I disagree that if he sells the photos, then he is getting a privilege he didn't receive before (I think you are assuming he gets field access, I was not.
Well he currently doesn't have field access as is stated in his first thread.
Its about field access, but more importantly its about trying to getting access and also stay within the NCAA rules. If you get access but will then be breaking the rules, then its hurts the school and access will be revoked.
"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
My point of the part you quoted was that any fan, parent, person, etc could shoot from the stands and sell at a fair price and since their isn't a free or reduced cost service no NCAA violation would occur. By him shooting from the stands but giving away the service and the photos he is violating NCAA rules currently.
"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 suggest the best access to the event is working as an "assistant" to the official photographer. There would be a contract but that could work to mutual benefit. That might also yield better access to the events not covered by the official photographer, since you would be working as his emissary.
I suggest the best access to the event is working as an "assistant" to the official photographer. There would be a contract but that could work to mutual benefit. That might also yield better access to the events not covered by the official photographer, since you would be working as his emissary.
You are a man of peace, but judging by everything from the way that guy looks at me on Saturdays to the wildly disparate approach we take to our websites I'm guessing we would never see eye to eye. (BTW my job title in my JOB is Senior Managing Director -- there aren't too many people that I "assist" ).
My point of the part you quoted was that any fan, parent, person, etc could shoot from the stands and sell at a fair price and since their isn't a free or reduced cost service no NCAA violation would occur. By him shooting from the stands but giving away the service and the photos he is violating NCAA rules currently.
You are absolutely, positively wrong about that. In the absence of a school policy prohibiting photography from the stands (there is none here of course), I have a constitutional right to to shoot and to do whatever the hell I want to with the images. They are my images, taken from a public place. The NCAA has nothing to do with that -- are you kidding me?
I dont mean come off badly, Its just I run into this all the time but from the other side of the fence
All the best
Chris
www.longislandimage.smugmug.com[/QUOTE]
I have offered to limit my on-field shooting to events where the contract guy has elected not to shoot. i am not interested in undermining his livelihood.
It's a double edged sword - you give away photos so that breaks one rule - benefit to players of getting a good or service for free.
It's so freakin' simple -- access to these photos is not limited to the athletes or their families. Help yourself -- www.browngreensports.com. They are available to the world, which may piss off a subset of the posters here, but that is how I choose to conduct myself.
It's so freakin' simple -- access to these photos is not limited to the athletes or their families. Help yourself -- www.browngreensports.com. They are available to the world, which may piss off a subset of the posters here, but that is how I choose to conduct myself.
You are violating this rule. Not because the world has free access to the photos, its because you don't offer to shoot any photos of anybody for free. Hey if you want to continue to violate the rule thats your business. But I wouldn't think you would want the school to get in trouble.
It doesn't piss me off at all. I think the rules are kinda overkill, but I don't have a say. I am just trying to show and explain the rules as I understand from knowing people in athletics admin, athletics compliance, etc.
And you are defined as an athletics representative if you have ever purchased a ticket to a game. They have made the term so broad to cover some people that were claiming that were not "supporters of the program" in the past, and got around some rules.
16.11.2.2.1 Free or Reduced-Cost Services.
An athletics representative may not provide a student-athlete with professional services (for which a fee normally would be charged) without charge or at a reduced cost except as permitted elsewhere in this bylaw. Professional services provided at less than the normal rate or at no expense to a student-athlete are considered an extra benefit unless they are available on the same basis to the general student body.
"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 are absolutely, positively wrong about that. In the absence of a school policy prohibiting photography from the stands (there is none here of course), I have a constitutional right to to shoot and to do whatever the hell I want to with the images. They are my images, taken from a public place. The NCAA has nothing to do with that -- are you kidding me?
Your right the NCAA has no power over you. But they can and do punish schools for violations done by individuals and leave them (the school) to enforce policies so that individuals don't violate their rules.
What you are doing is equivalent (in the NCAA's mind) to a restaurant cooking meals and giving them to athletes for free. Or even a parent doing this regularly.
"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
Your right the NCAA has no power over you. But they can and do punish schools for violations done by individuals and leave them to enforce policies so that individuals don't violate their rules.
With all due respect, you have turned this thread into incomprehensible mush. As Johng pointed out, it was about sideline access. Now you are asserting that I have no right to shoot from the stands under NCAA rules. Your assertion is (a) irrelevant to the original post and (b) ridiculous on its face.
I have previously thought you a credible poster on this forum, but you are not credible here.
With all due respect, you have turned this thread into incomprehensible mush. As Johng pointed out, it was about sideline access. Now you are asserting that I have no right to shoot from the stands under NCAA rules. Your assertion is (a) irrelevant to the original post and (b) ridiculous on its face.
I have previously thought you a credible poster on this forum, but you are not credible here.
Yes the NCAA rule book can be a big incomprehensible mush.
I never said you had no right, but since you are doing everything for free, it can be and has been explained to me, that this is a violation of NCAA rules.
Yes it is irrelevant to the original post but it came from subsequent discussion, as access is related to rules and thus the discussion of rules.
You have a right to that opinion.
I get the feeling that you think I have a negative attitude towards you, or what you are doing. That is the farthest from the truth. In actuality I used to do exactly what you did for other sports. But once someone explained to me what I was doing could jeopardize my alma mater, I changed my behavior. I simply quoted the rules to show that I wasn't making stuff up.
I also gave you some ideas on how to gain access and to work with the athletic department. This is still your best bet to gain better access, which was your initial goal.
