Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Website selling NFL photos
Darrell Walker, Photographer
Smyrna (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 01.31.08
->> I just ran across this website http://foreveryoungimages.exposuremanager.com/g/colts_vs_bengals

This site is selling photos to all comers.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 5:48 PM on 01.31.08
->> Sweet...dude even has a note from the mother of (now) Colts player Anthony Gonzalez (#11).

-dbr
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 5:54 PM on 01.31.08
->> What's even better is him selling this REAL Sports Illustrated cover(s):

http://tinyurl.com/3dycsz

and

http://tinyurl.com/33wabg

Didn't a SS member shoot the mud shot?

A quick google search turns this up:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Aug/30/sp/sp25a.html

"he became a photographer with enough skill to land a gig as the photographer of OSU coach Jim Tressel's Web site."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Cone, Photographer
| Florida | | Posted: 6:19 PM on 01.31.08
->> He's not selling the SI covers. Just showing clips.

I take it that the covers are to show which issues his images ran.

-DC
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 7:11 PM on 01.31.08
->> I thought I seen that one SI photo before......

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/599657/0#5279044
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Fischer, Photographer
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 8:25 PM on 01.31.08
->> I hope Scott has a good lawyer...

When the NFL gets a hold...

Michael
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 01.31.08
->> Ironically, if he were selling actual (not reproductions) SI covers he would be in the clear.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:05 PM on 01.31.08
->> I remember thinking sbout threads like these when I read the L.A. Times article on Neil Leifer, where he said that he finances his film making by selling prints of his images that he created over the years.

If you visit his website,
http://www.neilleifer.com , you will see that he's selling prints from MLB, NHL, NFL, NBA, NCAA, Olympics, etc. How?

Another respected member here mentioned that a certain photo from an NFL game was selling a lot of reprints at the paper he works.

I'm definitely NOT trying to cause trouble, I'm just wondering how prints can be sold from such games.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dan Powers, Photographer
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 10:24 PM on 01.31.08
->> I thought that all you have to do is have an agreement with them to sell the images. Basically, they get their cut on every photo you sell. Licensing through the NFL? A few years ago I thought there was an archiving company called Merlin that had some exclusive agreement. Maybe that is what these guys are working with? Just a thought...Dan.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:40 PM on 01.31.08
->> Actually, on Leifer's site it specifically states that his images are NOT licensed by any sports leagues.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Rowell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Vista | CA | USA | Posted: 10:55 PM on 01.31.08
->> Scott is using Exposure Manager as his print service. If he has a deal with the NFL that's probably OK. But if he doesn't then Exposure Manager might be in some trouble as well. I think I'll drop them an email and see what they say. I thought that was what the Getty deal was all about. No commercial sales by anyone other than Getty. Maybe I'm wrong,anyone?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Allen Hubbard, Photographer
Spokane | WA | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 01.31.08
->> His website states he can make the images into Wall Graphics , aka "Fat Heads".
If he is the creator of those he must be licensed to sell images.
If not then he might be in trouble with "Fat Heads" too for using their name!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Rowell, Photographer, Photo Editor
Vista | CA | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 01.31.08
->> I just dropped an email to EM. I would like to know their take on this. EM takes a portion of the sales on each image. This might make them liable for a lawsuit as well.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Scott Greenlee, Photographer, Student/Intern
Crescent Springs | KY | United States | Posted: 12:04 AM on 02.01.08
->> Why is this any of our concerns? I thought this website is to talk about photography, not question others business practices.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (4) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Russell Rinn, Photographer
Georgetown | Tx | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 02.01.08
->> Not sure if something has changed on his site, but when I clicked on his NFL and NCAA images I got a message saying:

"This gallery does not allow for photo ordering."

Did anyone actually try to order photos from those games or did EM, or the photographer himself, put a halt to the sales?
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 12:38 AM on 02.01.08
->> I do not want to hijack this thread- but I thought I would come in and answer a few questions from above.

