legal risk in photographing sport events?

Freestater

I have recently photographed a swim meet as an unattached freelance photographer. The swim meet is run by Team A. My daughter swims as a member of Team B. The meet hosted its own Team A members as well as swimmers from Teams B, C, D, E, F and G.

I put the photos of Team A's swim meet up on smugmug for purchase and announced their availability to all teams and their swimmer families.

This morning a parent and board member of my daughter's team, team B, which is only a participant in the meet and not an owner team or sponsor team, told me that she believed I was violating a law by making images of children available on the internet without signed parental consent.

I informed her it is not my intent to violate any law, and that I would seek advice.

In that particular photo, my daughter is also pictured. Certainly I have given consent for her image being displayed. The objecting parent's child was in the lane next to my child's.

In other photos my daughter was not in the same heat with her daughter when I took a picture of the 9 competing swimmers.

The objecting board member was not objecting to my having taken the photos, once I argued that it was a publicly owned facilty, open to the public with no entrance screening and all parents able to take photos, and that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. She said she was not objecting to the photography and its display, but specifically to the use of the internet for display.

Since that objection, I've password protected (code = 1111) photos from that meet (2008.04.12, 13. Excel Spring Fling and excecpt for this email have not revealed that password to anyone. But password protection defeats my purpose in sharing the photos.

Must I obtain a signed release from the swimmer from Teams A, C, D, E, F, G, and the others from team B who are not my relatives before I can use Smugmug to process and display my images without password protection and signed releases (350 or more participants)?

chuckinsocal

I don't have any specific knowlege of the issue, but I would put the burden back on her and have her do the research and cite you the specific code section, as in "US Code Section 1234 sub section 456 paragraph 4 specifically states blah blah blah", and until she can do that, and you can verify it, you don't believe it is against the law.

At this point you can just ask for her help. Tell her you've looked and looked and can't find the law she is talking about and would she please direct you to it. This is a less adversarial approach to the situation and she would feel like she is part of resolution of the issue.

I would bet that the whole issue would just evaporate at that point.

Just my $.02.

Chuck Cannova
www.customrideportraits.com

sportsshooter06

Freestater wrote:

I have recently photographed a swim meet as an unattached freelance photographer. The swim meet is run by Team A. My daughter swims as a member of Team B. The meet hosted its own Team A members as well as swimmers from Teams B, C, D, E, F and G.

I put the photos of Team A's swim meet up on smugmug for purchase and announced their availability to all teams and their swimmer families.

This morning a parent and board member of my daughter's team, team B, which is only a participant in the meet and not an owner team or sponsor team, told me that she believed I was violating a law by making images of children available on the internet without signed parental consent.

I informed her it is not my intent to violate any law, and that I would seek advice.

In that particular photo, my daughter is also pictured. Certainly I have given consent for her image being displayed. The objecting parent's child was in the lane next to my child's.

In other photos my daughter was not in the same heat with her daughter when I took a picture of the 9 competing swimmers.

The objecting board member was not objecting to my having taken the photos, once I argued that it was a publicly owned facilty, open to the public with no entrance screening and all parents able to take photos, and that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. She said she was not objecting to the photography and its display, but specifically to the use of the internet for display.

Since that objection, I've password protected (code = 1111) photos from that meet (2008.04.12, 13. Excel Spring Fling and excecpt for this email have not revealed that password to anyone. But password protection defeats my purpose in sharing the photos.

Must I obtain a signed release from the swimmer from Teams A, C, D, E, F, G, and the others from team B who are not my relatives before I can use Smugmug to process and display my images without password protection and signed releases (350 or more participants)?

I am not taking sides here, first I think, you are being slightly unprofessional, what exactly is unattached freelance photographer, you were a parent taking pictures, you saw an oppurtunity to try and sell some of those pictures, so you posted to an internet photo hosting website. You took the photos for commercial reasons, commercial since you have posted them and are trying to sell them. If you were upfront and went to the organizers of the swim meet and told them of your intentions, they may have not allowed you to do the shoot. Now you have a parent objecting to you posting on the internet, is this person objecting to your posting on the internet ,or are they objecting to your selling the photos?

I do not think you can identify the children, since you are trying to sell the photos, you may very well need a release.

