NCAA posting rules?

UT Scott

Today I went to shoot a University of Tennessee football game and got to talking with another photographer and we got onto the topic of posting images online/ uploading to websites. I never thought anything about it before but from what I've heard it can affect the players eligiblilty to play. I don't want to be stepping on anyones toes or making anyone mad. I simply shoot for my schools paper and post/upload for fun. I'm not trying to sell pictures or even promote a business.

Does anyone know the specifics about posting NCAA players pictures online or have a link to the NCAA's official photographer rules or something? I've seen talk about it over on sports shooter but most of that seems to have something to do with promoting a business. :dunno

johng

There is nothing wrong with posting images. You just can't sell any images - they're copyrighted. You also can't give photos away to players as gifts can cost them eligibility. But simply displaying the photos? That isn't an issue.

UT Scott

johng wrote:

There is nothing wrong with posting images. You just can't sell any images - they're copyrighted. You also can't give photos away to players as gifts can cost them eligibility. But simply displaying the photos? That isn't an issue.

Ok, that's good. I still don't understand why a player having pictures of themselves could cost them eligibility. Does it have something to do with the playing making a profit or something?

johng

UT Scott wrote:

Ok, that's good. I still don't understand why a player having pictures of themselves could cost them eligibility. Does it have something to do with the playing making a profit or something?

Scott - it has nothing to do with them having a picture - they just can't accept a GIFT of any kind. You can't sell it to him because it's copyrighted by the NCAA and you selling it is a crime on your part, and you can't give it to him because it could be considered a 'gift'. Players can't accept gifts of any kind really. Now, it's unlikely the gift of a photo would really cause an NCAA sanction, it's not like giving him a car. But, that's the nature of the issue - accepting gifts.
It's a catch-22.

Phyxius

Here's an article from the National Press Photographers Association detailing the situations surrounding the NCAA and it's stand on the issue.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/01/ncaa.html

StevenV

johng wrote:

... because it's copyrighted by the NCAA ...

Am I understanding this thread correctly -- the copyright for a photo that I take is somehow being given to the NCAA???

btw, the article pointed to sure makes it sound as though we photographers can use SmugMug or any other service to sell photographs:

Such steps are not required in cases in which a student-athlete's photograph is sold by an individual or agency (e.g., private photographer, news agency) for private use.

Phyxius

StevenV wrote:

btw, the article pointed to sure makes it sound as though we photographers can use SmugMug or any other service to sell photographs:

Yeah, the article sounds like the only thing that can't be done is selling the pictures for commerical use (like adverts and clothing). Or am I not understanding that right?

UT Scott

wow, thanks for all the info guys! This all sounds way to confusing, I think I'll stick with posting for fun. I think I will be alright with that. Hopefully in the next few days I can get some of my UT vs. Vandy pics up!

Seefutlung

StevenV wrote:

Am I understanding this thread correctly -- the copyright for a photo that I take is somehow being given to the NCAA???

btw, the article pointed to sure makes it sound as though we photographers can use SmugMug or any other service to sell photographs:

Nope ... it the other way around ... the NCAA is authorizing you to take photos of their event ... but they are not giving you the commercial right to the image.

StevenV

Seefutlung wrote:

Nope ... it the other way around ... the NCAA is authorizing you to take photos of their event ... but they are not giving you the commercial right to the image.

First of all, unless I sign something saying otherwise, I - the photographer - own the copyright on any photo I take. This has nothing to do with copyright, just with "model release."

Most of the discussions over on SS have to do with photographers who get sideline credentials, for which they may have had to sign away some rights. I don't have one of those documents and can't comment on them. If you've paid for a seat and are "just a fan with a camera," you didn't sign any such thing.

But even so, apparently the NCAA may take away a player's elidgibilty if they think the player gave their permission for you to make money, or if the player makes money, or if the NCAA in any way they're missing a chance to get a cut of your money... so it's probably a "good" thing to be cautious for the student-athlete's sake.

To me, the whole thing smells like yesterday's diapers, though.

Seefutlung

Once again ... nope ... The NCAA (if it's a NCAA sanctioned game), has commercial rights to all images from that event. Your ticket gives you the right to view the event not profit from the event. Just because you bought a seat does not give you a right to commercially profit from that seat. (Try selling Coke or hot dogs from your seat ... you think the venue will allow that?? ... same-o for images from the game.)

The written, agreed to and signed NCAA rights and licenses to commercially exploit the event far exceeds your unwritten copywrite. As a former press photog, I never had to sign any documents or obtain any model releases for any professional or college sporting event. My/the paper's usage of the images were not for commercial purposes, but for reporting purposes. I assure you, that had the paper sold any images for commercial/advertising (say General Mills for a Wheaties box for example) without consent from the NCAA ... the paper would still be reeling today from the on slaught of attorneys rushing the front doors.