Bob: Neil is able to sell his prints due to the fact that there was no prohibitive credential language when he was shooting (especially his photo of Ameche shot on his 16th birthday in 1958 at the greatest game ever when he had no credential). That is the short answer :-)

Dan: Holy cow! I sold prints through Merlin back in the day! That seems like such a long time ago. YES- they worked out a deal with the NFL and had an official license that allowed them to sell prints to fans. They were an official NFL commercial licensee. Heck- there was even a link from the nfl.com website directing fans to Merlin.

If you would like to read more about this cool company from back in the day that did things LEGALLY check out this archived story from the Sports Shooter Newsletter from Issue 15 posted on December 23, 1999

It's Not Magic, It's Merlin
By Dave Tenenbaum, T/One, Inc.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/247
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Geoff Miller, Photographer
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 8:22 AM on 02.01.08
->> Brad, I'm sure you are correct about the lack of restrictions in credential agreements back then, but how does that get around other legal issues like using someone's likeness commercially without permission, selling photos that contain league logos/trademarks without authorization, etc.?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:49 AM on 02.01.08
->> My understanding is that the selling of prints is editorial use. Licensing the image for use as the cover to a CD or the packaging for footballs would be commercial use.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gene Boyars, Photographer
Matawan | NJ | United States | Posted: 10:20 AM on 02.01.08
->> Eric,
If you are going sell prints of professional athletes you need their permission and permission of the copyright holder for the logos/trademarks as well. I do a lot of work with a company that does nothing but licensed sports photography and they pay both the leagues and the players for the right to sell images. The NFL and MLB take a very dim view of people selling images like this without the proper licensing. It is a great way to find yourself on the outside looking in.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 02.01.08
->> Eric- prints are commercial in pro sports. Photofile is licensed by both the players associations and the leagues to sell prints bearing players likenesses and league logos. All of their prints contain hologram stickers from both the PA and Properties divisions. I personally cannot sell my stock images to them because they are a commercial entity. The only way they can get images is to hire their own photographers to shoot a ballgame for them under their credential- or to buy a stock image from Getty Images because Getty has the exclusive right to sell images (just like FOX has the exclusive North American television rights to broadcast this Sunday's Super Bowl) to commercial clients (in my case baseball). I have had images on Photofile products that were legally sold to them through my agency- MLB Photos- through their distributor Getty Images.

We have had many discussions on this topic over the years here in the message board and it is very complicated. This is my life- I have been living it for the last 15 years and this is how it is. I do not set the rules- but I must live by them or else I would lose my credentials.

When it comes to Neil he sells his stuff in galleries in signed, limited editions. He is not selling 8 x 10 prints at card shows for five bucks. Neil's son is an attorney. Neil knows what he is doing- he is Neil Leifer.

Everything Gene says above is correct.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:18 PM on 02.01.08
->> While Brad's advice is right-on for the average photog, there are other important issues in-play. Legally, there is no difference between selling a copy of an image on newsprint surrounded by words and selling a copy of that same image individually on high-quality photo paper. Both are editorial use. Neither is commercial use.

Commercial use is when an image is used in connection with a separate product (such as on packaging) or to imply endorsement of a product or cause.

Of course, the professional sports organizations do take the point of view that Brad mentioned and they have the legal resources to drive any independent photographer into bankruptcy. Plus, they can refuse to issue credentials for no reason at all.

Editorial use is taking new forms every day. It is important to resist, as much as possible, any commercial entities trying to dictate how news organizations choose to disseminate the information they gather.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 2:29 PM on 02.01.08
->> Mark- with all due respect please do not muddy the waters here. This is all based on standard credential language that we all agree to in order to accept a credential and do our jobs as photographers at a given venue when on assignment.