DrDavid

sportsshooter06 wrote:

You took the photos for commercial reasons, commercial since you have posted them and are trying to sell them. If you were upfront and went to the organizers of the swim meet and told them of your intentions, they may have not allowed you to do the shoot. Now you have a parent objecting to you posting on the internet, is this person objecting to your posting on the internet

Sorry, you're dead wrong. It's not commercial use.

The law is clear. It is a public event, no expectation of privacy. Posting photos online (public display) is no problem. The event was public, why can't the photos be? Obviously this isn't an issue. Now, the fun part... Selling. You're displaying the photos to sell them. This is NOT commercial use. Newspapers display photos too (and sell them), again, this isn't commercial use.

There's a great primer on this at: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

But, let me bottom line it for you. You are doing NOTHING wrong. The 1st Amendment protects you.

David

gdp

This is (besides some adversarial tones) a -great- thread, and something I have often wondered about...

Good link, David. The summary http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#9 actually uses the example of taking photos at a public sporting event and selling the pictures back to the parents as an example of NOT needing a release. It seems that the only use this photog would need a release for is in selling to a stock agency, or other similar commercial licensing applications.

David, do you have some other resources you could point me to regarding model releases? For example, my understanding has been that I could use photos that I took of private client sessions in promoting my own business (read: gallery photos on my website) without a release, but that isn't addressed in this article...

Gregg Hall

gdp wrote:

David, do you have some other resources you could point me to regarding model releases? For example, my understanding has been that I could use photos that I took of private client sessions in promoting my own business (read: gallery photos on my website) without a release, but that isn't addressed in this article...

I think that this is sort of a gray area, and belive most people just put it as part of the contract that they can use the photos as part of their portfolio. But as always, I could be wrong.

nipprdog

My .02 on these threads;

IMHO, it's not a question of whether 'we can or can't'.

It's how WE should conduct our business.

I only shoot in leagues where I have their approval, and their support. I don't care whether or not I need it to shoot.

Also, all of my youth galleries are password protected. Again, I don't care if I have to, or not. Parents like private galleries.

I wouldn't do business any other way.

Not directing this at any one in particular, but shooters who simply show up, shoot at will, post on the net publicly, and when they get questioned on it, cry "public domain, 1st amendment,etc", can make us all look bad in the long run.

Again, it's not a question of legality, its a case of courtesy, and professionalism.

Again, IMHO.

LUCKYSHOT

nipprdog wrote:

My .02 on these threads;

IMHO, it's not a question of whether 'we can or can't'.

It's how WE should conduct our business.

I only shoot in leagues where I have their approval, and their support. I don't care whether or not I need it to shoot.

Also, all of my youth galleries are password protected. Again, I don't care if I have to, or not. Parents like private galleries.

I wouldn't do business any other way.

Not directing this at any one in particular, but shooters who simply show up, shoot at will, post on the net publicly, and when they get questioned on it, cry "public domain, 1st amendment,etc", can make us all look bad in the long run.

Again, it's not a question of legality, its a case of courtesy, and professionalism.

Again, IMHO.

I have to agree with Jim all 3 times. If your daughter is a swimmer and you expect to shoot in the future, it really would be in everyones best interest if you worked out something with the event organizers. Let them know you want to shoot and that the galleries are password protected and you will remove any photo that a parent wants removed.. To take an adverserial aproach with a board member is not good business. You can have all the rights in the world, but if you butt heads with these people they have every right to not accomadate you at all. A little grease goes a long way.

Freestater

Thanks for the response... not all of the facts are in

sportsshooter06 wrote:

I am not taking sides here, first I think, you are being slightly unprofessional, what exactly is unattached freelance photographer, you were a parent taking pictures, you saw an oppurtunity to try and sell some of those pictures, so you posted to an internet photo hosting website. You took the photos for commercial reasons, commercial since you have posted them and are trying to sell them. If you were upfront and went to the organizers of the swim meet and told them of your intentions, they may have not allowed you to do the shoot. Now you have a parent objecting to you posting on the internet, is this person objecting to your posting on the internet ,or are they objecting to your selling the photos?

I do not think you can identify the children, since you are trying to sell the photos, you may very well need a release.

Since I don't remember well, I'll respond to the closest first. I do thank you for responding.

