Is it legal?

harrysamuel

My problem which I hope I can get an answer for is. I have been asked by a parent to take pictures of her child in a figure skating competion. The organization who is running it will probable say no. Do they have the legal right to stop me? The organization rents the rink for the day, they do not charge admission, and it is open to the public. I do not want to get anyone angry at me, but I do want this chance to do the photos, the person is an officer of the skating club and does not like the pictures the contracted vendor takes of the skaters. harrysamuel@bellsouth.net

schmoo

Harry, I'll move this to Mind Your Own Business.

aktse

harrysamuel wrote:

I do not want to get anyone angry at me, but I do want this chance to do the photos, the person is an officer of the skating club and does not like the pictures the contracted vendor takes of the skaters. harrysamuel@bellsouth.net

Being legal, ethical and not having people get angry all different things.

And yes, the event organizers can legally stop you.

I ran into a similar problem before (kids ice hockey tourney)
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51458

Personally, it boils down to this:
- Does the pro have a exclusive contract that is being enforced? (Translation: are all cameras banned from the event?)

If the answer is yes, then you cannot shoot -- should not ethically shoot (think-- theater setting)

If the answer is no… you’re in the grey area. Contact the rink and the organization about the contract. For my hockey tourney, I decided not to show any photos to the team though I could legally shoot. The tourney people were going cause trouble for my friend and I didn't want to add any grief to her life.

If you can shoot, you have decide what make sense to you and make peace with your decision; there will be people unhappy with you with either decision (the pro and the mom).

From my post in a previous thread (selling photos from a marathon shot on a street corner)

aktse wrote:

I have found myself in a similar position in the past and will continue to run into the problem in the future since I'm hobbyist.

From reading the various thread and doing searches on the web, I have discovered a few things and I tend to run through questions BEFORE I shoot (as a spectator) at an event, and it normally takes less than five minutes.

1. Where’s the policy of the venue? Is it at a public facility? Standing on the sidewalk in street corner to shoot is different than standing in a building in the *exact* same street corner. You might think that the building is public, but it’s owned/run by someone and they have their own regulations. When in doubt, ask.
2. What’s the policy of the event? Are other people taking photos? In other words, are all cameras banned, like at theater performances and concerts, and are there signs clearly posted (e.g.. on the ticket, posted on the entrance) or is someone telling people to put cameras away? And do they have camera limitations posted (e.g. limited the length of the lens)? When at an event, ask the organizers if you can take pictures during the event. This might be different than the regulations of the facility. The purpose of those photos is a completely different issue. The key question is… are you legally allowed to shoot in this specific location and while the event is running?
3. Is there an official photographer? Does the photographer have an “exclusive” contract? An official photographer has a contract with the event organizers to shoot and is tied in to the event in some form, but other cameras are allowed. They have they advantage due to better access, location and advertisement (maybe e-mails of all the participants), etc. The event participants know to go to the official photographer for photos! I once remember reading a spec sport shooter mentioning that taking the photo is only 5% of the work and that the marketing makes up the other 95%. However, for this right, they give up something by either paying for the privilege or giving back a percentage of profit to the event itself. Things are slightly different if it’s an exclusive contract where he/she has the only camera in the venue. For me, an exclusive contract is only useful if someone (event official, photographer) enforces it and making it publicly clear that all cameras are banned. I don’t think it is a general CWG’s (guy/gal with camera) responsibility to seek out if they can take a photo of his/her kid or friend. I believe it’s the responsibility of the official photographer to see that the exclusive contract is enforced (pro’s might disagree with me on this point). In general, I believe that an exclusive contract is pointless unless the venue is a contained enclosed space with the policy posted and policed. I believe it should only be given out except safety reasons, e.g. the theater. (another point pro’s will disagree with me).

The three questions basically tell me if I can legally shoot. However, I final myself pondering another question… Is it ethical for me to display/sell photos?

The pro’s make a living doing this work… There is a reason why they charge more for their services. They tend to have more equipment (backups bodies), pay a higher premiums on insurance, have to be responsible for *actually* being on the event full time. They charge more since they are running an actually a business and have expenses associated with it. As for me or any other GWC, we’re doing it for fun, and no one cares if we show up or if we just do it for a few hours. They get pissed off (threaten?) when random GWC shows up shows up 30D and a 70-300; some even get pissed off with a P&S camera. I believe that any GWC can shoot as long as it is legal (facilities allows it & cameras are allowed). The pro’s are just that… professional. They have to produce a better product than general GWC, and if they don’t, they must do something to improve since they have the advantage of location, marketing, equipment and hopefully, skills. A good GWC can easily undercharge the pro and do as good, if not better job. At the same time, the CWG is hurting the pro's business, but can have the right to shoot at the same time.

I have a tougher time with this last question, but I think I finally made peace with this issue.

From the little details given from the original poster, it seems that you can post/sell photos – open venue where everyone can shoot. You might not make friends that way, but you should be within your right to shoot.

Ask the “prez” what rule did you violate…

I hope this helps.

SloYerRoll

PC Version:
If the person is an officer of this club. Then have that person approach the management and tell them they want you to shoot. If the term officer carries any clout, this should be enough.