If I shoot a game for one of my clients I must abide by the rules pure and simple. Here is what the back of my 2007 MLB World Series credential says:

"...may not sell any photographs featuring their respective trademarks, names, logos, uniform designs, copyrights or other proprietary rights for commercial purposes, including in third party advertisements or promotions, or on apparel, cups, posters, prints, T-shirts or other consumer products."

Every time this discussion comes up you say prints are not commercial. Well- in real life- MY LIFE (I am not talking about selling prints of kids to parents here) they ARE commercial. If the league says they are commercial then they are commercial.

It is easy for you to sit back and offer your opinions- but I will respectfully tell you that you are not aware of all that goes on here because you are not active as a still photographer covering pro sports these days. I deal with league offices and their attorneys all the time. Every time this topic comes up I like to try and share ACCURATE information. I have seen too many nice and young shooters break the rules because they were not well informed. They have had their credentials yanked and because this is such a small business your career can be ruined so fast it is not even funny.

Bottom line- you can do whatever you want. I can drive 120 miles an hour down the freeway all day if I do not get caught. If I do get caught I will get a ticket or go to jail. I can sell prints on the Internet or a card show of everyone from Marvin Benard to Stan Javier to Mike Felder to Barry Bonds all day long- but if I get caught MLB Properties attorney Ethan Orlinsky would have my ass and I would never be credentialed again. That would not be good for me.
 This post is:  Informative (8) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Cardaciotto, Photographer
Hamilton Twp. | NJ | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 02.01.08
->> hi! I am a staff photog at a daily and take photos at NFL, mlb and minor league bb from time to time. I've never sold a photo from a profressional game in my life, but would like to if it can be accomplished leagally. If a fan takes a photo (or say me non-credentialed) from the stands, do I or a fan need some permission from mlb, nfl etc. to sell them online? My gut feeling is yes... How does one go about getting these leagues permission to do so? Does photofile buy from individuals or just agencies? Do I need to get hooked up with an agency or some company? Are there any avenues for the fan from the stands to sell his photos. I have many taken as a fan and professionlly that would be great to sell for extra income. All opinions welcome, thanks
dave
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Westerholt, Photographer
Kannapolis | NC | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 02.01.08
->> David,

Did you read what Brad posted above? Any image with a professional team logo visible can not be sold by Joe Fan, nor Joe Photographer for that matter. This topic has been discussed on this board many times before, and I know I have commented on this before, having gone through the process a few years back to become licensed to sell ECHL hockey photos online. The league is going to want a license fee/royalties for anything that displays a team logo (most of which are copyrighted or trademarked). The players union is going to want money for any product that has a player's likeness on it. The example I gave was Just Minors baseball cards (www.justminors.com). They lost their license with Minor League Baseball a few years ago, but they still produce cards. The thing is they have to airbrush out any visible logos (actually they prefer photos that do not show the logo at all). They make deals with the individual players themselves, usually through their agents, to have permission to use the player's likeness.

Bottom line as Brad has said - is selling a few prints online worth the risk of being blacklisted and denied credentials in the future?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Damon Tarver, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 02.01.08
->> No one answered Russell, but I think he is right. The NFL and NCAA stuff looks like a hook to sell little league prints, or he got busted, because you can't add any of the pro stuff to your shopping cart....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Thorpe, Photographer
Toronto | On | Canada | Posted: 6:28 PM on 02.01.08
->> Brad - I hate to muddy the water further. But the wording on the credential states "for commercial purposes". So prints for editorial sale (non-commercial), as Mark mentioned, still reside in that murky gray area.

So saying that, what says you can't just add a few lines of supporting copy to the bottom of the image to really make it editorial?

or...

You could always use the trick of selling something of low value (say, a Brad Mangin super-photographer collectors card) for $XX.XX and include a free print of choice :)
People do it with concert tickets all the time to avoid selling the actual ticket - which would be illegal.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 6:49 PM on 02.01.08
->> Jon- you can do all the tricks you want- and you are more than welcome to try them. Personally I would never do such a thing as this might be a big country but it is a VERY small business and everyone knows everyone. My name and my reputation is way too important to sneak around to skirt the rules.