I didn't identify the chidlren. I don't know thier names or ages, they identify themselves through their swim caps, or by congregating around one coach but not another. But, I don't identify anyone. In most cases (8 out of 9) the "bulls eye" of the focus was on another unidentified swimmer who may or may not have been my daughter. But in post shoot production, I could "harvest" the 3 or 4 swimmers closest to my daughter. Of course I release my daughter to be in my photos... but can't the others whom I don't know or know which clubs they belong to. Other dads and moms are shooting away with their digitals getting their children, and including my child in their frame. They also post their pictures to a commercial internet website: walgreens or such, and my daughter is in who knows how many pictures.

You asked, "are the parents objecting to the photos appearing on the internet or are they objecting to your selling the photos"

Great question. The parents said their sons were embarrassed by having unknown people seeing them in speedos.

My question centers on the literally hundreds of others taking the same shot with the same result of capturing thier focus plus 7 or 8 other swimmers and showing them somewhere to someone.

Again, thanks.

Freestater

chuckinsocal wrote:

I don't have any specific knowlege of the issue, but I would put the burden back on her and have her do the research and cite you the specific code section, as in "US Code Section 1234 sub section 456 paragraph 4 specifically states blah blah blah", and until she can do that, and you can verify it, you don't believe it is against the law.

At this point you can just ask for her help. Tell her you've looked and looked and can't find the law she is talking about and would she please direct you to it. This is a less adversarial approach to the situation and she would feel like she is part of resolution of the issue.

I would bet that the whole issue would just evaporate at that point.

Just my $.02.

Major, that was $.04! Thanks.

I was frankly startled by the lady's response. I had read all of the NPPA stuff on photographing, and I know that if I took a photo of anyone to use in a magazine or newspaper, I'd have to have a signed model release, or in the case of a minor a parental release. The lady explained to me that when the club hires a photographer, they obtain such releases, but then, they are intending to use their photos in publications and publicity. But I'm not using them that way.

I told her that I took the photos and made them available because I spent years coaching my oldest children and no one took photos for me. Now, I have an 8 year old, I photograph her, and as I do that I include others, and share them. I charge my cost + %0.75 which I split, keep half and donate the other half in that swimmer's name to the club.

She said she would convey that to the club board and "get back to me"

I'm simply doing some pre-getback work in preparation.

ooops, I see I stepped on your signature.

Phil Blansett
Parent

Chuck Cannova
www.customrideportraits.com

Sorry about stepping on your signature... I tried moving my message and failed.

Freestater

DrDavid wrote:

Sorry, you're dead wrong. It's not commercial use.

The law is clear. It is a public event, no expectation of privacy. Posting photos online (public display) is no problem. The event was public, why can't the photos be? Obviously this isn't an issue. Now, the fun part... Selling. You're displaying the photos to sell them. This is NOT commercial use. Newspapers display photos too (and sell them), again, this isn't commercial use.

There's a great primer on this at: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

But, let me bottom line it for you. You are doing NOTHING wrong. The 1st Amendment protects you.

David

Thanks, David. I appreciate your primer. I'm on the way to http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Phil Blansett aka Freestater

Freestater

LUCKYSHOT wrote:

I have to agree with Jim all 3 times. If your daughter is a swimmer and you expect to shoot in the future, it really would be in everyones best interest if you worked out something with the event organizers. Let them know you want to shoot and that the galleries are password protected and you will remove any photo that a parent wants removed.. To take an adverserial aproach with a board member is not good business. You can have all the rights in the world, but if you butt heads with these people they have every right to not accomadate you at all. A little grease goes a long way.

I really appreciate everyone's input. Everyone so far has been spot on as far as I'm concerned. My approach has been conciliatory. I had been shooting the events for two years, but my photos had not made it into the hands of these parents. Now that my daughter has changed clubs, I've invited this new group of parents and swimmers to see the photos.

I told the lady, who is also a board member, and who is a lawyer, that I don't argue with lawyers. I politely stated my case regarding 1st ammendment and expectation of privacy, and my purpose for taking the photos being primarily for me to archive my daughter's events, and it gets me near the action, where I used to be when I coached, but from which era I have no photos of my own children.

One of her (and the board, and some indignant parents) greatest concerns was how I was able to get the email addresses of the entire club. I told her I had just pressed [reply] and outlook did the rest.

Another concern of the board was the impact of unknown people seeing the swimmers in racing suits.

