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?
im there with ya on everything.
im just checking what all your gentlemens thoughts were on specifics to what i do...
mostly, i just wanted to make sure i can take photos of my own boys and not worry about being approched by anyone from the league.
inotherwords, im waiting for the announcement from little league naming the authorized companies that may shoot:D
It's going to be a long wait.
And the league has nothing to say to parent who want to shoot their own kids or even the other kids as long as they do so within the guidelines. In otherwords, they do not go into the playing field and they do not obstruct others ability to enjoy the game and their own children playing.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. LL can't prohibit taking photos and posting them. There is such a thing as the first amendment.
LL can go take a flying leap.. They're not taking my rights away. This is VERY settled case law.
In fact, at the top of the article they say that the law takes precedence (no kidding), and the results are that the LOCAL LITTLE LEAGUE can lose their charter (maybe). But, the reality is that unless the LL is PAYING the photographer, there's nothing they can do to the LL, and of course, nothing they can do to the Photographer.
Remember, photo essays are journalistic. A photo shoot of a baseball game is editorial and journalistic in nature. Yes, it's something the parents like, but, it is NO DIFFERENT than any other published media. Newspapers sell photos too... At least in the USA, they have no power to stop it.
David
true, you can post all over (not sure can sell though) depsite that and not get in one bit of trouble with the law. OTOH, they can ban you for life from ever getting a pass or access to shot LL ever again and if you got access through some agency they can ban them as well. So I guess if you don't care to shoot them anymore anyway and didn't access through agency that you could get in trouble (which would not be fair to them), you can do what you like. You'll be on at least some blacklists though. (although i should add i haven't looked over all these posts in detail so i may be missing some important details)
The NBA has crazy restrictive passes even to pre-season games too. Ever wonder why you see galleries from NFL, MLB, MLS, etc. but not, or rarely ever, from NBA.
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 am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I think this is an excellent post. There is a current backlash against photography of minors in America, mostly due to increased child-predation and focused primarily on the protection of our youth (but also parlayed--maybe as in this case--by some for their own profit), which can potentially result in over-reaching restrictions such as this current LL issue. Is it right for them to do? I don't think so, but who am I to judge? As in all untested law, this will only be upheld once precedent is set, and that takes the first case to be brought before a court. If you want to be the first case, then take your advice from folks on the internet. For others, I take the advice of our outside counsel on matters where we are on questionable/precarious legal ground: "always ensure that your shield is bigger than the other guy's hammer." This applies not only to how strong your case is, but also to how large and affordable your legal team is. Remember that the largest majority of cases brought in America never go to court, but are negotiated and settled out of court, and the biggest cause of this is expense of litigation. I certainly don't have more money or lawyers than LLI.
I'm the original poster of this item. For what it's worth, what it boils down to is obtaining permission from Little League International to post my images of Little League players online. I've been the official (contract, etc.) photographer for my local little league for 3 seasons. With this rule in place, my local president had to forward our contract up to LLI headquarters and have it OK'd by them before I could post LL images online.
The contract has been sent, but I haven't heard back yet.
Folks, this isn't a 'sky is falling' item. LLI isn't telling photographers (parents, pros, etc.) that they cannot take pictures of kids identified as Little League participants. (by the way, the patch is only part of the issue - my local Little League only uses the patches on the competitive teams - the other teams have "XXX Little League" written on their uniform shirts) But it is telling you that posting those images online is in violation of their rules. Will it get you arrested? Hell no. But if you're a pro, do you want to risk your relationship with your customer (Little League) over breaking some rules? I don't. I chose not to post images until I've received the OK from LLI. What you do is obviously up to you, though.
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.
y'know, there are other people out there who would like to make a few bucks and don't have the luxury of "...not want the hassle of shooting at these, org." It is galling beyond all reason for these orgz to make mandates that infringe on us, and yet the little guy has no ability to pay for the justice they are entitled to. As Americans, we may be "free", we may have "liberty", but the old axiom still remains...he who has the gold makes the rules. I'm very happy you have gotten completly away from shooting youth sports.
Canon 7D! | Baux Pinhole MkIV | 30mm TP Tube Extender | SteadiHand IS system | BiPed 2000 Camera Support | Steely Gaze
I ran into a similar problem with my daughter's ballet recital. In actuality, the only people that can prohibit you from taking photos is the city/town that owns the field. Rent doesn't imply ownership (different for residences and businesses) unless their contract specifically gives them ownership of the field for that duration of time.
Since the games are being held on a field that is rented out by the city/town, then it is implied that the field is PUBLIC property and therefore subject to photographs.
I'm in Ontario and that is how (after extensive research) I've interpreted the law here. Of course, then there is the issue of having to go through the hassle of fighting with organizers, etc.... That's up to you, but in my humble opinion it's not worth the hassle (unless you are making a substantial profit and the parents want it!).
If the parents want you there taking photos of their kids, then they'll exert their own pressure on the league and eventually, they'll allow it. Good luck!:D
I was informed today that a new Little League International rule was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online.
From the rule:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Example 2: A web site that is not operated by a chartered local Little League wishes to post an image of a youth batter at the plate, and the image is identified in some way as a Little League image (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification). The web site operator would need permission from Little League International to post this image. The web site also would need to obtain written permission from the parent or guardian to post the photo. It is recommended that the web site operator also receive permission from the photographer. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Every single image that I've shot of LL participants has the name of the local Little League written right across the chest of their shirts. No real way I can get around that. This is not good news for those of us selling LL photos online, is it?
I've already disabled my existing LL galleries. I'm posting this news to help others out there who have LL galleries up as well.
