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
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

Crazy new trend?
Matthew Emmons, Photographer
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:14 PM on 08.28.08
->> I know I'm going to upset some people here by making this statement. What is with the new trend in classifieds "I am credentialed to XXXXXXXXXX sporting event, if you need photos, I will be able to provide"

I'll stick my neck out. Correct me if I'm wrong but to a large majority of these events if you are credentialed for XXXXXX game and the credential is requested through xxxxx company then you are only to represent those photos for that company. xxxxxxx pro or college team is issuing you a credential for coverage for that company. (there is only a very slight few that get/give freelance credentials anymore)

You are putting a lot at risk for future credentials for you and the company you are representing. I understand times are tough and trying to make an extra buck. This is crazy though you are killing your word and reputation. Getting black listed for selling images on the side will kill all future revenues as a photojournalist.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

TD Paulius, Photographer
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 1:35 PM on 08.28.08
->> Patsy Cline said it best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o1V2uiagpU
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 08.28.08
->> Patsy is one of the best.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Damon Tarver, Photographer
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 08.28.08
->> You are assuming the credential came from XYZ company. Maybe they have credentials on their own and are just looking for an outlet? I don't know the answer, but as long as they got in on their own, I don't see a problem.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 3:40 PM on 08.28.08
->> It is called secondary reuse and generally with major events and sports, it is prohibited unless approved in advance.

For instance: I am credentialed to cover the San Diego Chargers - New England Patriots game for the Kahuna Illustrated. Kahuna Illustrated is the organization I am working this event for and has secured a credential for me to do so. I cannot turn these photo around and sell them to another publication.

GENERALLY speaking, major sports limit the use of the photographs made at their events to the organization the credentialed is through.

I also have noticed many "COVERAGE FOR SALE" ads on the ss.com classifieds. A check of the credential use agreement should be done first before offering up the sale of photos to other publications (not listed on the credential).

(Wires and agencies if the team, league or event credentials them, understand that they will distribute their images to their clients.)

Teams, leagues and events want to control who covers them and where their images turn up. So the limit or ban on secondary reuse has been put into credential use agreements.

Do photographers sell the images they make to publications, individuals and other outlets (for instance commercial enterprises) not listed on their credentials?

You bet.

This is especially a no-no for staffers of publications who technically do not own the copyright to the images they make on assignment.

(I have heard of this happening, with photographers using digital manipulation to alter their images and selling them as "art" to the paying public. And this is wrong on many levels, which I don't want to get into on this thread.)


Monitoring and enforcing restrictions on secondary reuse is time consuming and is often not done.

(I have heard of a few organizations going after those that have broken the ban on secondary reuse, I believe there was a couple of incidents in the last couple of seasons where USC has gone after photographers that violated their credential use agreement.)

However, if you are "stand up" and play by the rules as we ALL should, knowing what you have agreed to by accepting a credential is important.

Our ethics and reputations are the only things we have to stand on.
 This post is:  Informative (6) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stan Cochrane, Photographer
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 4:20 PM on 08.28.08
->> It's againest NCAA rules to sell the shots. At least as far as I know, and have been advised. I shoot for the University of North Carolina @ Charlotte, and I would never jeopardize my relationship for a few bucks.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Miller, Photographer
Cleveland | OH | USA | Posted: 10:49 AM on 08.29.08
->> Is there any statute of limitations for the ban on secondary reuse? Over a career a photographer builds an archive of images that he/she owns the copy writes for. Will I never be allowed to sell those images to anyone other than the original credentialing company despite the fact that I own the copy write on the images?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 7:03 PM on 08.30.08
->> Jason usually is right in the contract and even if is there ucan always negotiated with your client. Just make sure those pix don't go out to their competition and only after the embargo, around 3 months, is over. Lots of $$$ can be made this way. Am here in Boston n be4 I flew here I licence for $750 an image shot in 1994.

More 2 come

Www.manuellopaganelli.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:32 PM on 08.30.08
->> "It's againest NCAA rules to sell the shots. At least as far as I know,..."

It is not an NCAA rule. Unless something has changed in the last six months, enforcement and administration of policies is left to each individual school and conference to do as they wish.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jason Miller, Photographer
Cleveland | OH | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 08.30.08
->> I understand there may be restrictions on resale in the contract I sign with who ever I'm working for. That's not the agreement I'm concerned about.

I'm interested in the agreement that exists with the leagues. Is there a statute of limitations on the time that the leagues restrict reuse.

The reason I'm interested in getting an answer to this has to do with some of the advice I have gotten from the forums and articles on SS. I have read articles that suggest photographers should not give away their copy write to the company they are shooting for. The idea being to build an archive of images you can resell as time goes on. If I'm shooting images under a contract that allows me to keep my copy write but, a league will not allow me to resell those images I don't know how I'm supposed to make money off the images that I own.