"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
Some schools thinks it a violation to even sell images of their athletes while they are still in school. It goes back to some school not wanting to risk a possible violation of NCAA rules. The rules aren't truely clear about that and I think the NCAA likes some abiguity so they can punish schools when they want to.
I currently know of some schools that have agreements with photographers to sell game photos of college games (University of Alabama). Well Southern Miss found out that images with their student athletes were being sold (from a football game and a baseball game) and now Southern Miss is pissed at Alabama for it and there is a back in forth between their athletic departments and attorneys.
I am far from an expert, but even some of the experts disagree. I have found that the NCAA rules are like tax laws. Some people or schools will push them to the limit, while others play it safe.
"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
It's so freakin' simple -- access to these photos is not limited to the athletes or their families. Help yourself -- www.browngreensports.com. They are available to the world, which may piss off a subset of the posters here, but that is how I choose to conduct myself.
There's doing it, and then there's doing it like this in your face to folks who are earning a living at this.
I'm not (yet) commenting either way, but you are coming across here as highly confrontational and I don't like it as far as this discussion or Dgrin in general.
I do like this thread, and the way it started. Let's keep it going, but non-confrontationally.
I have offered to limit my on-field shooting to events where the contract guy has elected not to shoot. i am not interested in undermining his livelihood.
If you think that shooting a game that he does not shoot is not undermining his livelihood you are sadly mistaken.
I am really getting tired of seeing posts about giving photo's away for free. If you and the others that do this are doing it as a hobby than keep the photo's to yourself. I am not trying to be an A__ here, just trying to make a living and pay the bills. If I was the contracted Photographer you would never set foot on the field. And yes I have done that with a club I shoot for. They do not let anybody but me on the field even if I can not make a game. I pay for that right.
There's doing it, and then there's doing it like this in your face to folks who are earning a living at this.
I'm not (yet) commenting either way, but you are coming across here as highly confrontational and I don't like it as far as this discussion or Dgrin in general.
I do like this thread, and the way it started. Let's keep it going, but non-confrontationally.
It was not my intention to be disrespectful or confrontational, and I apologize for any element of that in any of my posts. I will admit that everything about this is very frustrating, and no doubt that sometimes colors my choice of words. So frustrating that I was thinking about bowing out of this thread; maybe I stayed around one post too long. Again, I sincerely apologize.
1. Giving photos away to athletes. The reason this is potentially a violation is you're not shooting the general student body and making those photos available. You're shooting the athletes - something that usually requires a fee. If you went around campus taking photos of everything else and sports photos were a small sample of the photos being offered there would be no problem.
2. The reason I dont think its a big deal is because you're in the stands. It will become a big deal when the school grants you permission to shoot from the field. They are then endorsing the behavior.
3. Whether you charge or dont charge for photos taken with field access it's also a potential violation - as a family member got special benefits - field acess, not granted to the general public. And it's not an arrangement that pre-existed your son playing there (i.e. if you had been shooting for the last 10 years from the field it wouldn't be an issue).
4. On stealing livelihood of the contracted pro - it's unlikely the pros contract calls for him to be at every game. If not needed for newspaper, it doesn't make business sense to shoot every game for a team if you're shooting for print sales (i.e. if the school isn't paying him to be there - more than likely they are not). The reason is - you wouldn't make enough in print sales to justify presence at every game. Most people will simply by the best shots from what is available they don't need or care about shots from every game - just certain games. By giving away photos FROM FIELD ACCESS even if he is not there you undermine his work. IMO, from the stands is a little different. There it's more of a grey area. IMO it comes down to whether or not you ever sell your sports work. If you do sell other sports work, you're a 'pro'. And therefore should respect the working pro that sought out and got the contract. If you never sell any of your sports work in any way, then IMO you're a fan. If the pro on the field can't take better shots than the fan in the stands he's got major issues.
5. Ask yourself some hard questions. Is the important thing that you get to take photos of your son? Is the important thing that you get to practice sports photography? Or is the important thing that your ego gets stroked by providing shots to the team with you getting the credit?
6. I suspect part of your issues with the SID may stem from how you come accross. You made a statement here, partially in jest, but it sums up a perception issue that, at least for me is emerging in this thread:
"(BTW my job title in my JOB is Senior Managing Director -- there aren't too many people that I "assist" )."
That's why at least for me there is an impression this issue is to some extent about your ego. I dont say that to slam you in this thread. But, it may be what is also causing you difficulties working with the powers that be. It might not be how you are, but perception becomes reality. There is no quicker way to shut down dialog than to point out to people what a big deal you are. Whether it's comments like this or if you're talking down on the guy the school is currently using (especially if the SID chose that guy - no one likes their decisions questioned so if your comments come across like the guy made a bad hire, he'll resent it).
So, back to my point - you've got to figure out a way to make the admin think it's really about the kids and NOT about YOU if you want to make headway.
For what it's worth, the comments you are making here have turned me from a sympathetic person to very non sympathetic. While my sympathy or approval is meaningless I think my advice is not - how you communicate and others perceptions may be throwing up obstacles to your goal. Sometimes good photos aren't enough.
In another context - commenting on photos, this would not be relevant so I wouldn't comment on it. But, this is in the business forum - and personal interaction and how you come accross is paramount to success. So in the context of this being about an interpersonal issue between you and the school admin, I think it's relevant.
I dont post this in a mean spirited way. As a director I hope you can understand how constructive criticism should not be perceived as negative. My intent is not to slam you - only to point out an area that might be causing you an issue. I hope you can accept my comments in the spirit in which they were given.
