| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Rule against selling high school football photos?
Clay Carson, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Little Rock | AR | | Posted: 11:04 AM on 12.05.06 |
->> Our newspaper uploads a lot of extra high school football photos to a hosted community photo gallery we sponsor. We usually put up 6 action shots and maybe 25 photos of cheerleaders, band, fans, etc. We promote it heavily and it drives a lot of traffic to our site. The site has the option to make the photos available for sale. This is how we handle all reprint requests. The price is fairly cheap, the service handles fulfillment and we get a cut and make a couple of bucks. We see this as a service to our readers.
We got a call from the local activities association that govern high school athletics in our state. He said we were in violation of a national rule that prohibits the sale of photos from high school athletic events. Of course we will make him document this rule, but I wanted to know if anyone here had heard of such a rule or run into this problem before. Thanks.
Clay |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 11:18 AM on 12.05.06 |
| ->> A national rule? No national rule, and there is no national governing body for HS sports that could make such a ruling. Those decisions are done on a state by state basis, and even then, the waters get clouded. He may have a state wide contract for playoffs that his governing body is in charge of, which you can check out rather easily. I am assuming that by "local activities association" you me the state. |
|
Jeremy Harmon, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 12.05.06 |
->> There is a National Federation of High Schools. They work woth athletics and the arts. I don't know if they have media rules regarding sales of photos, but even if they did, I highly doubt they would be inforceable.
http://www.nfhs.org/ |
|
Troy Thomas, Photographer
|
Kansas City | MO | USA | Posted: 12:18 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> The only thing I could think that might be a problem is if it were a private school playing on their privately owned feild. If its a public school playing on a taxpayer supported field you should be in the clear.
Although it might nothurt, and earn some points with the admin, to donate a small percentage of sales to the local schools. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:54 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Clay,
I don't know of any 'National' rule but I do know that it is part of the credential agreement in one of the states that I work in. And a growing trend.
Enforcement is rather easy.... They simply don't give you field access in the future. |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Ohio has an agreement with a company for postseason (although the company only shoots the state finals in some sports and semifinals and finals in others) and says sales are not allowed from the state tournaments. However, they have done next to nothing to communicate this at the early round levels. The association does suggest schools make aggreements for the regular season in which the schools get a "generous" portion of the proceeds.
I've always respected the state's position on the state finals I've shot. Since I've never actually seen anything from the state except a copied e-mail regarding other rounds and the regular season, I haven't worried about that. And if the schools have ever asked for anything, I've tried to help them out. (I just gave one of the schoools a framed 11x14 of a trophy presentation and the coach some digital files for the Christmas cards he sends out to team supporters.)
And I believe the National Federation issues guidelines that are up to the individual state associations to adopt if they so choose. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:27 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Mr. Thomas wrote: "Although it might nothurt, and earn some points with the admin, to donate a small percentage of sales to the local schools"
Don't you dare! It is already hard enough to earn a living from photography that you need to give away part of your paper's earnings. The only way to offset the loss in revenue, from a bean counter viewpoint, is to layoff someone - most likely in the department the loss of revenue from the "donated" funds. Bad idea for several other reasons, too.
More importantly it isn't a donation, it is a payment, kickback, or whatever your want to call it. Donations is not the right terminology as donations don't require something of tangible value in return.
To my knowledge there is no national organization that governs high school sports as Mr. Santilli points out. The organization like many states may have a contract with a company like V.I.P. for state finals series which is generally an exclusive deal making the company the official licensed photography service for state and may be sectional meets. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 12.05.06 |
| ->> I seriously doubt there's a national rule that would override the First Ammendment of the Consitution. As stated above, if you were on a public field shooting a public school, you're in the clear. Even if you were shooting a private school on a private field with authorization to be there, you're in the clear. However, it will depend on the usage of the reprint as to whether you'll need a model release from the subject. If it's for personal use, such as a parent buying a reprint to frame or for a photo album, you won't need one. But if it's going to end up in some sort of commercial sphere, such as advertising (though I can't imaging who would use high school sports photos for advertising), you'll need a model release from the subject and/or the parent/guardian if the subject is under 18. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 1:45 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> There is most definitely NOT a national rule against selling photos of high school football. In fact, I am the designated photographer for the upcoming CIF Central Valley basketball championships at Selland Arena in Fresno in March (a gazillion games over 3 days), and they have a REQUIREMENT that I establish and maintain an on-line photo purchasing vehicle for fans and players.
Also, there is most definitely a national organization that governs high school sports. I am a basketball referee, and we constantly wrestle with new rules that come from the state or NFHS. Every time there's a new rule, first question is "...is this national or state?"