I just don't see how a professional freelance photographer is supposed to make any money off their archive of images if they are never allowed to resell the images to anyone other than the original credentialing company. Am I missing something about this?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Armando Solares, Photographer
Englewood | FL | USA | Posted: 12:04 AM on 08.31.08
->> Jason, that is an excellent question! I'd love to read a clear and informed answer.

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

Allen Hubbard, Photographer
Spokane | WA | USA | Posted: 2:33 AM on 08.31.08
->> "I'd love to read a clear and informed answer."
ME TOO!.........Boy wouldn't we all, it would be so nice if there was a standard regulation that applied to all NCAA images. It sure seems that we are being deprived of making a living if we were unable to sell images for any other use, EVER.
Now my understanding in my situation was that I could not sell the images to anyone while the athlete was still eligible to play but as soon as that was done I could sell them for personal use (to the athlete or a fan for home display), for editorial use and with approval for some commercial use such as in a book, but not to advertise a product or business. Again this was not in writing but just told to me, I have never had the need to try and approve another use.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Primoz Jeroncic, Photographer
Kranj | SI | Slovenia | Posted: 3:27 AM on 08.31.08
->> I guess these things are different in USA then they are in Europe. Here you can get accreditations as freelancer too, not to mention whole bunch of small agencies, selling photos to anyone (and I guess SS is one way to do it too). These photographers don't break any rules when offering photos to others, because they aren't accredited through particular organization on first place.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Luther, Photographer
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 08.31.08
->> Jason,

You are not missing anything.

Your question is one of the reasons why it is getting increasingly difficult to make a living as a freelancer. And why it so very important for freelancers to be at least as good in business as they are behind the lens.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Preston Mack, Photographer
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 3:21 PM on 08.31.08
->> Jason,

It is "copyright", not "copy write".

If you allow another entity to use an image that you hold a copyright to, you are granting a license, not "selling" the image.

You cannot license images for commercial use (ads) unless you have a commercial license with the league you are dealing with.

Editorial licensing is fine. Editorial useage is something that would appear in SI or ESPN The Magazine.

Hope this helps.

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

Jason Miller, Photographer
Cleveland | OH | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 08.31.08
->> I understand the difference between a commercial license and an editorial license. I know that if I'm shooting the NFL, MLB, or NBA and I'm not working for Getty, I'm shooting under an editorial license. As a matter of fact, I'm certain that I have never shot an image of a pro sport that was under a commercial license.

My understanding is that even under an editorial license the league still wants to restrict my ability to sell/license images to any other organization beyond who issued my credential. Robert's comments above certainly seem to be talking about editorial images.

Now, I have talked to photographers who have said that a league simply doesn't have the legal right to impose that kind of restriction on images for which a photographer owns the copyright. I think the idea being the images are the photographers property and they can do with them what the like. I have no idea if this is accurate. I'm not a copyright lawyer.

However, if a league simply can't legally control who I license photos to couldn't they just restrict who they credential? In other words couldn't the NFL simply ban a photographer from being credentialed because they aren't playing by their rules.
 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: 4:39 PM on 08.31.08
->> Jason said "couldn't the NFL simply ban a photographer from being credentialed because they aren't playing by their rules"


Yep. Then have and they will continue to do so if/when they feel like enforcing the rules on the back of the credential. This is typically done on a team by team basis since credentials are typically issued by the home team (until the playoffs).
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Bailey, Photographer
Flower Mound | TX | USA | Posted: 4:45 PM on 08.31.08
->> There are legitimate uses for this approach. Over the summer I covered the USA Jr. Olympic Volleyball Championships as an "event photographer" and was paid to provide images to USA Volleyball and their vendor, however before I ever accepted I confirmed that I had the right to license images for editorial use. In this case this was fine and I did just that and put up an ad on SS for "editorial use" of these images.

There was nothing wrong with this, so like most things you can't make a blanket statement that it is wrong or against the rules. Now I'm sure that wouldn't hold up for more major events, but in some cases it works and is just good business.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Bailey, Photographer
Flower Mound | TX | USA | Posted: 4:48 PM on 08.31.08
->> With regard to being banned from future credentials, this can happen for any reason. At one of the tracks I shoot NASCAR, etc. they have banned an acquaintance of mine just because the company he was shooting for got into a squabble with their PR department and was banned. Now anyone associated with them in the past is banned even if they shoot for another outlet.

When it's their game, they can ban whoever they want. That's why I am always nice as pie with officials, whether I think they are right or wrong.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Crazy new trend?
Thread Started By: Matthew Emmons
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Who once worked as a roadie for a friend's rock band? Click here to rock out! ::..