Like I said above: "...if I get caught MLB Properties attorney Ethan Orlinsky would have my ass and I would never be credentialed again."

This would be bad for me. I do not want to ever have to get a real job- I enjoy heading out to the ballpark to much :-)
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 7:14 PM on 02.01.08
->> Back in the days when NFL Photos was in existence I would occasionally get a call from someone wanting to use a photo on some type of product. (This would have been in the 80's, when commercial sales were still somewhat possible.) My first question was always, "Do you have a license?" I often got the response, "Oh, I know how to get around that." I would politely decline, as there was no value to me in being involved in a project that would draw the ire of the NFL attorneys. These days the commercial sales possibilities do not exist. Believe me, I could have done quite well on Brady Quinn prints alone last year if selling prints was an option. It is not. I like to shoot from the concourse at Jacobs Field (now Progressive Field.) I often have fans ask me how they can buy prints, and I have to explain to them that I can't sell them. I tell them to look into Photo File, as they can sell prints. They pay a LARGE sum of money for the right to sell prints. You would all be wise to heed what Brad says here. He knows what he is talking about here. You have to play by the rules (and what you think about the rules doesn't matter!)
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 10:39 PM on 02.01.08
->> Brad,

I remember your posting a comment to this effect - that print sales for pro sports was "commercial" - in one of the Illinois HS threads earlier, and made a note to ask you about this the next time the subject came up.

It appears that the only thing that makes pro sports "different" is the credential language. Where the waters get muddy is saying "If the league says they are commercial then they are commercial." That may be the reality that pro sports has created, but it is not the law. Let's not confuse the two.

In fact, this seems to me EXACTLY like the situation with the Illinois high schools. It's what would be called a "rights grab" in any other situation. "Because they can" the pro leagues can insist on photographers surrendering certain rights in exchange for a credential.

I understand what the reality is - the reality is that we've surrendered our rights to the big money pro sports. And we really don't have any choice, do we? And now the high schools and colleges are beginning to learn a lesson from big brother...

Chuck
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Plassenthal, Photographer
Vandalia | OH | USA | Posted: 11:17 PM on 02.01.08
->> The usual disclaimer: Consult a real lawyer for legal advice! Everything else you read here is conjecture and may not apply to your situation.

A print is a print is a print. Keep in mind, this doesn't apply to trading cards, calendars, or other types of usage. A photo printed on photo paper is what we are talking about.

The courts have many many times held that a print is editorial use. Editorial use is a legal distinction. Any image by itself does not constitute commercial use. The team logos and player images have no bearing as long as the image isn't being used in a manner to sell a product (and no the paper it's printed on isn't considered a product in the eyes of the law).

You can write a contract with anyone that says anything. If you wrote a contract for someone to be your slave, it would not be a legal and binding contract because slavery isn't legal. I know that's a gross exageration, but the point is just because someone puts a clause in a contract doesn't make it legally enforcable in a court of law. The league can say they are commercials, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I don't know of any case law to support such a claim where the only thing sold is a simple print.

However, the team does not need to give you permission to photograph on their property. If you do sell images it's likley that your access would be denied access in the future.

The issue of the use of the trademark is a different question than copyright. The issue is whether what your selling (the print) is trading on the good will of the trademark holder. It would be a stretch to make the case that a sports team who's product is sports entertainment is damaged by the sale of a print for non-commercial use. Of course you don't have to have the law on your side to sue someone and make it inconvenient for them.

The bottom line it's that it's more about bully power than the rule of law in this situation. Since it's private property you need the good will of the organization to gain access, and since they have plenty of $ to sue you and eat up any potential profits quickly, it's just not worth the fight.