1. Giving photos away to athletes. The reason this is potentially a violation is you're not shooting the general student body and making those photos available. You're shooting the athletes - something that usually requires a fee. If you went around campus taking photos of everything else and sports photos were a small sample of the photos being offered there would be no problem.
2. The reason I dont think its a big deal is because you're in the stands. It will become a big deal when the school grants you permission to shoot from the field. They are then endorsing the behavior.
3. Whether you charge or dont charge for photos taken with field access it's also a potential violation - as a family member got special benefits - field acess, not granted to the general public. And it's not an arrangement that pre-existed your son playing there (i.e. if you had been shooting for the last 10 years from the field it wouldn't be an issue).
4. On stealing livelihood of the contracted pro - it's unlikely the pros contract calls for him to be at every game. If not needed for newspaper, it doesn't make business sense to shoot every game for a team if you're shooting for print sales (i.e. if the school isn't paying him to be there - more than likely they are not). The reason is - you wouldn't make enough in print sales to justify presence at every game. Most people will simply by the best shots from what is available they don't need or care about shots from every game - just certain games. By giving away photos FROM FIELD ACCESS even if he is not there you undermine his work. IMO, from the stands is a little different. There it's more of a grey area. IMO it comes down to whether or not you ever sell your sports work. If you do sell other sports work, you're a 'pro'. And therefore should respect the working pro that sought out and got the contract. If you never sell any of your sports work in any way, then IMO you're a fan. If the pro on the field can't take better shots than the fan in the stands he's got major issues.
5. Ask yourself some hard questions. Is the important thing that you get to take photos of your son? Is the important thing that you get to practice sports photography? Or is the important thing that your ego gets stroked by providing shots to the team with you getting the credit?
6. I suspect part of your issues with the SID may stem from how you come accross. You made a statement here, partially in jest, but it sums up a perception issue that, at least for me is emerging in this thread:
"(BTW my job title in my JOB is Senior Managing Director -- there aren't too many people that I "assist" )."
That's why at least for me there is an impression this issue is to some extent about your ego. I dont say that to slam you in this thread. But, it may be what is also causing you difficulties working with the powers that be. It might not be how you are, but perception becomes reality. There is no quicker way to shut down dialog than to point out to people what a big deal you are. Whether it's comments like this or if you're talking down on the guy the school is currently using (especially if the SID chose that guy - no one likes their decisions questioned so if your comments come across like the guy made a bad hire, he'll resent it).
So, back to my point - you've got to figure out a way to make the admin think it's really about the kids and NOT about YOU if you want to make headway.
For what it's worth, the comments you are making here have turned me from a sympathetic person to very non sympathetic. While my sympathy or approval is meaningless I think my advice is not - how you communicate and others perceptions may be throwing up obstacles to your goal. Sometimes good photos aren't enough.
In another context - commenting on photos, this would not be relevant so I wouldn't comment on it. But, this is in the business forum - and personal interaction and how you come accross is paramount to success. So in the context of this being about an interpersonal issue between you and the school admin, I think it's relevant.
I dont post this in a mean spirited way. As a director I hope you can understand how constructive criticism should not be perceived as negative. My intent is not to slam you - only to point out an area that might be causing you an issue. I hope you can accept my comments in the spirit in which they were given.
For my own peace of mind, because it bothers me that some people have responded so negatively to me here, I would like to explain the evolution of all this. I got involved with photography in the first place for the sole purpose of shooting my son's college games, because I didn't think I could assume that anyone else would be doing it (I have been purchasing shots of my kids from other photogs for as long as they have played sports -- my walls are lined with such pics, and now that one of my kids has hit something of a "big time", I just wanted more). I never gave any thought to sideline access, websites, commercial image sales, nothing -- just wanted to shoot my kid's games, and primarily my kid only.
Well, it did evolve; I became deeply immersed in photography, and have had the happy opportunity to shoot all my kids teams in all seasons (along with numerous other subjects). That led to the website as a way of sharing photos with the kids and their families -- again, no commercialism involved at all (and of course sideline access is not an issue below the college level).
I never planned on asking for a sideline pass from the college; when the season started I didn't even know that one was required. All I ever did ask was whether the school would have any issue with my shooting the games -- no location specified. Next thing I knew I had replaced the father of an '07 grad as the unofficial team photographer, and was offered a credential. That's when I started to get sucked into weeks of bureaucracy, NCAA techno-speak and mounting frustration, and THAT's what led me here in search of a clever work-around, nothing more.
For me this is not about anything other than trying to contribute to this team, so perhaps one of my mistakes was posting in this particular sub-forum. But I don't think I am the one who shifted the topic to amateurs undermining pros' livelihoods; some of you have made valid points about that, and have presented a point of view that I had not considered -- it just wasn't on my mental radar screen. As I have said, I have no desire to undermine anyone's livelihood -- hey, I'm in finance, I know all about the need to defend one's livelihood.
I probably was the first person to step out of bounds in this thread, and I have apologized for that already, but I never called anybody an a-hole as has been done to me here. As for your post, I appreciate your taking the time to put it together but it is fraught with presumptions and accusations that are simply not accurate, and in one very large instance is based upon a remark that was clearly designated as a joke at the time I made it. To be perfectly clear about two of your points, (1) there are no interpersonal issues between me and anyone at that school; and (2) there is no ego involved in what I have been doing -- you and I have corresponded elsewhere, primarily in Sports, and as you perhaps recall, half the time I'm posting about what I did WRONG. I could care less about getting "credit" for providing the shots; the only reason why I was motivated to pursue field access -- after it was offered to me -- was to try to get the best shots possible, which as you know is generally not achievable from the stands.
