This is absurd. Let me be the first to post a LL shot from this weekend with the patch clearly visible on the pitcher.
This was taken in my home town's municipal baseball complex. How can I not be allowed to take photos of these kids?
I can see a patch, I can't read the writing on the patch. Unless you were familiar with the logo the average joe couldn't tell you what it was.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
You don't need a release you shot photos at an event open to the public. But technically the NCAA has a rule about selling photos of current student athletes. Now since you are not a member of the NCAA they can't do anything to you, but they can ask that the member school to send you a cease and desist letter and move to restrict your access. For lacrosse that could be hard, for Div I basketball or football, the school could revoke press pass, etc.
Now unless someone complains or notices, or knows the rule, you are not likely to have a problem. I just wouldn't advertise it to much, especially where members of the Athletic Department might see.
I currently engaged in a whole imbroglio with my son's college about getting a field credential (posted on elsewhere, won't bore you with the details), but as a result I am becoming familiar with some of this NCAA nonsense. I think you might be overstating the NCAA prohibition, since I know for a fact that Brown pays a photographer to shoot various sporting events, and he in turn posts the shots for sale on his website.
Maybe, before we get too worked up about this someone should call LL for clarification. Here is what was posted in another forum referring to a sportsshooter.com thread (thanks Nicky)
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]From a post by Bill Miller on SS.com:
->> It seems that everyone always goes off half-cocked when some new rule or policy is announced. That is the case here. Get your facts before you open mouth and insert foot.
If only someone had called the LL office media department they would have gotten the policy guidelines relating to event photographers. In talking with Chris Downs, Media Director of LL all a event photographer must do is have an agreement {in writing/signed} with the League, stating their arrangment. With that the photographer can then post the images online.
What the League wants is a paper trail, and parents to be aware that their childs photo may be posted on the internet.
So simple - no panic - a reasonable answer. If you have any questions call or email Chris Downs 570-326-1921
That's great until you get to the "in writing - signed" part. Good luck. The day I would engage in that kind of brain damage to shoot fidgets would be many days after I had already shot myself, and I don't mean a self portrait!
I started off in this thread focused on the legal nuances, just for intellectual kicks, and hence gave some props to LL's position. But from a practical standpoint, as I have already said, if it were me I would be blasting and posting and not being all that nervous about LL showing up at my door.
I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.
This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.
Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.
I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.
Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.
Your point is valid about using a logo for inappropriate reasons (LL patch for beer commercial). however one has to reach to the extreme to find a reason supporting a silly rule. My point was nnot that every use of someone else's image or logo is OK. My point is to say that it is pointless for them to try & stop the use of something that can be duplicated (images) and posted everywhere just because someone wants to show them they can. When attention is brought to a ban like that it just makes more people likely to buck the system.
Amateurs (regrettably not Girls) Gone Wild!
Do we have anyone here on Dgrin who actually knows about the legalities here? Otherwise this is ridiculous. Just keep on shooting already.
That's great until you get to the "in writing - signed" part. Good luck. The day I would engage in that kind of brain damage to shoot fidgets would be many days after I had already shot myself, and I don't mean a self portrait!
I started off in this thread focused on the legal nuances, just for intellectual kicks, and hence gave some props to LL's position. But from a practical standpoint, as I have already said, if it were me I would be blasting and posting and not being all that nervous about LL showing up at my door.
I do it for every league I shoot for already. We have an agreement in place before the season starts and the player enrollment package includes information to the parents that photos will be posted online. They have an opt out should they so choose. I've never had an opt out yet. It really isn't a big deal like you're making it out to be, to get an agreement from the league authorizing you to shoot if they don't have one in place with someone else already.
Originally Posted by Furono I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.
This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.
Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.
I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.
Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.
Using the image commerically, as in flyers or advertisements, bring in a whole litany of different legal issues versus shooting and posting the images for sale as prints to friends and family. Their are copyright issues as well as consent of the party(ies) in the images for the photos to be used. This is not what LL is trying to address here.
I do it for every league I shoot for already. We have an agreement in place before the season starts and the player enrollment package includes information to the parents that photos will be posted online. They have an opt out should they so choose. I've never had an opt out yet. It really isn't a big deal like you're making it out to be, to get an agreement from the league authorizing you to shoot if they don't have one in place with someone else already.
I don't mean to be making anything out to be anything. You make your living shooting across whole leagues -- I shoot my kids and their teammates for free. Whole 'nother story.
I don't mean to be making anything out to be anything. You make your living shooting across whole leagues -- I shoot my kids and their teammates for free. Whole 'nother story.