The good news is that as long as these organizations continue to look to the guys with cameras getting access for photos sooner or later they will get bit by one who happens to be a lawyer and decides to push the issue for fun. Whether it's a pro sports team, or the NCAA, or the local high school there isn't a basis in law for them to be able to prevent you from selling prints of the photos you own.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 10:10 AM on 02.02.08
->> As someone who has first hand experience battling the NBA regarding this issue, and having spent alot of money with intellectual properties attorneys, I would like to clarify a few things.

1) Any insinuation that anyone, credentialed or not is doing anything "illegal" by selling prints in a flat out false statement. The leagues may not like it, but don't compare this to going 120 MPH. By going 120 MPH, you could be putting other peoples lives at risk, which is why it is a law, which is why that "act" is illegal. Selling prints is not putting anyones lives at risk, and it most certainly is not illegal.

I was getting cease and desist orders every other day, as well as 160 page faxes from the NBA telling me what a bad boy I was. I told them to do one of two things,

A) Show me any case where a judge had ruled that a photographer could not sell his/her own images.

B) Take me to court.

Guess what happened, I never heard from them again. Fortunately, the courts have ruled photography as "art", and fortunately "art" is heavily protected by the first amendment.

Tiger Woods is another power freak. Google "Verdict, Tiger Woods vs. Rick Rush". It's about a case where Tiger Woods went after artist Rick Rush, trying him to prevent Rush from selling/marketing prints of Tiger Woods. While Rush is an artist, not a photographer the court views both the same. Tiger lost, and the following is a quote from the judge,

"A piece of art that portrays a historic sporting event communicates and celebrates the value our culture attaches to such events. It would be ironic indeed if the presence of the image of the victorious athlete would deny the work first amendment protection"

All of this being said, getting caught selling prints certainly puts yourself in jeopardy of getting your credentials yanked for future events, but not because you did anything illegal, but because you didn't do what you were asked via the acceptance of your credential. In my particular case, I didn't care if I was ever was credentialed to another NBA game anyway, plus I wasn't credentialed anyway to begin with.

I do feel that at some point photographers as a group need to stand up for what is fair and right. This notion that "It's the leagues rules, so we must play by them" is putting your future at risk.

I wonder how much money has been lost by photographers who can't sell their images commercially anymore, because the leagues decided that images you shot years and years ago, while abiding by the language on your credentials and "following the rules", is no longer an avenue of income for you. Since when in any capacity has any league looked out for the best interest of the photographers that visually document their leagues history?

Where is the line drawn where you are willing to stand up for yourself, instead of being a doormat? Do you wait until the language on the credential says, "All images photographed as a result of this credential are now owned outright by MLB, NFL, NBA, ect." At that point, the prospect of getting "a real job" will quite possibly be staring you in the face.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Al Messerschmidt, Photographer
tarpon Springs | fL | usa | Posted: 11:11 AM on 02.02.08
->> Brad and the original poster, Michael, are correct in several important areas. 1) No league, to my knowledge, has ever won a court case against a photographer selling photos. the only cases won in court by the leagues involve t-shirt manufacturers, usually selling shirts showing players around super bowl time. 2) the entire concept involving licensing was CREATED by the leagues in the mid-1980s (i am not certain of the exact date) and since most legal theories cannot be made retroactive would not apply to photos taken before the restrictions were written into credentials. 3) for those of you who don't remember, MLB, NASCAR and the PGA attempted years ago to force photogs to sign restrictive photo use agreements (including bans on posting images with stock agencies) and later dropped the efforts. Photography of public figures (does Tom Brady appear at more press conferences than George Bush?), taken in public arenas (yes, the public finances most stadiums) and presented as "art" would seem to have constitutional protections that pre-date even Neil Leifer.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ed Wolfstein, Photographer, Assistant
Burlington | VT | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 02.02.08
->> I don't think this is a case of "winning" or "losing" in a court of law. It may be deemed by all the courts in the land to be technically legal to sell a print to a consumer, but if a league (any league) decides to issue you the privilege of setting foot on field, then you simply have to abide by their rules, as Brad as clearly outlined. Rules are rules, and like sports itself, you have to play by the rules. If you don't, they won't let you play anymore. That's it. Period. No further discussion.