I told her that password protection would help, but not eliminate it. For instance, I could password protect the site, as I immediately did, but I couldn't provide unique passwords for each photographed family that would keep other competitors in the same heat out.

She took my information and said she would speak with the board.

Again, thanks, and the practicality of the advice is appreciated.

Phil Blansett

DrDavid

Freestater wrote:

Another concern of the board was the impact of unknown people seeing the swimmers in racing suits.

I told her that password protection would help, but not eliminate it. For instance, I could password protect the site, as I immediately did, but I couldn't provide unique passwords for each photographed family that would keep other competitors in the same heat out.

First mistake: password protecting the galleries. Public event, public galleries.

Second mistake: Arguing with a stupid lawyer that doesn't know the law.

Third mistake: Forgetting that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Swimming in public is the same as any other public activity. There is NO expactation of privacy.

David

Gregg Hall

DrDavid wrote:

First mistake: password protecting the galleries. Public event, public galleries.

Second mistake: Arguing with a stupid lawyer that doesn't know the law.

Third mistake: Forgetting that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Swimming in public is the same as any other public activity. There is NO expactation of privacy.

David

First Mistake.

Assuming that it is infact a public place. Since someone does infact own the pool, it may or may not be concidered a public place.

DrDavid

Gregg Hall wrote:

First Mistake.

Assuming that it is infact a public place. Since someone does infact own the pool, it may or may not be concidered a public place.

You're right; but, if the pool is open to the general public, then it's fair game. He might have an issue of tresspassing if he continues, but, that doesn't mean he can't 1) take the photo and 2) display the artwork the resulted from the exposure.

David

Photobycate

I know for a fact that in stock photography you need a model release signed by the parent. Even if it is a picture of your own daughter! But for personal use sales it gets iffy especially when children are involved. These issues are always coming up on photography forums and I finally decided to get a copy of PhotoAttorney by Carolyn E Wright an attorney and a photographer to find out once and for all what I can sell and what I can't without a release.

Freestater wrote:

Sorry about stepping on your signature... I tried moving my message and failed.

DrDavid

Photobycate wrote:

I know for a fact that in stock photography you need a model release signed by the parent. Even if it is a picture of your own daughter! But for personal use sales it gets iffy especially when children are involved. These issues are always coming up on photography forums and I finally decided to get a copy of PhotoAttorney by Carolyn E Wright an attorney and a photographer to find out once and for all what I can sell and what I can't without a release.

Dan Heller's page is far cheaper, and just as informative

David

James Broome

I have to say David is right. If the event was held in a public place (not on private property), then there is no right to privacy. You can photograph the event, the participants, and/or the crowd - and post the resulting images online without the fear of breaking the law.

However, I also agree with a few others who've given you a fairly hard time over not handling yourself correctly from the get-go. If you are intending to publish and/or sell photographs from your daughter's events, then you definitely should have obtained permission prior to doing so. Permission from the event organizer would have gone a long way towards eliminating problems like this.

I shoot sports for a living. I also have two boys that play sports. When I'm photographing my youngest playing soccer, I'm photographing him - not the team. Also, I have no intention of putting any of the pictures online for sale.

When I shoot with the intention of soliciting sales, I only do so AFTER I've either arranged to shoot the event through the proper channels (board agreement, etc.) or I'm contracted to do so.

None of this should keep you from photographing your daughter at these events, though. If you want to take pictures of her competing, do it.

DrDavid

James Broome wrote:

However, I also agree with a few others who've given you a fairly hard time over not handling yourself correctly from the get-go.

From a purely "public relations" point of view, you're right; but, there's nothing specifically requiring permission. Think of all the newspaper photographers... Do you think THEY ask permission? Nope! In fact, the act of asking for permission and/or model releases, etc.. are a larger mine-field than just DOING the photography and posting it. Besides, as the photographer (and the one putting it on the web), the reality is that YOU are not a publisher of the photo. An advertising company who buys your image for use in a commercial advertisement needs to have proof of the model release. NOT you!

But, again, from a business point of view, having the model release makes the photo more desireable and therefore, more expensive.

Keep your head around the differences between LEGAL ISSUES and BUSINESS PRACTICES. The two don't always overlap.