Well it's a part time business but yes, it is a business. And with my agreement, the leagues give me access to areas that are not otherwise accessible for MWD or DWD. On most of the fields I shoot on, I would not be able to get the shots I get without that access. I provide insurance and submit to the required LL volunteer background check and have an agreement in place.
I currently engaged in a whole imbroglio with my son's college about getting a field credential (posted on elsewhere, won't bore you with the details), but as a result I am becoming familiar with some of this NCAA nonsense. I think you might be overstating the NCAA prohibition, since I know for a fact that Brown pays a photographer to shoot various sporting events, and he in turn posts the shots for sale on his website.
Well I am just going by what was told to me, by not only a athletic department employee but also a vendor who sells artwork of former athletes.
"A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonalds for $1, one from Chili's for $5, or one from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonalds price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." - me
I'm sorry Sir.... This isn't a free country you know!
Actually Dr.David you are 100% correct in this thought......we have certain freedoms granted to us............when in fact the USA is NOT a free country.........
I actually had a security guard shake my pick-up as I was trying to get a sunset while parked in a parking lot...I had just exited a resturant that i did a small food shoot for and walked out ot a very gorgeous sunset......he tried to tell me that since 911 no one can take photos in shopping malls or parking lots etc...now I was actually on the cab of my truck...I lost the photo and when I got off the cab the tripod was ready to use as a weapon and I told him if he was still in the lot when I hit the ground I was gonna kick his very obese a**......well he was gone but I had to have a talk with a city cop for threatening the s.g......no charges and the s.g. got fired....I have been back there several times with the sole purpose of shooting anything from that lot just to aggitate any s.g. around but so far....... nada......for the last 2 years
Actually Dr.David you are 100% correct in this thought......we have certain freedoms granted to us............when in fact the USA is NOT a free country.........
It is SUCH a free country that some fatass security guard can hassle you and you can hassle him back. That security guard speaks for nobody but the private property owner (who does, in this free country, have property rights). It is terribly important, in assessing the freedoms that this country does or does not offer, to distinguish between when the government is screwing with you and when "just some dude" is screwing with you -- and then further to realize that he may have been enforcing property rights that exist whether you like them or not.
If you can find a freer country, and if it's that extra freedom that you crave, perhaps you should relocate there and be free of the chains that bind you in Amerika. No doubt you will still be able to post to dgrin from there.
I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to law school, I've been following this thread, but refrained from posting until I had more than just a knee-jerk reaction. I just read over the policy again on the LL website, and I think that there is another reasonable interpretation that I think has been overlooked. First off we have to differentiate between your right to take the picture and your right to use the picture in some way. If you've done much research into model releases you should be familiar with the concept that a release is not required to take a photograph of a person, but may be required in order to use the photograph in certain ways.
First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.
Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.
So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.
To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.
I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to law school, I've been following this thread, but refrained from posting until I had more than just a knee-jerk reaction. I just read over the policy again on the LL website, and I think that there is another reasonable interpretation that I think has been overlooked. First off we have to differentiate between your right to take the picture and your right to use the picture in some way. If you've done much research into model releases you should be familiar with the concept that a release is not required to take a photograph of a person, but may be required in order to use the photograph in certain ways.
First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.
Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.
So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.
To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.
I have just read this entire thread, my comment is this: LLI isn't the only game out there. If you shoot L.L. sports and do not like the rules set by the org. than go to the next one. I shoot football for my local county, I shoot one park every game on Saturday's. By league rules I (and no one else) is allowed inside the "red zone" I abide by the rules. If you do not want the hassle of shooting at these, org. than locate a local church who has a season. Many of the churches will allow you to shoot, just to help promote the events, to help the kids.
Too many people have forgotten the games are for the kids anyway.
I have gotten completly away from shooting L L sports at the county parks unless a parent ask me to shoot thier child, than I always have more parents "hire" me to shoot thier children while I am there.
Alright, maybe I'm way off base here. (sorry for the pun)
Photographs and/or video of any children must not be posted on a Chartered local Little League’s web site without receiving written permission from the child’s parent or guardian. Photos on web site owned or operated by a chartered local Little League must adhere to the standards for Little Leaguers appearing in the media at: http://www.littleleague.org/media/Proper04.pdf
To me, it sounds like you cannot post on the Little League web site with all of the restrictions.
Also, the little league page goes on to say.
Little League International has no control over non-Little League owned/operated web sites that post photographs of children, provided those children are not identified in any way as Little Leaguers.
I still think its prudent to have an arrangement with the local Little League. Second, if you post pictures just make sure the Little League patch and the names of the players are not posted or shown on the pictures. You can always blur out the LL Patch and if a parent purchases a picture you can give them the original copy.