My version:
No one has the right to tell you to stop shooting an event. They can try to. But it's public. So They can call the cops, the Kristi Yamaguchi fan club, whoever. They can't stop you from shooting. If they do, you have just had your rights violated more than they did.

It's really up to you how the outcome of the latter turns out. If your cool about things and aren't bothering anyone. You'll diffuse all but the most obnoxious people.

REMEMBER:
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

dogwood

SloYerRoll wrote:

They can't stop you from shooting. If they do, you have just had your rights violated more than they did.

This is simply not true. If you are on private property (ie a skating rink) the property owners (or their agents -- security guards, etc) CAN absolutely stop you from shooting photos and you won't have ANY legal standing to challenge them. They can escort you out of the venue, call the police, and have you charged with trespassing.

Remember-- it's their property and you have to follow their rules. But this (fortunately) goes both ways. In other words, people can't just walk into your backyard and start shooting photos. And you know what? Even if you invite them to your backyard party, you can legally stop them from shooting photos at your party. Property owners generally get to decide what activities are and aren't permissable on their property.

It's a different story if you're on public property while shooting your photos, of course. But not many skating rinks are considered public property. Anyway, even public property is not always open to photography. Federal courthouses are such places. In Oregon, a county judge can decide his/her courtroom will NOT allow cameras for certain trials/hearings. A police officer can order you out of a public place (including a street) if they decide the conditions merit this (ie a street protest where marchers do not have a permit and police decide to clear the streets). As a professional photographer, I've faced all of these situations.

In other words, the first amendment generally does not apply to private property and it often doesn't even apply to public property.

EDIT: In fact, in Bend last year, there was a photographer at a party that was busted by the police. The guy kept shooting photos while the police were clearing people out. The police ordered him to stop, he refused, so they arrested him for disorderly conduct. He was forced to hire a criminal defense attorney and go to court. He won-- but ONLY because the jury was hung! I happen to know his attorney-- and I notice you're in Bend-- so that's why I bring this up.

SloYerRoll

I stand corrected. Thanks for educating me Pete.

xris

Subject has rights too!
This has been covered before, but it appears to belong here too.

It's important to keep in mind that, especially if you intend on selling your photographs, things are not always as they seem. You do have rights -- if you are prepared to defend them. But your subjects AND related property holders have rights too. And this includes not only 'real' property, but 'intellectual' property as well.

Here are two links that provide information you may find eye opening. These are a few of the guidelines from istockphoto regarding acceptable images. Just a glimpse, but an eye opener just the same. The first is somewhat formal. The second is a good article with examples.

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_8.0_prohibited.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=395

And always remember. Even if you are shooting in a wide open public place these principles remain. Sure. You can take my picture on the beach. But, generally speaking, YOU CANNOT SELL IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION if I am a substantial feature in the photograph. The same is true for property rights.

There are certain circumstances, such as celebrities, where the rules are a bit more complex. But, generally speaking this must be kept in mind.

kc_tinman

REMEMBER:
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.[/quote]

exactly.... if you ask permission to someone they immediately assume authority over you and likely will tell you no if they are a jerk. Treat people as you want to be treated and you will be fine most of the time. Nothing would get doen in this country if true entrepernuers waited on a "YES you can open this weird business."

tonichelle

I answered this question on another thread

IF THE EVENT IS SANCTIONED BY THE US FIGURE SKATING ASSOCIATION YOU CANNOT TAKE ANY MONEY FROM ANY PERSON

but, you may take photos, that's not the issue, but you cannot be compensated in anyway (not even as a reimbursement for printing, according to a cease and desist email I got from the USFSA a month ago)


I'm not sure if other skating asscociations are this anal.

Angelo

I disagree with just about all the posts here.

This is a free event open to the public. You are acting on behalf of a specific parent for a specific child. If you read data on photgrapher's rights you'll learn that permissions are deemed granted in spaces that are open to the public.

No one can stop you!

Everything else said in this thread could / would be true if you were acting in a manner directly aimed at denying the contracted photographer his right to the venue but you are not and you are not competing with him.

Think of it this way: What if the parent was your sister and the child your niece; could anyone stop you from taking pictures? I wouldn't let them stop me, that's for sure.

Good luck!

Angelo

xris wrote:

And always remember. Even if you are shooting in a wide open public place these principles remain. Sure. You can take my picture on the beach. But, generally speaking, YOU CANNOT SELL IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION if I am a substantial feature in the photograph.

This is so not true and in fact there was a famous case of a rabbi vs. photog in which the rabbi took offense at his image being sold. The photog won the case.

I can take your picture in a public place and I CAN sell it all I want as an art print. The limitation you may be speaking of is this: I just can not sell it to someone else to use for commercial purposes, such as an advertising campaign, hence the restrictions on a site like iStock (which is primarily an amateur site)

tonichelle

Angelo wrote:

Think of it this way: What if the parent was your sister and the child your niece; could anyone stop you from taking pictures? I wouldn't let them stop me, that's for sure.

Good luck!

AFAIK the USFSA wouldn't deny anyone the ability to take photos... they don't allow - even at the free events, much less the paid for - money to exchange hands from anyone to a photographer not sanctioned for the particular event.

You can certainly do it under the table (I have been compensated by friends, etc) but not as a business unless you contact the local skating club and see if you can become an official photog...