Let's put it like this. If you could get a photo of some movie star in a "compromising" position, you'll make a LOT of money if you sell the photo. Did you need to ask permission? NO! Did you need to get a release? NO! Do you need to pay the star for their image? NO! Will they be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU? Of course! They might even threaten you.. But, at the end of the day, there's nothing they can do.

A public and open society is public and open for all; not just some people, or only in specific situations.

David

Photobycate

Re: Newspaper photographers submit their photos as "New+Editorial", and therefore you do not need a release under that category. Again that is stock photography biz. An agency will not touch a photo that requires a model release and does not have one. But, again we are talking about personal use photos to sell as prints. And again this is a grey area and if a parent wants to sue the photographer for using a photo of their child without their permission they can and will. It is better to be safe than sorry.

DrDavid wrote:

From a purely "public relations" point of view, you're right; but, there's nothing specifically requiring permission. Think of all the newspaper photographers... Do you think THEY ask permission? Nope! In fact, the act of asking for permission and/or model releases, etc.. are a larger mine-field than just DOING the photography and posting it. Besides, as the photographer (and the one putting it on the web), the reality is that YOU are not a publisher of the photo. An advertising company who buys your image for use in a commercial advertisement needs to have proof of the model release. NOT you!

But, again, from a business point of view, having the model release makes the photo more desireable and therefore, more expensive.

Keep your head around the differences between LEGAL ISSUES and BUSINESS PRACTICES. The two don't always overlap.

Let's put it like this. If you could get a photo of some movie star in a "compromising" position, you'll make a LOT of money if you sell the photo. Did you need to ask permission? NO! Did you need to get a release? NO! Do you need to pay the star for their image? NO! Will they be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU? Of course! They might even threaten you.. But, at the end of the day, there's nothing they can do.

A public and open society is public and open for all; not just some people, or only in specific situations.

David

DrDavid

Photobycate wrote:

Re: Newspaper photographers submit their photos as "New+Editorial", and therefore you do not need a release under that category. Again that is stock photography biz. An agency will not touch a photo that requires a model release and does not have one. But, again we are talking about personal use photos to sell as prints. And again this is a grey area and if a parent wants to sue the photographer for using a photo of their child without their permission they can and will. It is better to be safe than sorry.

Stock - your right. You need a release for any agency to be interested in purchasing it. BUT, if it's for a textbook, etc.. model releases aren't necessary. I've sold un-released photos. No issues/worries.

The parent can sue.. True. They can. But, they wouldn't win. The courts have ruled time and time again that 1st amendment rights apply to cases, even when there are minor children, etc..

Taking a photo at a pool is just as much editorial as it would be for a newspaper to take the photo and report on it. There is no qualitative difference between the two uses.

Again, asking for permission just makes sure everyone thinks that permission must be obtained; when that's not true. But, if you want people to like you, etc.. Ask away--it's probably good for your business as you can then market yourself at the same time, etc..

David

James Broome

DrDavid wrote:

From a purely "public relations" point of view, you're right; but, there's nothing specifically requiring permission. Think of all the newspaper photographers... Do you think THEY ask permission? Nope! In fact, the act of asking for permission and/or model releases, etc.. are a larger mine-field than just DOING the photography and posting it.

Keep your head around the differences between LEGAL ISSUES and BUSINESS PRACTICES. The two don't always overlap.

Whoa! I'm not sure you needed to go into all that with me, David. My college education is in Photojournalism and my current professional career is in youth sports photography. I definitely know the difference between business practices and legal issues. If you read my entire post, you already know I said the OP had every LEGAL RIGHT to take pictures as well as post them on the web.

I was identifying what he SHOULD HAVE DONE to avoid this exact issue - from a COMMON SENSE and BUSINESS PRACTICE point of view. Not from a LEGAL point of view. As stated, he had the legal right to be there.

However, if he wants to avoid this issue in the future and/or try to make some money for is efforts, he very well needs to obtain permission from the people running the event. Get their blessings (in writing if possible) and you have an answer for 'privacy parent', 'internet scared' parent, and any other parent that taps you on the shoulder to ask why you're photographing THEIR child. Do you have the right to say, "this is a public place - I can take pictures of anyone I want to"? Of course. Is it the 'right' thing to do? Hell no. The right thing is to tell them that the organizing body for the event has asked you to photograph the participants. At that point, if they still have concerns, they'll take it up with the organizers and you can continue to do your job.