It is worth saying this one more time: I apologize for my part in this thread turning ugly. Dgrin is a great forum, and its participants have helped get me up the learning curve much faster than I could have on my own. I thank all those who made constructive posts here, whether or not I agreed with the substance of them.
If you think that shooting a game that he does not shoot is not undermining his livelihood you are sadly mistaken.
I am really getting tired of seeing posts about giving photo's away for free. If you and the others that do this are doing it as a hobby than keep the photo's to yourself. I am not trying to be an A__ here, just trying to make a living and pay the bills. If I was the contracted Photographer you would never set foot on the field. And yes I have done that with a club I shoot for. They do not let anybody but me on the field even if I can not make a game. I pay for that right.
and I pretty much disagree with this.... I am glad you are a professional photographer. I hope you do well. But if someone sees me out shooting and would like a photo, i generally give it to them. Case in point, a local telephone company found out I had some stellar shots of a particular flower that grows in my area. They wanted one for the cover of the phonebook. Since this was a photo that I had in a file, had no intention of selling, and I am not a professional ( I am a botanist) ....why should I charge them? Sure this is not the same as shooting at a sport venue, however if I am in the stands taking photos and someone wants one...well give me your email. I do this purely for fun. I get joy when someone wants a photo. I do not do this for a living and if one out of the 15,000 or so shots I take per year (I take lots of photos for biology research purposes) makes someone smile, its no skin off of my butt to give it to them.
Now, this does not say that I do not understand and agree with the rules that the school in this case have expressed. They have a contract (?) with a photographer for the field. They are well within their right to restrict access. However, if some "Joe" in the stands is taking shots that are good enough that folks want them, and you are on the field and are not.... That says something about you the pro.... (general "you")
There is no offense intended by this, I have just ran into this with a couple of mediocre wildlife photographers that think that they are somehow special and want me to charge for photos to level the playing field. (I give a very small minority away for the record) I cannot help it that technology has increased to the level that it has which has allowed more access to the general public.
edited because: I spelt lyke a too year ole.....
“Tug at a single thing in nature, and you will find it connected to the universe.
[John Muir]
and I pretty much disagree with this.... I am glad you are a professional photographer. I hope you do well. But if someone sees me out shooting and would like a photo, i generally give it to them. Case in point, a local telephone company found out I had some stellar shots of a particular flower that grows in my area. They wanted one for the cover of the phonebook. Since this was a photo that I had in a file, had no intention of selling, and I am not a professional ( I am a botanist) ....why should I charge them? Sure this is not the same as shooting at a sport venue, however if I am in the stands taking photos and someone wants one...well give me your email. I do this purely for fun. I get joy when someone wants a photo. I do not do this for a living and if one out of the 15,000 or so shots I take per year (I take lots of photos for biology research purposes) makes someone smile, its no skin off of my butt to give it to them.
Now, this does not say that I do not understand and agree with the rules that the school in this case have expressed. They have a contract (?) with a photographer for the field. They are well within their right to restrict access. However, if some "Joe" in the stands is taking shots that are good enough that folks want them, and you are on the field and are not.... That says something about you the pro.... (general "you")
There is no offense intended by this, I have just ran into this with a couple of mediocre wildlife photographers that think that they are somehow special and want me to charge for photos to level the playing field. (I give a very small minority away for the record) I cannot help it that technology has increased to the level that it has which has allowed more access to the general public.
edited because: I spelt lyke a too year ole.....
Last time I checked this forum was named "Mind your Business" Not "Mind your Hobby". Until you are doing it for a business you will not agree with it.
Last time I checked this forum was named "Mind your Business" Not "Mind your Hobby". Until you are doing it for a business you will not agree with it.
Ya know, I considered that before I posted the comment. However I do come to Dgrin to learn, and this particular page is part of that learning experience. Even though I am not out to make money, I still copyright my photos and if printed publicly want to be credited. Whether or not you want to admit it, as a business man, it would seem that you would want input from a hobbyist from time to time. Otherwise you are merely discussing this with purely like minded people with out the interjection of contrary views.
As to your particular comment, doing this as a hobby is due to the business considerations of photography. Considering that I spend thousands of hours in areas many people do not, I thought about making photography a side business. In the end I decided against it for a few reasons:
1. photography is easy to get into. Tons of really nice cameras out there clicking away. You no longer have to have the skill to develop your images, its all electrons. lots of competition.
2. Unless you are doing studio work or weddings, the cost / benefit analysis is such that I would be chasing my tail trying to make a profit.
3. I want photography to stay fun. I do not want to worry about the fellow next to me shooting away cutting into my thin margins.
There are more, however these were the big three. I have owned businesses in the past. Some successful, some not so much. What I do know is that at times business models change. Photography has changed. My main beef with the first post was that it was implying that "hobbyist" (who often times have as much if not more invested in gear) are cutting into someone's profits. Maybe so, but considering the pricing that some folks toss around when looking to sell an image to friends, I don't think it is the hobbyist that is the problem.
My 2 cents.
Andrew
p.s. If I don;t get back to this, it is because my wife is about to go into labor....
“Tug at a single thing in nature, and you will find it connected to the universe.
[John Muir]
If you think that shooting a game that he does not shoot is not undermining his livelihood you are sadly mistaken.
I am really getting tired of seeing posts about giving photo's away for free. If you and the others that do this are doing it as a hobby than keep the photo's to yourself. I am not trying to be an A__ here, just trying to make a living and pay the bills. If I was the contracted Photographer you would never set foot on the field. And yes I have done that with a club I shoot for. They do not let anybody but me on the field even if I can not make a game. I pay for that right.