OK, just a but of epilogue: Leagues are in the business of commerce, and selling prints, or licensing the right to sell prints is an integral part of their business. They have the right to make rules that keep their business models viable. Someone may "win" by the word of a judge or jury, but if you're denied access the following season, who's the winner now?

- Ed.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 12:30 PM on 02.02.08
->> "In my particular case, I didn't care if I was ever was credentialed to another NBA game anyway, plus I wasn't credentialed anyway to begin with."

Some of us like what we do for a living, and would like to continue to do it. We do care if we are credentialed again. We are also credentialed to "begin with."
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 02.02.08
->> Darrell,

In fairness to the target of this thread, I've become aware that he has communicated with SS and I believe you - will you be posting his response as he is not a member here?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:14 PM on 02.02.08
->> "Some of us like what we do for a living, and would like to continue to do it."

Well how long will you be able to do it with the contiuing rights grabbing and downward escalation in fees for your services? In a thread about a year or so ago I openly asked what photographers making their living shooting pro sports were doing better financially than 10 years ago-none responded. Amazing the people who whine, piss, and moan about photographers shooting on spec and how it is hurting the industry but when a photographer actually has the balls to stand up to the leagues totally screwing photographers at every turn HE is now the problem. Continue to live with your collective heads in the sand.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 02.02.08
->> I'm doing MUCH better than I was 10 years ago. I've been shooting pro sports for 27 years.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 02.02.08
->> Great John, you are the first. Who else? How were you able to make up for your lost commercial usage out of curiosity.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 02.02.08
->> I found more clients.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:55 PM on 02.02.08
->> Great, you only have to find four or five editorial clients to make up for every (1) of your lost commercial clients, since commercial use is at least 4-5 times more lucrative, and at that point you are back to even.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 2:04 PM on 02.02.08
->> My business practices are my business. Perhaps the reason that so few people responded to your "are you doing better" query is that most of us are reluctant to discuss such matters. I did so only in the simplest of terms.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 2:22 PM on 02.02.08
->> No, the reason is that is is far more difficult to make the income that was available in years past, and you know that. This is a control issue, plain and simple by the leagues. Just look at what happened to the NHL team photographers when Getty cut their deal with that league, do you think they are doing better now?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 2:34 PM on 02.02.08
->> Michael- I am doing much better now than I was 10 years ago. Reasons? I make way better pictures than I did back then (I am embarrassed when I look back at some of the crap that came out of my cameras back then), thus more clients want to hire me. I am also a much smarter business person and have done a better job of selling my stock images both through my many agents and through my online searchable database (powered by the kick-ass folks at PhotoShelter) on my personal website that contains around 18,000 captioned images going back to 1986 that are for sale to editorial clients: www.manginphotography.com
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 2:54 PM on 02.02.08
->> Brad, You can't tell me that not being able to market images commercially direct from you to the end user was not a huge kick in the financial ass. In theory, "most" professional photographers who make their living with the images they create make better pictures than they did 10 years ago. For every (1) of you, there are 25 who have either given up shooting pro sports for a living, voluntarily or involuntarily due to poor economic conditions.

What would your position be if MLB presented you with the same contract presented to the NHL photographers? I know of alot of well seasoned photographers, much closer to retirement than continuing to work looking to sell their archives of beautiful, historic, iconic, well lit and exposed slides and negatives and are absolutely horrified by what they are being offered.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Mangin, Photographer
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 02.02.08
->> Michael- I missed the huge commercial windfall that many of my friends cashed in on during the glory years. Back in the un-regulated days guys made huge cash. I was not one of them. I joined Duomo in 1995 at the tail end of their run when they made big piles of money for people. By the time I got there most of my sales were editorial to magazines in Europe.