Assuming that we're talking about a parent making available prints to other parents, and not someone trying to make a business of event photos...
I'm surprised that no one has considered simply cloning out the little league patch.
Gotta remember that could add upto hours of work as there is not a way to do an action for it as that patch will not be in the same place in any 2 pictures....it is a good idea but also a time hawg.....
I just checked and the local little leauge here runs through the Dixie Youth Baseball Organization so I'm in the green...Hope this gets overturned for all you other shooters.
I just checked and the local little leauge here runs through the Dixie Youth Baseball Organization so I'm in the green...Hope this gets overturned for all you other shooters.
If your local organization refers to itself as a "Little League" and you use the same phrasing on your website you could still be in trouble (as could they for referring to themselves as a "Little League".) Based on the research that I have done Little League International, Inc. actually has the phrase "Little League" as well as "Little Leaguer" (referring to a player) trademarked. While we may think that this grant of trademark is excessively broad, since Little League International, Inc. has a congressional charter it is pretty hard to argue against their trademarks in a court of law. (For more detail on their grant to the names Little League and Little Leaguer take a look at US Code Title 36, Chapter 1305, Section 130506
If your local organization refers to itself as a "Little League" and you use the same phrasing on your website you could still be in trouble (as could they for referring to themselves as a "Little League".) Based on the research that I have done Little League International, Inc. actually has the phrase "Little League" as well as "Little Leaguer" (referring to a player) trademarked. While we may think that this grant of trademark is excessively broad, since Little League International, Inc. has a congressional charter it is pretty hard to argue against their trademarks in a court of law. (For more detail on their grant to the names Little League and Little Leaguer take a look at US Code Title 36, Chapter 1305, Section 130506
Dixie Youth Baseball Organization does not refer to themselves as Little League. That was simply a mistatement by the poster.
we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
True - and also protection from litigation.
but in this instance all it requires is a more formal process. If LL in your area has a contracted photographer you should respect that. If not and you wan the job simply work with the organization to be the contracted photographer. In this manner the organization knows who is photographing the kids and displaying the content on the web. And doing their due dilligence to prevent unauthorized publication of jouveniles photos on the web. You can argue all day about whether a person has the right to do so but LL is simply making a good faith effort to prevent future litigation from an overly litigious society.
So if you're serious about shooting a team or teams for sales the door is still open to you (unless someone else is under contract).
So this is slightly different than IRAQ - they're not pushing for one company to do LL photogrpahy across the entire United States. So indepedent contractors still have opportunity.
we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
This is not about any vying for exclusive rights to shoot Little Leaguers. It's not all the same.
Comments
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
I love it!!
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I can see a patch, I can't read the writing on the patch. Unless you were familiar with the logo the average joe couldn't tell you what it was.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]From a post by Bill Miller on SS.com:
->> It seems that everyone always goes off half-cocked when some new rule or policy is announced. That is the case here. Get your facts before you open mouth and insert foot.
If only someone had called the LL office media department they would have gotten the policy guidelines relating to event photographers. In talking with Chris Downs, Media Director of LL all a event photographer must do is have an agreement {in writing/signed} with the League, stating their arrangment. With that the photographer can then post the images online.
What the League wants is a paper trail, and parents to be aware that their childs photo may be posted on the internet.
So simple - no panic - a reasonable answer. If you have any questions call or email Chris Downs 570-326-1921
cdowns@littleleague.org
Here is the original message: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=28595
[/FONT]
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
I started off in this thread focused on the legal nuances, just for intellectual kicks, and hence gave some props to LL's position. But from a practical standpoint, as I have already said, if it were me I would be blasting and posting and not being all that nervous about LL showing up at my door.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Your point is valid about using a logo for inappropriate reasons (LL patch for beer commercial). however one has to reach to the extreme to find a reason supporting a silly rule. My point was nnot that every use of someone else's image or logo is OK. My point is to say that it is pointless for them to try & stop the use of something that can be duplicated (images) and posted everywhere just because someone wants to show them they can. When attention is brought to a ban like that it just makes more people likely to buck the system.
Do we have anyone here on Dgrin who actually knows about the legalities here? Otherwise this is ridiculous. Just keep on shooting already.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
I do it for every league I shoot for already. We have an agreement in place before the season starts and the player enrollment package includes information to the parents that photos will be posted online. They have an opt out should they so choose. I've never had an opt out yet. It really isn't a big deal like you're making it out to be, to get an agreement from the league authorizing you to shoot if they don't have one in place with someone else already.
