, but I don't apologize for trying to make some money. After all, I have invested a significant amount in hardware. But I am still learning. I hope to see a positive return on investment. If not, at least my son feels good about what I am doing. He appreciates it, and that makes it worthwhile.

botom line? don't quit your day job!

DodgeV83

patrickbeil wrote:

Before I started using smugmug, I watermarked my photos. As Khaos said, people complained that they could not see the photos. Since smugmug, I no longer watermark, but I have disabled right click, etc. The kids like it much better. My son tells me that his friends and teammates say I take "Awesome" pictures! At least they like them. I am thinking (justifying in my mind?!) that it does build some goodwill. The parents have bought a few pictures, but nothing to get excited about. Perhaps at the end of the season the parents will come through and buy some more.

I am low key about making money at it, but I don't apologize for trying to make some money. After all, I have invested a significant amount in hardware. But I am still learning. I hope to see a positive return on investment. If not, at least my son feels good about what I am doing. He appreciates it, and that makes it worthwhile.

botom line? don't quit your day job!

Yea I took the watermarking off my pics just now. Too bad we can't add a small watermark with a URL to our site on the bottom or something :cry

patrickbeil

Could you watermark before uploading?

DodgeV83 wrote:

Yea I took the watermarking off my pics just now. Too bad we can't add a small watermark with a URL to our site on the bottom or something :cry

I am thinking you could watermark them with a URL before you uploaded them.

DodgeV83

patrickbeil wrote:

I am thinking you could watermark them with a URL before you uploaded them.

Then all of the prints would have the URL. I don't want the prints to have that, just the web pictures. So at least when someone steals the pic they'll know where it came from lol

bham

You may or may not have to license the images. There was a recent Supreme Court Ruling concerning Tiger Woods image being sold without his consent/approval. My understanding of the case is that the court ruled that since it was at a public event (golf tournament) that the photographer did not have to give anything to Tiger.

Also there is a current lawsuit between The University of Alabama and local artist and Alumni of the school, Daniel A. Moore concering copyright of painting done of Alabama football games. Daniel Moore has paid licensee fees in the past on items where he place the school name in writing below the painting, seals, etc. After the Tiger ruling and another ruling in Tennessee, Mr Moore basically has done some paintings and not placed any words, logos, etc below the painting to somewhat avoid the licensing fees. The University then decided to sue him. Mr Moore's main reason of somewhat challenging the University in this is that he feels that his painting (of players, etc) is his creation and no one else should require that he has to license it to sell it.

From what I hear from attorneys, Daniel Moore is gonna win.

So the point of this is, if you don't put a score, names, or other info below the picture, you probably won't have to license it. But if you describe it in text, then it becomes licenseable because the university owns the right to their name. This is not hard cold facts but what I have been able to take away from all the info I have collected.

Hope this helps.

flyingpylon

But I think it also depends on how you got access to the event you photographed. For example, many ticket stubs will say that the seller (the school, league, arena, or whatever) retains the rights to photos, etc. and that by entering the event with that ticket you're accepting the terms.

DodgeV83

flyingpylon wrote:

But I think it also depends on how you got access to the event you photographed. For example, many ticket stubs will say that the seller (the school, league, arena, or whatever) retains the rights to photos, etc. and that by entering the event with that ticket you're accepting the terms.

Ticket stubs at a Track Meet? Not something I really have to worry about

ian408

Paging Winger to the White Courtesy Phone. Please.
I think a safe assumption is that regardless of how you got there, any
college or university is going to have a problem with you shooting pix for
profit. Especially if they're cut out of it.

While victory may be near, it is not a$$ured. And because of this, you
mustn't a$$ume anything.

My choice of $$ is deliberate. If you violate the school's policy, they may
well come after you. And if they do, right or wrong, they probably have more
money than you do. Whether you know the policy or not doesn't so much
matter. They will argue that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

My advice is to find out what the policy is, decide if you want to abide
by it and if you don't, don't skirt around it.

Ian

DodgeV83

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

As you mention, you can take hundreds of pics no problem. The problem comes when you bring "profit" into the equation. Just as you can bring cameras into pro sporting events and as long as the pics are for personal use, you'll seldom have an issue. If, on the other hand, you attempt to sell those pics (ie:make a profit on them) they will sic their lawyers on you so fast you'll think you were public enemy #1....lol


Steve

I just got off the phone with the school's Media Relations office. The problem is not with profitting off of the pictures. The problem is offering the pictures for sale at all, even at cost! He basically told me that the only way for me to legally put the pictures on the website, would be to give them away, "To give away PRINTS?" I asked him, and he said yes.

He said something like "as soon as money comes into the equation, NCAA licensing kicks in". So the only way I can be paid at all (selling 4x6's for 25cents isn't getting paid!) is if the coach hired me to take pictures. Even then I could not offer the prints for sale, even at cost.

During the conversation I told him I wanted to setup a website similar to www.prettysporty.com My parents have purchased pictures from this website ($5 for a 4x6! $15 for an 8x10) in the past. This website takes pictures of EVERY school at a particular event and offers them for sale, but I only wanted to take pictures of MY school. He said something like "Had I known about that website, I would've sent them a letter to cease and desist".

I've seen MANY websites on Smugmug that offer NCAA sports pictures for sale. How are you doing it???

Edit: Prettysporty.com is a HUGE website! Do a google search for the site and you'll find many other sites, USAtoday.com, USATF.org ...and many others. What is it about this site that make its legal, where mine wouldn't be?

Osprey Whisperer

I was under the impression that with college (as professional sports)....the logos/names are protected. If your shot has the logos/names present....then you have broken various laws??? If this is not the case and you can give these college sports shots away...... then why not give them away free with the purchase of something else ...or charge an excessive shipping charge to cover the cost of the prints??

Kind of like selling a Rolling Stones T-shirt for $500. WIth every purchase of a T-shirt...receive a free concert ticket to see the Stones. :uhoh

MM

StevenV

DodgeV83 wrote:

What is it about this site that make its legal, where mine wouldn't be?

Perhaps they've paid the licensing fees?