I've been thinking about the whole "undermining the livelihood" argument the past few days, and came to the conclusion tonight that it doesn't hold water, assuming everyone is honoring the terms of any contracts or agreements. The hobbyist photographer is competition, plain and simple. Each of you has certain advantages and disadvantages, and if the professional can't successfully compete by maximizing on his advantages then the professional needs to take a look at how he is doing business, or his overall business model. Industries change over time, and it may be that there is no longer a place for his particular business model anymore.
To expand on this, does the owner of a auto repair garage get offended by the guy who works on his friend's and family's cars on the weekend? Or does he recognize that while he can't compete with the guy's cheap (possibly free) labor rate, he provides more value for the customer that chooses him. He (hopefully) has more experience, a better parts supply chain, hours that are more convenient for his customers, better equipment etc. He offers a warranty on his work, he has insurance etc. Some of these things are part of the reason that he charges more to do the same job, and the customer that wants these things places value on them.
As a professional photographer you have to make a decisions about how to effectively compete with the amateurs that are out there shooting. What does that mean? It means that you need to evaluate things like having an exclusive contract, and having a means for enforcement in place. As with all things there is a trade off here, some organizations may not be willing to sign a contract that gives you exclusive rights to photograph, you then have to decide how much that clause in your contract is worth to you, if it is a deal breaker or not. As the professional are you able to sell yourself on your consistent availability? The amateur may not be able to make it to every game, can you get the contract by guaranteeing you will be at every game? Can the hobbyist turn the photographs around as fast as you, can you market yourself with a promise that you will have the pictures posted within 12 hours of the conclusion of the game? 24 hours? All of these things cost the professional something, the question they have to ask themselves is if the cost is worth the benefits.
There are also certain disadvantages that the hobbyist has that the pro can try to exploit in order to compete. First off the hobbyist can not claim a deduction of income for expenses, greater than their income for hobby related activities when they do their taxes. The full time pro can do so, so they should be able to invest in more equipment. The hobbyist does not have business insurance, and there are many places that won't enter into a contract unless you can prove that you are properly insured, so that they have protection against a loss if you cause damage or injury while under contract with them. The professional may just need to adapt their way of doing business so that they have exclusive rights when they enter into a contract, so that they can be assured proper compensation for expenses like insurance.
The hobbyist also has certain advantages, and depending on those advantages, it may not be worth the professional's effort to try and compete with him. One of the biggest is that in many cases the hobbyist views his time shooting as having a very low "opportunity cost" if he is going to be at the game anyway. The professional on the other hand has to evaluate all of the other things he could be doing rather than being at that particular game, and it may be that if he doesn't have an exclusive contract it isn't worth it for him to be photographing the game.
This brings me to my "disclaimer" from above, namely "assuming everyone is honoring the terms of any contracts or agreements". In my opinion if there is a contract that gives a professional exclusive rights, they are justified in taking what ever action their contract allows in order to keep their exclusivity. If the venue tickets state no photography, or photography for personal use only, they are justified at having the venue pursue action against anyone trying to sell photographs. The hobbyist may not like it, but if that is the case than he needs to try and compete for the same contract next year, and see what the venue etc. have to say about it. Or he needs to threaten to take his ticket money/playing child/whatever else he brings to the organization somewhere else. If the value of his ticket money etc. is more than the value of the exclusive contract to the venue, then they may not be willing to enter into an exclusive contract. Competition is a two way street, and if the professional has done the leg work to get an exclusive contract they are justified in taking what ever action their contract and the law allow. If they haven't done the work to make a legally enforceable contract that is just poor business practices, and whether you are in photography or in mortgage banking making sub-prime loans, when you make poor decisions you have to accept the consequences.
As fellow dgrinner bham points out in his signature: "A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonald's for $1, from Chili's for $5, or from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonald's price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." I'll expand on that slightly and say that while a hobbyist chef could sell a Ruth's Chris burger for $1, it would be a money loosing venture, and while there might be a few chef's out there that would do it for the love of cooking, the professional chef in it to make money can certainly find somewhere else to build his restaurant that allows him to charges prices that allow him to make a profit, assuming a competitive product. In the same way, if as a professional you find that a particular venue, sport, team, etc. has a hobbyist photographer that is undercutting you, it is time to look for greener pastures. Most venues, sports, teams, etc. aren't going to have a hobbyist photographer that is willing to take an ever increasing loss, just for the joy of taking photographs, some will, and you have to either create contracts to mitigate their impact on your business, or choose to invest your time in other venues etc..
Comments
This whole thread is about field access.
Its about field access, but more importantly its about trying to getting access and also stay within the NCAA rules. If you get access but will then be breaking the rules, then its hurts the school and access will be revoked.
My point of the part you quoted was that any fan, parent, person, etc could shoot from the stands and sell at a fair price and since their isn't a free or reduced cost service no NCAA violation would occur. By him shooting from the stands but giving away the service and the photos he is violating NCAA rules currently.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
I dont mean come off badly, Its just I run into this all the time but from the other side of the fence
All the best
Chris
www.longislandimage.smugmug.com[/QUOTE]
I have offered to limit my on-field shooting to events where the contract guy has elected not to shoot. i am not interested in undermining his livelihood.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
You are violating this rule. Not because the world has free access to the photos, its because you don't offer to shoot any photos of anybody for free. Hey if you want to continue to violate the rule thats your business. But I wouldn't think you would want the school to get in trouble.