DrDavid wrote:

Besides, as the photographer (and the one putting it on the web), the reality is that YOU are not a publisher of the photo. An advertising company who buys your image for use in a commercial advertisement needs to have proof of the model release. NOT you!

I never said he had to get model releases. I've been doing this for years and have never had a single one signed. EVER.

But since you put it out there, I should mention that the commercial adversitement agency or stock photo agency that WOULD purchase your photo not only needs the release, but will not get it themselves. It is YOUR job. If you don't have the release, they won't buy the photo. So yes, the ad agency has to have proof - but if you want to sell the image, you're the one that has to produce it.

I'm still not advocating the signing of model releases. Unless you want to eventually sell your photographs to ad agencies or stock houses, you can leave the releases at home.

DrDavid wrote:

Let's put it like this. If you could get a photo of some movie star in a "compromising" position, you'll make a LOT of money if you sell the photo. Did you need to ask permission? NO! Did you need to get a release? NO! Do you need to pay the star for their image? NO! Will they be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU? Of course! They might even threaten you.. But, at the end of the day, there's nothing they can do.

A public and open society is public and open for all; not just some people, or only in specific situations.

Any guess on how long youth sports photographers would be in business if every shoot resulted in your subjects (or parents) being "REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU?" Gimme a break. Just because you CAN take the pictures and try to sell them doesn't mean you should. Again, it's legal, but will you get more jobs and make more money? Hell no. You'll either go out of business or find yourself fighting lawsuits all day. You will probably win them - but seriously - would you consider that a good approach for someone trying to turn their photography skills into a business?

nipprdog

James Broome wrote:

Any guess on how long youth sports photographers would be in business if every shoot resulted in your subjects (or parents) being "REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU?" Gimme a break. Just because you CAN take the pictures and try to sell them doesn't mean you should. Again, it's legal, but will you get more jobs and make more money? Hell no. You'll either go out of business or find yourself fighting lawsuits all day. You will probably win them - but seriously - would you consider that a good approach for someone trying to turn their photography skills into a business?

Worth repeating.

DrDavid

Any guess on how long youth sports photographers would be in business if every shoot resulted in your subjects (or parents) being "REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pissed off and angry with YOU?" Gimme a break. Just because you CAN take the pictures and try to sell them doesn't mean you should. Again, it's legal, but will you get more jobs and make more money? Hell no. You'll either go out of business or find yourself fighting lawsuits all day. You will probably win them - but seriously - would you consider that a good approach for someone trying to turn their photography skills into a business?

I agree with that. All I was trying to do was educate on business vs. law. Getting permission is better than just charging in like a bull. I asked and got permission when I did the community Little League. It makes a lot of business sense to do so.

I agree with you.. Leave the releases at home. Don't even bring up the subject. It's an issue that will cause you more problems than it's worth (unless you're planning on using it for an ad agency, etc.)

David

Gregg Hall

DrDavid wrote:

You're right; but, if the pool is open to the general public, then it's fair game. He might have an issue of tresspassing if he continues, but, that doesn't mean he can't 1) take the photo and 2) display the artwork the resulted from the exposure.

David

Again, This is simply not true. Safeway is open to the pubic, however you can not take pictures inside there stores with out permission.

I had my name on the agreement with the school for the usage of the schools fields for the local baseball leage for 3 years. It is private property (owned by the school district), I had the usage rights for the specified time. I could have anyone removed from the property that I deamed approriate.

so, if you could stand on the public street and take your pictures then what your saying is correct. If you had to go behind a fence to see it, or inside a building, then 99.9% of the time, your not actually in a "public" venue and can be subjected to their rules and requirements.

DrDavid

Gregg Hall wrote:

Again, This is simply not true. Safeway is open to the pubic, however you can not take pictures inside there stores with out permission.

No, you can be asked to leave and possibly be charged with tresspassing. But, the photos are yours forever.

Again, please don't confuse a civil matter with a legal right. If I walk into the safeway and take a picture of the President of the United States stabing someone, it really didn't matter that I was on private property. Again, I might be in trouble for tresspassing, Safeway might want a piece of my revenue from the photo (because it was taken on their property), I might have to shop at Albertsons more often, BUT, they can't just take my photo away. AND, the President/Safeway can't just tell me, "Well, what I did was on private property, so the photo can't be used."