If I was a little older and made the big money back in the day (especially like the folks who shot for NFL Properties did) I would be much more bitter than I am today. You see- I have not had the huge financial setback in my business because I NEVER made the big money. If I was one of the people who made $250,000 a year selling commercial images back in the day it would be a different story for me. For all my friends out there who used to make the big money I am very sorry for them. For me personally- I always joke that I wish I was older so I could have seen some of that money :-)

However- since I am 43 years old and started my career as a newspaper staffer for many years I missed out. No one ever said that being a freelance photographer shooting pro sports would be easy. It is a nightmare. But I enjoy doing it and I can hold my head up high that I am running my business the proper way. I have been earning my living as a freelance editorial sports photographer for 15 years now in the very expensive to live Bay Area. It could all come crashing down tomorrow- but for now I am still here- always trying to make a special picture for my client that they cannot get anywhere else.

It is still about making great pictures- at least in my little idealistic and naive part of the world.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 02.02.08
->> "It is a nightmare."

I should have just said that, and left it at that. I tried to explain the reality of the situation, and instead get all kinds of backlash.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Landon Finch, Photographer
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 3:58 PM on 02.02.08
->> So our local paper, the Gazette, must have some deal worked out with the various pro leagues?

http://pictopia.com/perl/gal?process=gallery&gallery_id=2584&provider_id=21...

http://pictopia.com/perl/gal?process=gallery&gallery_id=4303&provider_id=21...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Brice, Photographer
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 4:04 PM on 02.02.08
->> Landon,

That's interesting.

So either they:

1) Have a license/permission.
2)Kow that they can legally sell it and are not worried about getting the credentials revoked in the future,
3)Or maybe they just don't know that they are risking their credentials by selling in this method.

4) Or the information in this thread is too confusing for anyone to understand what can and can't be done.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 4:49 PM on 02.02.08
->> Mike Brice, The answer would be #2. On a seperate but related note, this gem has been forwarded to me. It contains the language, word for word that NASCAR is using for at least (1) of their races on a photo credential, which you would sign if you wanted said credential. It is this kind of BS that is becoming more and more the norm.

"NASCAR owns the rights to all images, sound and data from this NASCAR event. For more information call NASCAR Broadcasting at 310-843-2300. The bearer of this ticket agrees not to take any action, or cause others to take any action, which would infringe uopn NASCAR's rights. Use of this ticket constitutes acceptance of these terms. NASCAR owns all rights to broadcast, transmit, film, tape, capture, overhear, photograph, collect or record by any means (including but not limited to television, cable television, radio, pay-per-view, closed circuit television, satellite signal, digital signal, and the internet) all images, sounds and data arising from or during any NASCAR event and NASCAR shall be the sole owner of any and all copyrights, intellectual property rights, and proprietary rights worldwide in and to these works and in and to any other works, copyrightable or otherwise, created from the images, sounds and data arising from or during any NASCAR event. The Bearer of any tickets purchased via this document agrees not to take any action, or cause others to take any action, which would contravene, diminish, encroach or infringe uopn these NASCAR rights."

I'm sure John Reid and the others who think I'm nuts about getting riled up about selling prints, also think that this type of credential language would never, ever be presented to them by the NFL. So let's just continue on, pretending everything is OK, and when this happens we can rely on Mr. Reid and others who will have all the answers how to handle things then.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John H. Reid III, Photographer
Gates Mills | OH | USA | Posted: 5:05 PM on 02.02.08
->> I never said I had all the answers. I said that if I started selling prints from NFL games I wouldn't be credentialed to NFL games anymore. I said I liked my job, and would like to keep working at it. It didn't matter to you if you did not gey a credential to an NBA game. It matters to me if I can't get a credential to an NFL (or MLB) game. It's fine if you don't care if you get credentialed. Am I wrong that it does matter to me?
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Bob Deutsch says: "Size Matters!" ::..