It doesn't piss me off at all. I think the rules are kinda overkill, but I don't have a say. I am just trying to show and explain the rules as I understand from knowing people in athletics admin, athletics compliance, etc.
And you are defined as an athletics representative if you have ever purchased a ticket to a game. They have made the term so broad to cover some people that were claiming that were not "supporters of the program" in the past, and got around some rules.
16.11.2.2.1 Free or Reduced-Cost Services.
An athletics representative may not provide a student-athlete with professional services (for which a fee normally would be charged) without charge or at a reduced cost except as permitted elsewhere in this bylaw. Professional services provided at less than the normal rate or at no expense to a student-athlete are considered an extra benefit unless they are available on the same basis to the general student body.
Your right the NCAA has no power over you. But they can and do punish schools for violations done by individuals and leave them (the school) to enforce policies so that individuals don't violate their rules.
What you are doing is equivalent (in the NCAA's mind) to a restaurant cooking meals and giving them to athletes for free. Or even a parent doing this regularly.
I have previously thought you a credible poster on this forum, but you are not credible here.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
Yes the NCAA rule book can be a big incomprehensible mush.
I never said you had no right, but since you are doing everything for free, it can be and has been explained to me, that this is a violation of NCAA rules.
Yes it is irrelevant to the original post but it came from subsequent discussion, as access is related to rules and thus the discussion of rules.
You have a right to that opinion.
I get the feeling that you think I have a negative attitude towards you, or what you are doing. That is the farthest from the truth. In actuality I used to do exactly what you did for other sports. But once someone explained to me what I was doing could jeopardize my alma mater, I changed my behavior. I simply quoted the rules to show that I wasn't making stuff up.
I also gave you some ideas on how to gain access and to work with the athletic department. This is still your best bet to gain better access, which was your initial goal.
Some schools thinks it a violation to even sell images of their athletes while they are still in school. It goes back to some school not wanting to risk a possible violation of NCAA rules. The rules aren't truely clear about that and I think the NCAA likes some abiguity so they can punish schools when they want to.
I currently know of some schools that have agreements with photographers to sell game photos of college games (University of Alabama). Well Southern Miss found out that images with their student athletes were being sold (from a football game and a baseball game) and now Southern Miss is pissed at Alabama for it and there is a back in forth between their athletic departments and attorneys.
I am far from an expert, but even some of the experts disagree. I have found that the NCAA rules are like tax laws. Some people or schools will push them to the limit, while others play it safe.
I'm not (yet) commenting either way, but you are coming across here as highly confrontational and I don't like it as far as this discussion or Dgrin in general.
I do like this thread, and the way it started. Let's keep it going, but non-confrontationally.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I am really getting tired of seeing posts about giving photo's away for free. If you and the others that do this are doing it as a hobby than keep the photo's to yourself. I am not trying to be an A__ here, just trying to make a living and pay the bills. If I was the contracted Photographer you would never set foot on the field. And yes I have done that with a club I shoot for. They do not let anybody but me on the field even if I can not make a game. I pay for that right.
Nikon D4, Nikon D3, Nikon D3
Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4
Nikon 300 f2.8 VR, Nikon 200-400 f4.0 VR II, Nikon 600 f4.0 II, TC-1.4, TC 1.7, TC 2.0
(1) SB-800, (2) SB-900, (4) Multi Max Pocket Wizards
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
1. Giving photos away to athletes. The reason this is potentially a violation is you're not shooting the general student body and making those photos available. You're shooting the athletes - something that usually requires a fee. If you went around campus taking photos of everything else and sports photos were a small sample of the photos being offered there would be no problem.
2. The reason I dont think its a big deal is because you're in the stands. It will become a big deal when the school grants you permission to shoot from the field. They are then endorsing the behavior.
3. Whether you charge or dont charge for photos taken with field access it's also a potential violation - as a family member got special benefits - field acess, not granted to the general public. And it's not an arrangement that pre-existed your son playing there (i.e. if you had been shooting for the last 10 years from the field it wouldn't be an issue).
4. On stealing livelihood of the contracted pro - it's unlikely the pros contract calls for him to be at every game. If not needed for newspaper, it doesn't make business sense to shoot every game for a team if you're shooting for print sales (i.e. if the school isn't paying him to be there - more than likely they are not). The reason is - you wouldn't make enough in print sales to justify presence at every game. Most people will simply by the best shots from what is available they don't need or care about shots from every game - just certain games. By giving away photos FROM FIELD ACCESS even if he is not there you undermine his work. IMO, from the stands is a little different. There it's more of a grey area. IMO it comes down to whether or not you ever sell your sports work. If you do sell other sports work, you're a 'pro'. And therefore should respect the working pro that sought out and got the contract. If you never sell any of your sports work in any way, then IMO you're a fan. If the pro on the field can't take better shots than the fan in the stands he's got major issues.
5. Ask yourself some hard questions. Is the important thing that you get to take photos of your son? Is the important thing that you get to practice sports photography? Or is the important thing that your ego gets stroked by providing shots to the team with you getting the credit?
6. I suspect part of your issues with the SID may stem from how you come accross. You made a statement here, partially in jest, but it sums up a perception issue that, at least for me is emerging in this thread:
"(BTW my job title in my JOB is Senior Managing Director -- there aren't too many people that I "assist"
That's why at least for me there is an impression this issue is to some extent about your ego. I dont say that to slam you in this thread. But, it may be what is also causing you difficulties working with the powers that be. It might not be how you are, but perception becomes reality. There is no quicker way to shut down dialog than to point out to people what a big deal you are. Whether it's comments like this or if you're talking down on the guy the school is currently using (especially if the SID chose that guy - no one likes their decisions questioned so if your comments come across like the guy made a bad hire, he'll resent it).