The 1st amendment does not differentiate between a swim meet and the President murdering someone. They are both editorial content, and both news-worthy events.

David

Gregg Hall

DrDavid wrote:

No, you can be asked to leave and possibly be charged with tresspassing. But, the photos are yours forever.

Again, please don't confuse a civil matter with a legal right. If I walk into the safeway and take a picture of the President of the United States stabing someone, it really didn't matter that I was on private property. Again, I might be in trouble for tresspassing, Safeway might want a piece of my revenue from the photo (because it was taken on their property), I might have to shop at Albertsons more often, BUT, they can't just take my photo away. AND, the President/Safeway can't just tell me, "Well, what I did was on private property, so the photo can't be used."

The 1st amendment does not differentiate between a swim meet and the President murdering someone. They are both editorial content, and both news-worthy events.

David

You may be correct, if your interested in a once in a lifetime opportunity to see your kid participate in any sporting event for the rest of their lives, it would be a good stance to take.

If I were the swim club, and someone came at me with that, I would bar the parent from ever attending another function ever period end of sentance. And chances are good the kid would be asked to leave with the parent. And as I said, I have had years of experience in dealing with parents think they can do what ever they want.

Also, I think that the parents that don't want to have their kids pic posted could get it removed, from online, or at least make it so that the potographer in question spent so much time and effort in legal fee's as to make it completly worthless to take the stance.

So, while you may be techically correct, I am still not convinced, taking such a stance would be incredibly stupid.

James Broome

Greg - I think David was just replying to your Safeway example. You said no one is allowed to take pictures inside of Safeway. You're right, but if someone walks in and starts taking pictures, they can't be arrested for their actions. They will be asked to leave. That's all. Of course, if they don't leave, they will be arrested and charged with tresspassing. But as David said, the pictures have been taken and belong to the photographer.

David followed up after my other post and agreed that pissing off parents for the sake of taking pictures isn't the proper avenue to take, so I doubt he's suggesting the 'Safeway' approach for youth sporting events. He was just trying to refute your grocery store analogy.

DrDavid

James Broome wrote:

Greg - I think David was just replying to your Safeway example. You said no one is allowed to take pictures inside of Safeway. You're right, but if someone walks in and starts taking pictures, they can't be arrested for their actions. They will be asked to leave. That's all. Of course, if they don't leave, they will be arrested and charged with tresspassing. But as David said, the pictures have been taken and belong to the photographer.

David followed up after my other post and agreed that pissing off parents for the sake of taking pictures isn't the proper avenue to take, so I doubt he's suggesting the 'Safeway' approach for youth sporting events. He was just trying to refute your grocery store analogy.

All I'm trying to do here is to educate a bit. In real life, if you want to have a successful business, you're going to be asking permission, removing photos, etc.. BUT, the reality is that you're doing those things because you WANT TO and you think it's "The Right Thing To Do (tm)". HOWEVER, there is no LAW that COMPELS you to do any of those things.

David

Gregg Hall

James Broome wrote:

Greg - I think David was just replying to your Safeway example. You said no one is allowed to take pictures inside of Safeway. You're right, but if someone walks in and starts taking pictures, they can't be arrested for their actions. They will be asked to leave. That's all. Of course, if they don't leave, they will be arrested and charged with tresspassing. But as David said, the pictures have been taken and belong to the photographer.

David followed up after my other post and agreed that pissing off parents for the sake of taking pictures isn't the proper avenue to take, so I doubt he's suggesting the 'Safeway' approach for youth sporting events. He was just trying to refute your grocery store analogy.

I'll buy that, but there is a little follow up. If you shot the president stabbing someone is safeway, that one would be news worthy and marketable. If you shoot pictures of the shelf scmatics or other layouts, that would be intelectual property and you could get in trouble for attempting to sell that.

DrDavid

Gregg Hall wrote:

I'll buy that, but there is a little follow up. If you shot the president stabbing someone is safeway, that one would be news worthy and marketable. If you shoot pictures of the shelf scmatics or other layouts, that would be intelectual property and you could get in trouble for attempting to sell that.

No, I could get sued. I wouldn't get "in trouble" as it's not illegal.

David