StevenV

the point, thought, is that it's got nothing to do with copyright. it's a trademark issue, perhaps, and certainly a licensing one, but not copyright. as photographers, we need to know the difference and be able to explain it.

it's the same sort of "model release" issue you'd have if you shot a picture of some average joe on main street and sold it to an advertiser, just that the NCAA's got better lawyers than joe probably does. And additionally, that they're are not just going to come after you - who shoud know better than sell "commercially" without a release - they're also going to go after the student-athlete... and that's what I think stinks.

Seefutlung wrote:

had the paper sold any images for commercial/advertising (say General Mills for a Wheaties box for example)

most of those discussions don't even get into commercial use, just selling of individual prints to fans/friends/family of the athlete (the sort of business that many of us do on Smugmug, to bring this topic back to any sort of relevance here : ).

Seefutlung

StevenV wrote:

... they're also going to go after the student-athlete... and that's what I think stinks.

most of those discussions don't even get into commercial use, just selling of individual prints to fans/friends/family of the athlete (the sort of business that many of us do on Smugmug, to bring this topic back to any sort of relevance here : ).

I've heard from those who have had to deal with the NCAA that the NCAA sucks. Just another ageny living off the blood of those "that do". I think that the investigaton will see if the athletics profited from any sales. If the athletics hadn't ... then it's over for the athletics ... if they had profited .. then it's all-over ... Somehow, I imagine, that the NCAA would triage their investigations going after cereal box athletics first and working all the way down to Smugmug.

Gary

JBurt

What about HS Athletics
Where does that leave the eligibility of HS athletes? Or Youth athletics? Are all of us shooting those putting them in jeporady? In my case, the galleries are private and sales are theoreticly to family and friends. Any profits go back to the booster club for the kids.
But...
There are ton of shooters out there making money off youth sports.

Seefutlung

JBurt wrote:

Where does that leave the eligibility of HS athletes? Or Youth athletics? Are all of us shooting those putting them in jeporady? In my case, the galleries are private and sales are theoreticly to family and friends. Any profits go back to the booster club for the kids.
But...
There are ton of shooters out there making money off youth sports.

I would think/hope/assume that "Jeopardy", per NCAA rules, only comes to play when the athlete endorses and directly profits from said sales. If sales occur without the athlete's knowledge and/or without the athlete directly profiting from the sale then it should be okay (in theory athletes will benefit indirectly from profits directed to the booster clubs). Annnnnd, HS kids are not subject to NCAA rulings, unless there is some provisio in NCAA rules making HS athletes inelgible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events if they ever directly profited from their athletic performance(s).

Gary

UT Scott

Ok, so from what I understand is that I can't sell any of the pictures and allow the playing in that picture to proffit. I don't plan on selling so that should keep me (and the players) safe.

I didn't shoot the game from stands, therefore didn't pay for a ticket. I got creds to shoot on the sideline from my schools newspaper (I'm a staff photographer there) but I never had to sign anything saying that I wouldn't sell the pictures.

pat.kane

There's also a follow-up article on the NPPA web site
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/03/ncaa.html

UT Scott, your credentials are issued by the school's newspaper to capture imagery for their use, not for a side business of your own making.

Talk to your editor and explain what you'd like to do. It doesn't hurt to ask, but I'm fairly certain you're not going to get permission to sell images on the side.

You might also find out that they don't want you posting images to smugmug either. Read the article above and you'll see how much trouble sportsshooter had in getting the NCAA to accept images being posted on their site by their members.

UT Scott

pat.kane wrote:

UT Scott, your credentials are issued by the school's newspaper to capture imagery for their use, not for a side business of your own making.

Talk to your editor and explain what you'd like to do. It doesn't hurt to ask, but I'm fairly certain you're not going to get permission to sell images on the side.

You might also find out that they don't want you posting images to smugmug either. Read the article above and you'll see how much trouble sportsshooter had in getting the NCAA to accept images being posted on their site by their members.

I have talked to the editor and they don't have a problem with posting online. I never intended to sell my pictures, just wanted to make sure it wasn't against NCAA rules to post.

JBurt

Seefutlung wrote:

I would think/hope/assume that "Jeopardy", per NCAA rules, only comes to play when the athlete endorses and directly profits from said sales. If sales occur without the athlete's knowledge and/or without the athlete directly profiting from the sale then it should be okay (in theory athletes will benefit indirectly from profits directed to the booster clubs). Annnnnd, HS kids are not subject to NCAA rulings, unless there is some provisio in NCAA rules making HS athletes inelgible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events if they ever directly profited from their athletic performance(s).

Gary

"Jeopardy" duhhh... That's what I get for being in a hurry.

Actually, the NCAA does determine college eligibility of HS students.
Turning pro out of HS disqualifies a student from playing college sports. LeBron James and Kobe Bryant being two examples of many. But, where does the NCAA draw the line? It sounds like they hold to a pretty strict interpretation of their rules. Ridiculous, I know. But, we are talking about the NCAA. I would hate to put any kid at risk just for a few pictures.