| 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
Not allowed to post Little League images online anymore!
James Broome, Photographer
 |
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 4:10 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> I was informed today that a new Little League International rule was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online.
http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp
From the rule: "Example 2: A web site that is not operated by a chartered local Little League wishes to post an image of a youth batter at the plate, and the image is identified in some way as a Little League image (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification). The web site operator would need permission from Little League International to post this image. The web site also would need to obtain written permission from the parent or guardian to post the photo. It is recommended that the web site operator also receive permission from the photographer."
Every single image that I've shot of LL participants has the name of the local Little League written right across the chest of their shirts. No real way I can get around that. This is not good news for those of us selling LL photos online, is it?
I've already disabled my existing LL galleries. I'm posting this news to help others out there who have LL galleries up as well. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:41 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> This week's sign of The Photopocalypse? |
|
Frank Angileri, Photographer
|
Downers Grove | IL | USA | Posted: 5:32 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> I just read this ruling on another forum and immediately came here to see if conversation begun on this. My initial thought was that this is unconstitutional since these players and coaches are not guaranteed privacy in a public venue. I'm no attorney, so I'm here hoping to learn from all of you. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> When I read this, I don't see it preventing the photographer from posting images otherwise it wouldn't say, "the web site operator also receive permission from the photographer."
I read this as if a team or a league has a web site, they need to get permission from Little League, as well as the photographer to post the image.
Also, many of the venues are not public venues. While some are, some are not. Some are owned by the league, not the city, so much like a pro football team, they can decide what happens within their fence line. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 6:27 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> This nonsense has gotten completely out of hand.
I was shooting my grandson's flag football game (equivalent of t-ball) w/ my 1D MKII and a 70-200 and some parent apparently thought my equipment was "professional" and assumed the worst in my motives. Challenging me, he went off on some diatribe about using kids photos, blah blah... I did not engage him in-kind, but put my camera down and calmly asked him to explain his concern and that it would help me if I could understand the precise risk to his children in me taking pictures of my grandson and if I happened to get his child in one of my shots. He had no response, other than some blubbering about privacy, permission, etc. I asked him again to explain his fear and concern; what exactly do you feel will happen to your child? What is the precise danger to them or your family? He had no answer except a repetition of a bunch of platitudes about privacy, etc....
I just don't get this paranoia these days. People have been taking pictures of kids in sports since cameras were invented, and I cannot say I've heard of one instance in which the child was endangered even once. Maybe I don't get out much. I really think this is spill-over from all the new emphasis on song downloads, photography licensing, etc. It's percolated down to an absurd level.
I'd really like ot hear from Paul Alesse on this; his whole business is shooting Little League. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 6:31 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> I should have noted my previous post was not specifically addressing the posting of images online, but it dovetails into that discussion. I think the issues are closely intertwined and feed into each other.
So, parents can't shoot little Johnny playing little league and post the shot on Flickr for Grandma to see??? The part in that ruling about "permission from parent or guardian..." is what grinds my gourd. |
|
Walter Calahan, Photographer
|
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> Geez, this means all the parents who take pictures to share them on their iWeb created web site, so other family members can see little Suzy and Johnny play, can't?
Who says Big Brother isn't alive and well? |
|
Michael Moriatis, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 7:42 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> That makes me want to go out and shoot a little league game, post the photos on my web site and then send the link to Little League International |
|
Gary Meidinger, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Emporia | Ks. | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> I don't take a lot of little league photos but it seems that the LL rule is full of words that we all have questions about. Also if someone was to go tou and shoot a game for a parent how would they know about the rule if there are not part of LL? I mean they dont send all photographers their rulebook. |
|
Kevin Sperl, Photographer
|
Meredith | nh | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> Like it or not, we now live in a world where there are kids who need to be protected.
I am guessing that Little League, as a corporation, is trying to avoid a lawsuit from a parent whose child's location is inadvertantly publicized.
I mean, today a mother gets arrested and is let out on $10,000 bail because her four-year-old daughter got ahold of an open beer can and was observed as being "drunk".