Phil |
|
Clay Carson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Little Rock | AR | | Posted: 4:02 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Thanks for the input. We are checking with the national organization. The local association does not have a rule but they might try to put one in. They claim sales would affetc a players eligibility. Not sure that makes any sense. Most of the stuff that sells are not of theplayers, but fans, bands and such. I will let you folks know how this turns out.
Clay |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 4:05 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Some people are using the argument if it's a public school on a public field, then its OK. Try using that logic with your local NCAA public institution. The school still can exert control over who has access to its facilities and events.
I think a lot of it at the high school level is about relationships - especially with smaller schools.
A "donation" or payment of some sort back to the school can do wonders for public relations and good will leading to more sales. If the paper or other photographer works it out right, it wouldn't be that much different than a rights fee. |
|
Glenn Connelly, Student/Intern, Photo Editor
|
San Diego | CA | US | Posted: 8:54 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> "They claim sales would affect a players eligibility"
The only people that buy the damn photos are the PARENTS! This is not the NCAA...
This sounds ridiculous, and someone with too much time on their hands and on a power trip. I would definetly call this "local organization" on their bluff. |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
 |
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 12.05.06 |
->> Clay, are they still called the AAA? When I was growing up in the Spa city, it was the Arkansas Athletics Association. In their comments to you I guess the official had seen the NCAA guidelines on selling pictures of players with NCAA eligibility left on third-party websites not a part of the universities involved.
However, tell the AAA photographers credentialed with editorial publications are exempted by the NCAA third-party online sales prohibition when the pictures are sold through the photographer's newspaper. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 11:44 PM on 12.06.06 |
->> Me thinks what this is really about is you may potentially be cutting into someone else's action.
Certainly have him produce the documents.
What I am doing it setting up a relationship with the booster clubs. Pay them a commission.Have some idiot tell them they can't promote images of their kids and he'll be getting 3AM phone calls from angry parents followed by a replay of the famous horsehead scene from "The Godfather".
The key is to get the parents involved. No HS athletic director will last very long if the parents get pissed off... and denying them the ability to get pictures of their kids is a darn good way to get the piss off factor real high real quick. |
|
TD Paulius, Photographer
|
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 12.07.06 |
->> The First Amendment only applies to legitimate press needs. Do not confuse freedom of the press to cover and publicize and event with images with a commercial venture of selling them separate and part from any story pertaining to the event.
Such a venture has the potential of causing trouble. This is not the instance where a parent contacts a paper for a reprint of Sally or Johnny playing hoops that appeared in the December 4 issue. Rather, it is the newspaper profiting off the student-athlete's image, usually with no restrictions. Doing that may run afoul of the athlete's parents, and possible school AD who might raise an objection based on it compromisingt he stahlete's eligibility.
Assume for a momemt, the following hypothetical, whcih highlights, possiby to an extreme, the problem with a paper selling images as a sideline. A local paper places online all of the run photos and outtakes of an assignment, including a girl bending over in a lacrosse uniform during a time out in a local high school game. Anyone could have purchased that image. Assume luckily for the papaer that further that the coach of the lax team in question was the father of the player, and also an IP attorney who subsequently called the paper and requested the business manager to remove the image and to further provide the team with an accounting of all sales made of game images. The business manager disagreed, but the paper's counsel agreed especially when faced with an action in tort for missappropriation of commercial likeness of the player (and team) for that picture, invasion of privacy and portrayal in a false light (fundamental torts that all shooters shoudl know). Assume that susbsenquent to that conversation the paper no longer posts images of that team on their sales site, and keep in mind that our legal system does nto permit us to read remedial measures as an admission of wrongdoing.
In order to sell images of a recognizable person (note I now stress "separate and apart" from the image used in the paper), you or the paper need a release or consent. Why would a parent consent to a paper selling images of his/her student athlete without receiving a percentage? If the parent consents, what affect does that have on the HS athlete's possible NCAA eligibility, inasmuch as they are now co-marketing the image in a sports context.
This is a grey area and you should ask the paper's attorney what the right to publicity and commercial likeness is in your state. Selling prints of the images that have been run in the paper is mroe than arguably legitiamte under the news exception, but outtakes could create headaches.
There is most likely no NFHS rule against images, but the side sale of images question is not as simple as you think. Tread carefully.
Also listen to Clark. He raises a legitimate point that is necessary for all of our survival. |
|
Paul Jordan, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 12.07.06 |
| ->> TD, I was hoping you would weigh in on the subject, thanks. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Tucson | Az | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 12.07.06 |
| ->> He's blowing smoke up your butt. There is no rule like that. If they refuse to credential you, then so be it. |
|
Clay Carson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Little Rock | AR | | Posted: 11:19 AM on 12.07.06 |
->> I appreciate everyones input. TD has an interesting point.