So, back to my point - you've got to figure out a way to make the admin think it's really about the kids and NOT about YOU if you want to make headway.
For what it's worth, the comments you are making here have turned me from a sympathetic person to very non sympathetic. While my sympathy or approval is meaningless I think my advice is not - how you communicate and others perceptions may be throwing up obstacles to your goal. Sometimes good photos aren't enough.
In another context - commenting on photos, this would not be relevant so I wouldn't comment on it. But, this is in the business forum - and personal interaction and how you come accross is paramount to success. So in the context of this being about an interpersonal issue between you and the school admin, I think it's relevant.
I dont post this in a mean spirited way. As a director I hope you can understand how constructive criticism should not be perceived as negative. My intent is not to slam you - only to point out an area that might be causing you an issue. I hope you can accept my comments in the spirit in which they were given.
Well, it did evolve; I became deeply immersed in photography, and have had the happy opportunity to shoot all my kids teams in all seasons (along with numerous other subjects). That led to the website as a way of sharing photos with the kids and their families -- again, no commercialism involved at all (and of course sideline access is not an issue below the college level).
I never planned on asking for a sideline pass from the college; when the season started I didn't even know that one was required. All I ever did ask was whether the school would have any issue with my shooting the games -- no location specified. Next thing I knew I had replaced the father of an '07 grad as the unofficial team photographer, and was offered a credential. That's when I started to get sucked into weeks of bureaucracy, NCAA techno-speak and mounting frustration, and THAT's what led me here in search of a clever work-around, nothing more.
For me this is not about anything other than trying to contribute to this team, so perhaps one of my mistakes was posting in this particular sub-forum. But I don't think I am the one who shifted the topic to amateurs undermining pros' livelihoods; some of you have made valid points about that, and have presented a point of view that I had not considered -- it just wasn't on my mental radar screen. As I have said, I have no desire to undermine anyone's livelihood -- hey, I'm in finance, I know all about the need to defend one's livelihood.
I probably was the first person to step out of bounds in this thread, and I have apologized for that already, but I never called anybody an a-hole as has been done to me here. As for your post, I appreciate your taking the time to put it together but it is fraught with presumptions and accusations that are simply not accurate, and in one very large instance is based upon a remark that was clearly designated as a joke at the time I made it. To be perfectly clear about two of your points, (1) there are no interpersonal issues between me and anyone at that school; and (2) there is no ego involved in what I have been doing -- you and I have corresponded elsewhere, primarily in Sports, and as you perhaps recall, half the time I'm posting about what I did WRONG. I could care less about getting "credit" for providing the shots; the only reason why I was motivated to pursue field access -- after it was offered to me -- was to try to get the best shots possible, which as you know is generally not achievable from the stands.
It is worth saying this one more time: I apologize for my part in this thread turning ugly. Dgrin is a great forum, and its participants have helped get me up the learning curve much faster than I could have on my own. I thank all those who made constructive posts here, whether or not I agreed with the substance of them.
__________________
www.browngreensports.com
http://browngreensports.smugmug.com
and I pretty much disagree with this.... I am glad you are a professional photographer. I hope you do well. But if someone sees me out shooting and would like a photo, i generally give it to them. Case in point, a local telephone company found out I had some stellar shots of a particular flower that grows in my area. They wanted one for the cover of the phonebook. Since this was a photo that I had in a file, had no intention of selling, and I am not a professional ( I am a botanist) ....why should I charge them? Sure this is not the same as shooting at a sport venue, however if I am in the stands taking photos and someone wants one...well give me your email. I do this purely for fun. I get joy when someone wants a photo. I do not do this for a living and if one out of the 15,000 or so shots I take per year (I take lots of photos for biology research purposes) makes someone smile, its no skin off of my butt to give it to them.
Now, this does not say that I do not understand and agree with the rules that the school in this case have expressed. They have a contract (?) with a photographer for the field. They are well within their right to restrict access. However, if some "Joe" in the stands is taking shots that are good enough that folks want them, and you are on the field and are not.... That says something about you the pro.... (general "you")
There is no offense intended by this, I have just ran into this with a couple of mediocre wildlife photographers that think that they are somehow special and want me to charge for photos to level the playing field. (I give a very small minority away for the record) I cannot help it that technology has increased to the level that it has which has allowed more access to the general public.
edited because: I spelt lyke a too year ole.....
[John Muir]
Nikon D4, Nikon D3, Nikon D3
Nikon 14-24 f2.8, Nikon 24-70 f2.8, Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.4
Nikon 300 f2.8 VR, Nikon 200-400 f4.0 VR II, Nikon 600 f4.0 II, TC-1.4, TC 1.7, TC 2.0
(1) SB-800, (2) SB-900, (4) Multi Max Pocket Wizards
Ya know, I considered that before I posted the comment. However I do come to Dgrin to learn, and this particular page is part of that learning experience. Even though I am not out to make money, I still copyright my photos and if printed publicly want to be credited. Whether or not you want to admit it, as a business man, it would seem that you would want input from a hobbyist from time to time. Otherwise you are merely discussing this with purely like minded people with out the interjection of contrary views.
As to your particular comment, doing this as a hobby is due to the business considerations of photography. Considering that I spend thousands of hours in areas many people do not, I thought about making photography a side business. In the end I decided against it for a few reasons:
1. photography is easy to get into. Tons of really nice cameras out there clicking away. You no longer have to have the skill to develop your images, its all electrons. lots of competition.