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
Using the image commerically, as in flyers or advertisements, bring in a whole litany of different legal issues versus shooting and posting the images for sale as prints to friends and family. Their are copyright issues as well as consent of the party(ies) in the images for the photos to be used. This is not what LL is trying to address here.
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Well it's a part time business but yes, it is a business. And with my agreement, the leagues give me access to areas that are not otherwise accessible for MWD or DWD. On most of the fields I shoot on, I would not be able to get the shots I get without that access. I provide insurance and submit to the required LL volunteer background check and have an agreement in place.
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
Well I am just going by what was told to me, by not only a athletic department employee but also a vendor who sells artwork of former athletes.
Actually Dr.David you are 100% correct in this thought......we have certain freedoms granted to us............when in fact the USA is NOT a free country.........
I actually had a security guard shake my pick-up as I was trying to get a sunset while parked in a parking lot...I had just exited a resturant that i did a small food shoot for and walked out ot a very gorgeous sunset......he tried to tell me that since 911 no one can take photos in shopping malls or parking lots etc...now I was actually on the cab of my truck...I lost the photo and when I got off the cab the tripod was ready to use as a weapon and I told him if he was still in the lot when I hit the ground I was gonna kick his very obese a**......well he was gone but I had to have a talk with a city cop for threatening the s.g......no charges and the s.g. got fired....I have been back there several times with the sole purpose of shooting anything from that lot just to aggitate any s.g. around but so far....... nada......for the last 2 years
If you can find a freer country, and if it's that extra freedom that you crave, perhaps you should relocate there and be free of the chains that bind you in Amerika. No doubt you will still be able to post to dgrin from there.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.
Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.
So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.
To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.
I Agree...
And I get deeper and deeper
The more I see the more I fall no place to hide
You better take the call I get deeper and deeper...The Fixx
Too many people have forgotten the games are for the kids anyway.
I have gotten completly away from shooting L L sports at the county parks unless a parent ask me to shoot thier child, than I always have more parents "hire" me to shoot thier children while I am there.
To me, it sounds like you cannot post on the Little League web site with all of the restrictions.
Also, the little league page goes on to say.
I still think its prudent to have an arrangement with the local Little League. Second, if you post pictures just make sure the Little League patch and the names of the players are not posted or shown on the pictures. You can always blur out the LL Patch and if a parent purchases a picture you can give them the original copy.
www.fitmet.com
I'm surprised that no one has considered simply cloning out the little league patch.
http://georgesphotos.net
Gotta remember that could add upto hours of work as there is not a way to do an action for it as that patch will not be in the same place in any 2 pictures....it is a good idea but also a time hawg.....
If your local organization refers to itself as a "Little League" and you use the same phrasing on your website you could still be in trouble (as could they for referring to themselves as a "Little League".) Based on the research that I have done Little League International, Inc. actually has the phrase "Little League" as well as "Little Leaguer" (referring to a player) trademarked. While we may think that this grant of trademark is excessively broad, since Little League International, Inc. has a congressional charter it is pretty hard to argue against their trademarks in a court of law. (For more detail on their grant to the names Little League and Little Leaguer take a look at US Code Title 36, Chapter 1305, Section 130506
Dixie Youth Baseball Organization does not refer to themselves as Little League. That was simply a mistatement by the poster.
http://youth.dixie.org/site3.aspx
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
may i ask...
is little league banning parents from taking pics of their own kid?
is little league banning a photog from taking photos of a kid they were hired to shot?
or is this aimed at photogs that shot randomly and then post on the web for sale?
seems to me like the big photo companies are behind this.....
may i ask...
is little league banning parents from taking pics of their own kid? NO
is little league banning a photog from taking photos of a kid they were hired to shot? NO
or is this aimed at photogs that shot randomly and then post on the web for sale? YES, for sale or other use.
seems to me like the big photo companies are behind this..... What makes you think that?
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
True - and also protection from litigation.
but in this instance all it requires is a more formal process. If LL in your area has a contracted photographer you should respect that. If not and you wan the job simply work with the organization to be the contracted photographer. In this manner the organization knows who is photographing the kids and displaying the content on the web. And doing their due dilligence to prevent unauthorized publication of jouveniles photos on the web. You can argue all day about whether a person has the right to do so but LL is simply making a good faith effort to prevent future litigation from an overly litigious society.
So if you're serious about shooting a team or teams for sales the door is still open to you (unless someone else is under contract).
So this is slightly different than IRAQ - they're not pushing for one company to do LL photogrpahy across the entire United States. So indepedent contractors still have opportunity.
Or have I missed something here?
This is not about any vying for exclusive rights to shoot Little Leaguers. It's not all the same.
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website