Clay |
|
Kent Porter, Photographer
|
Santa Rosa | CA | USA | Posted: 12:30 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> Sounds like someone wants a piece of the pie. Read this! P-U-B-L-I-C S-C-H-O-O-L. Most high schools rely on community donations to build athletic fields. Since public schools are community funded, the campus in turn is a public institution. I guess all those people who bring cameras to the game and shoot photos of their kids can be beaned too. Things like school dances on campus can be considered closed to the public and thus a photog might not get in. (Trust me, I have been down this road recently).
As far as release and consent issues from TD's post, public schools (in California) have students sign a waiver at the beginning of each school year stating they can or can't have their photograph taken by outside agencies such as a newspaper, school pictures and the like. The parents of those children can either release or deny.
The web though is a gray area. Schools have figured out that they can make money on their sports programs by selling their own photogs work online. If they were concerned about eligibility problems, there would be no yearbooks, programs or any other photographic history of their games. As far as being denied access to a game, that's okay because there are 25 other high school games to pick from on any given Friday night.
KP |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 1:21 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> TD wrote "In order to sell images of a recognizable person (note I now stress "separate and apart" from the image used in the paper), you or the paper need a release or consent. Why would a parent consent to a paper selling images of his/her student athlete without receiving a percentage?"
I wrote something like this about a year ago and got blasted by the SS.com community, basically telling me that I was crazy. After hearing them out, I agreed that they were right (even though I didn't want to agree). But I think TD's position is the way it should be, even though in reality its not.
Here's the thread for a long read:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=18188 |
|
Paul Jordan, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 1:55 PM on 12.07.06 |
| ->> For those unaware, TD is an IP attorney. FWIW. |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
|
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> Clay,
I have never heard of this. not once. I'd be interest to hear more about it. If you want, holler at me on my e-mail.
Mark |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer
|
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 2:28 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> TD.....does your opinion apply to freelance companies that place images online for sale?
To anyone....can someone please tell me where it is stated anywhere that HS players loose NCAA or NAIA elligiblity by having their images online for sale?
Outside of attorneys and over reaching HS AD's, 99.9% of HS parents want the service my company provides.
And, until someone in authority or some official organization puts into writing and it is passed into a statute, I plan to keep on shooting and posting. If a parent or school official does not want images posted, so be it, I will take them down, and move on as Kent mentioned above. There is a whole school system that we do not shoot due to one parent who complained to the local school board in their area....and I still get calls to cover games for the parents...I refer them to the sup. of schools, and let him explain it, I have a business to run and people who want us who I can take care of.
As the bard wrote: Much ado about nothing. |
|
TD Paulius, Photographer
|
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 2:32 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> Landon: You were correct then and you are correct now.
My take is the right to sell lies with the athlete insofar as an outtake is concerned and not necessarily with the HS or the league, although the HS may assert in loco parentis.
Kent indicates that Cali is ahead of the game by having its athletes sign releases/waivers because their adminsitrators are cognizant of these rights. So too, are tournaments that make their participants aware of the fact that their images may be taken and posted for sale.
I have a concern of the many of you that insist that because an event takes place on a public field, you can sell the images. Certainly for editorial purposes, you can, ignoring any casting in false light aspects, but commerical use, like comercial speech, has always had its own set of guidelines, and you must account to someone whose likeness you profit from without their permission.
Paul: Luckily, we have no such rules in shooting Grandmasters lacrosse! As for Weston, my knee and hip need to be scoped so I am very limited in play come January, and only crease defense . I trust you are healthy and ready. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:02 PM on 12.07.06 |
->> invasion of privacy and portrayal in a false light
OK I'm NOT an attorney so I'll break the rules and ask a question that I might not know the answer to. In your example the 'injured' party is standing on a high school field during a lax game that is being viewed by the general public.
What expectation of privacy can she have and what false light is there? I assume that she really is bending over in your example and that we aren't talking about a doctored photo.
--> Selling prints of the images that have been run in the paper is more than arguably legitimate under the news exception, but outtakes could create headaches.
What if there were no outtakes? What if the 'paper' isn't published on.... paper? What if USA Today decided to 'print' all 600 images as part of a podcast? Would the podcast not enjoy the same protections as the printed paper? And by extension would the images in that podcast not then enjoy the same arguments of saleability as those of the images printed on the dead rotting tree pulp? |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 12.07.06 |
| ->> Thanks TD, but where were you a year ago when I needed you! ;-) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|