I took this as saying that if you are a website operator you need to have written permission from all three. Parent, Little League Int. and the Photographer. Not that the photographer needs to have the written consent. Am I wrong?<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >
I'm having a difficult time believing that this would hold up in court. What did the players or their parents sign that gives the league this right? I think that it's a bit far reaching.
I have no legal background, but from everything I've read about the rights of photographers they have no right to enforce this. Sounds like some arbitrary, stupid rule that they'll only dream of enforcing in high-level tourneys where they get kickback from whoever gets to shoot the event.
As someone suggested, Little League cannot stop you from standing on public property and photographing their events, but they do have several options: (1) ban any unauthorized photographers from entering the field, or even anywere on thier property. (2) Sue over mis-use of their logo when it appears in photos.
As someone suggested, Little League cannot stop you from standing on public property and photographing their events, but they do have several options: (1) ban any unauthorized photographers from entering the field, or even anywere on thier property. (2) Sue over mis-use of their logo when it appears in photos.
For editorial or artistic use (as opposed to commercial use) I think they'd have a hard time getting you for misuse of the logo when it appears in photos. On the other hand if you add the logo to the photos, or have it as part of the design of your website, or do the same thing with the phrases "Little League" or "Little Leaguer" they may be able to go after you for trademark violations.
Comments
im just checking what all your gentlemens thoughts were on specifics to what i do...
mostly, i just wanted to make sure i can take photos of my own boys and not worry about being approched by anyone from the league.
(im just waiting to see the other shoe to fall)
inotherwords, im waiting for the announcement from little league naming the authorized companies that may shoot:D
It's going to be a long wait.
And the league has nothing to say to parent who want to shoot their own kids or even the other kids as long as they do so within the guidelines. In otherwords, they do not go into the playing field and they do not obstruct others ability to enjoy the game and their own children playing.
SHARPSHOOTER sports photography
Canon Digital Gear
Click here to Visit my website
true, you can post all over (not sure can sell though) depsite that and not get in one bit of trouble with the law. OTOH, they can ban you for life from ever getting a pass or access to shot LL ever again and if you got access through some agency they can ban them as well. So I guess if you don't care to shoot them anymore anyway and didn't access through agency that you could get in trouble (which would not be fair to them), you can do what you like. You'll be on at least some blacklists though. (although i should add i haven't looked over all these posts in detail so i may be missing some important details)
The NBA has crazy restrictive passes even to pre-season games too. Ever wonder why you see galleries from NFL, MLB, MLS, etc. but not, or rarely ever, from NBA.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I think this is an excellent post. There is a current backlash against photography of minors in America, mostly due to increased child-predation and focused primarily on the protection of our youth (but also parlayed--maybe as in this case--by some for their own profit), which can potentially result in over-reaching restrictions such as this current LL issue. Is it right for them to do? I don't think so, but who am I to judge? As in all untested law, this will only be upheld once precedent is set, and that takes the first case to be brought before a court. If you want to be the first case, then take your advice from folks on the internet.
Member SportsShooter.com
My Galleries
The contract has been sent, but I haven't heard back yet.
Folks, this isn't a 'sky is falling' item. LLI isn't telling photographers (parents, pros, etc.) that they cannot take pictures of kids identified as Little League participants. (by the way, the patch is only part of the issue - my local Little League only uses the patches on the competitive teams - the other teams have "XXX Little League" written on their uniform shirts) But it is telling you that posting those images online is in violation of their rules. Will it get you arrested? Hell no. But if you're a pro, do you want to risk your relationship with your customer (Little League) over breaking some rules? I don't. I chose not to post images until I've received the OK from LLI. What you do is obviously up to you, though.
www.jamesbroome.com
My SportsShooter.com Profile
Canon user since 1984 • Photoshop user since 1991
1D Mk IIn • 24-70 f/2.8L • 70-200 f/2.8L • 300 f/2.8L
y'know, there are other people out there who would like to make a few bucks and don't have the luxury of "...not want the hassle of shooting at these, org." It is galling beyond all reason for these orgz to make mandates that infringe on us, and yet the little guy has no ability to pay for the justice they are entitled to. As Americans, we may be "free", we may have "liberty", but the old axiom still remains...he who has the gold makes the rules. I'm very happy you have gotten completly away from shooting youth sports.
Since the games are being held on a field that is rented out by the city/town, then it is implied that the field is PUBLIC property and therefore subject to photographs.
I'm in Ontario and that is how (after extensive research) I've interpreted the law here. Of course, then there is the issue of having to go through the hassle of fighting with organizers, etc.... That's up to you, but in my humble opinion it's not worth the hassle (unless you are making a substantial profit and the parents want it!).
If the parents want you there taking photos of their kids, then they'll exert their own pressure on the league and eventually, they'll allow it. Good luck!:D
http://cartographica.smugmug.com
My Website
My Photo Blog
Twitter Feed
I took this as saying that if you are a website operator you need to have written permission from all three. Parent, Little League Int. and the Photographer. Not that the photographer needs to have the written consent. Am I wrong?<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >
http://www.pymatuningmx.com/index.html :thumb
http://www.flickr.com/photos/les_stockton/collections/
Earth Home Construction Project Site: Stockton Underground
As someone suggested, Little League cannot stop you from standing on public property and photographing their events, but they do have several options: (1) ban any unauthorized photographers from entering the field, or even anywere on thier property. (2) Sue over mis-use of their logo when it appears in photos.
For editorial or artistic use (as opposed to commercial use) I think they'd have a hard time getting you for misuse of the logo when it appears in photos. On the other hand if you add the logo to the photos, or have it as part of the design of your website, or do the same thing with the phrases "Little League" or "Little Leaguer" they may be able to go after you for trademark violations.