2. Unless you are doing studio work or weddings, the cost / benefit analysis is such that I would be chasing my tail trying to make a profit.
3. I want photography to stay fun. I do not want to worry about the fellow next to me shooting away cutting into my thin margins.
There are more, however these were the big three. I have owned businesses in the past. Some successful, some not so much. What I do know is that at times business models change. Photography has changed. My main beef with the first post was that it was implying that "hobbyist" (who often times have as much if not more invested in gear) are cutting into someone's profits. Maybe so, but considering the pricing that some folks toss around when looking to sell an image to friends, I don't think it is the hobbyist that is the problem.
My 2 cents.
Andrew
p.s. If I don;t get back to this, it is because my wife is about to go into labor....
[John Muir]
I've been thinking about the whole "undermining the livelihood" argument the past few days, and came to the conclusion tonight that it doesn't hold water, assuming everyone is honoring the terms of any contracts or agreements. The hobbyist photographer is competition, plain and simple. Each of you has certain advantages and disadvantages, and if the professional can't successfully compete by maximizing on his advantages then the professional needs to take a look at how he is doing business, or his overall business model. Industries change over time, and it may be that there is no longer a place for his particular business model anymore.
To expand on this, does the owner of a auto repair garage get offended by the guy who works on his friend's and family's cars on the weekend? Or does he recognize that while he can't compete with the guy's cheap (possibly free) labor rate, he provides more value for the customer that chooses him. He (hopefully) has more experience, a better parts supply chain, hours that are more convenient for his customers, better equipment etc. He offers a warranty on his work, he has insurance etc. Some of these things are part of the reason that he charges more to do the same job, and the customer that wants these things places value on them.
As a professional photographer you have to make a decisions about how to effectively compete with the amateurs that are out there shooting. What does that mean? It means that you need to evaluate things like having an exclusive contract, and having a means for enforcement in place. As with all things there is a trade off here, some organizations may not be willing to sign a contract that gives you exclusive rights to photograph, you then have to decide how much that clause in your contract is worth to you, if it is a deal breaker or not. As the professional are you able to sell yourself on your consistent availability? The amateur may not be able to make it to every game, can you get the contract by guaranteeing you will be at every game? Can the hobbyist turn the photographs around as fast as you, can you market yourself with a promise that you will have the pictures posted within 12 hours of the conclusion of the game? 24 hours? All of these things cost the professional something, the question they have to ask themselves is if the cost is worth the benefits.
There are also certain disadvantages that the hobbyist has that the pro can try to exploit in order to compete. First off the hobbyist can not claim a deduction of income for expenses, greater than their income for hobby related activities when they do their taxes. The full time pro can do so, so they should be able to invest in more equipment. The hobbyist does not have business insurance, and there are many places that won't enter into a contract unless you can prove that you are properly insured, so that they have protection against a loss if you cause damage or injury while under contract with them. The professional may just need to adapt their way of doing business so that they have exclusive rights when they enter into a contract, so that they can be assured proper compensation for expenses like insurance.
The hobbyist also has certain advantages, and depending on those advantages, it may not be worth the professional's effort to try and compete with him. One of the biggest is that in many cases the hobbyist views his time shooting as having a very low "opportunity cost" if he is going to be at the game anyway. The professional on the other hand has to evaluate all of the other things he could be doing rather than being at that particular game, and it may be that if he doesn't have an exclusive contract it isn't worth it for him to be photographing the game.
This brings me to my "disclaimer" from above, namely "assuming everyone is honoring the terms of any contracts or agreements". In my opinion if there is a contract that gives a professional exclusive rights, they are justified in taking what ever action their contract allows in order to keep their exclusivity. If the venue tickets state no photography, or photography for personal use only, they are justified at having the venue pursue action against anyone trying to sell photographs. The hobbyist may not like it, but if that is the case than he needs to try and compete for the same contract next year, and see what the venue etc. have to say about it. Or he needs to threaten to take his ticket money/playing child/whatever else he brings to the organization somewhere else. If the value of his ticket money etc. is more than the value of the exclusive contract to the venue, then they may not be willing to enter into an exclusive contract. Competition is a two way street, and if the professional has done the leg work to get an exclusive contract they are justified in taking what ever action their contract and the law allow. If they haven't done the work to make a legally enforceable contract that is just poor business practices, and whether you are in photography or in mortgage banking making sub-prime loans, when you make poor decisions you have to accept the consequences.
As fellow dgrinner bham points out in his signature: "A photo is like a hamburger. You can get one from McDonald's for $1, from Chili's for $5, or from Ruth's Chris for $15. You usually get what you pay for, but don't expect a Ruth's Chris burger at a McDonald's price, if you want that, go cook it yourself." I'll expand on that slightly and say that while a hobbyist chef could sell a Ruth's Chris burger for $1, it would be a money loosing venture, and while there might be a few chef's out there that would do it for the love of cooking, the professional chef in it to make money can certainly find somewhere else to build his restaurant that allows him to charges prices that allow him to make a profit, assuming a competitive product. In the same way, if as a professional you find that a particular venue, sport, team, etc. has a hobbyist photographer that is undercutting you, it is time to look for greener pastures. Most venues, sports, teams, etc. aren't going to have a hobbyist photographer that is willing to take an ever increasing loss, just for the joy of taking photographs, some will, and you have to either create contracts to mitigate their impact on your business, or choose to invest your time in other venues etc..