If that had happened when I was four, way back when, it would have been a good laugh for my mom and the parent that found me "drunk." |
|
Aaron Vogel, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> I'm not an Little League® photographer, so forgive my ignorance if it shows...
This thread got me curious and I looked further on the Little League® website into their media policies. Many of them seem to 1) address mostly news and entertainment media as well as local charter groups, not freelance photography vendors and 2) be laughably unenforcible except where games are played on private fields. The Little League® games where I grew up (and played) are all held on public diamonds; owned either by the local parks department or the middle or high schools. How on earth can an organization's POLICY possibly hold any sway in such a situation. They seem to have no authority to bar a photographer from attending the games, photographing the players in whatever way they choose and selling those photos to parents.
Now... just as always Little League® has the right to control their brand in any kind of commercial sense. Stock or other commercial photography with the Little League® logo or a player (without a release) has always been illegal. This is what it seems these policies are trying to state, just not very clearly.
Am I missing something?
Also, I feel ya Phil... it's terribly frustrating to know you're not doing anything wrong, and want to educate people about what you do yet be completely ignored because someone saw one too many "To Catch a Predator" episodes and doesn't want to hear it. |
|
Aaron Vogel, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ventura | CA | USA | Posted: 8:36 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> Oh, and I forgot to mention that you may want to use passwords for your galleries (I know smugmug has this feature) then hand that out to the team mom/dad or coach so as to keep people who really _shouldn't_ be there from looking through the kids' photos. Just to CYA... |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 8:48 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> My local LL board president is attending a district "presidents' meeting" this Wednesday night. She's going to have this discussed then. I'll be sure to follow up here with what I learn. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 9:41 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> " a new Little League International rule was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online. "
James, if you're not on one of the teams, Little League rules should mean squat to you.
Aaron, where I grew up, LL owned (who owned the Chiefs) about halt the game fields used. Yes, I was a cake eater. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 9:54 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> Coverage of the Little League World Series this year is going to be really lame. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:01 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> "A web site that is not operated by a chartered local Little League wishes to post an image of a youth batter at the plate, and the image is identified in some way as a Little League image (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification). The web site operator would need permission from Little League International to post this image."
LOL...ROTFLMAO...nice try, but this ain't going to fly. Is this a deju vu or what?
Can someone please, please tell me where it says in the constitution a third party can regulate what the press or a member of the media can or can not publish? Where are these organizations like the state high school associations and now the LL find these statutes in the constitution?????
Attempting to enforce this rule in my mind violates the right to free speech and freedom of the press. > Geez....
I have to give LL a 7.3 for style, 9.5 for creativity and a 2.4 for interpretation.
Their tack on this is to try and say that a website operator will violate the commercial rights when in fact they in fact are attempting to regulate someone from publishing their content for the world to see. Their issue is not, based on the language of the clause, about privacy for the kids, it has to do more with their name, logo and league advertisements.
Watch, LL will target small operators who don't have the legal resources to defend themselves or the professional network and support. They will have attorney's send out C&D letters to the folks who look to be easy prey and will fold easily, but I'm willing to bet my top and bottom dollar there won't be one daily newspaper or national magazine that will be on the receiving end of such a document who will have Little League images on their websites.
In our area the Little League numbers are suffering because most of the top kids in our area play on competitive traveling teams all summer long. The Little League organization needs more positive press right now and not a black eye.
Obviously the administrators of the Little League organization have NOT been paying attention to what has happened with the Illinois High School Association. Doh! I wish them a lot of luck trying to enforce this rule, but it ain't going to fly with media nor the parents of the kids in the long run and certainly not in the court room. I wish them a lot of luck trying to enforce this in Illinois...you see we have this organization called the Illinois Press Association and if they haven't heard about it . . . .(tsk, tsk, tsk)
Besides, parents want to see their kid's name in the paper, they want box scores, they want coverage of the games and photos on the website to proudly point relatives to see. When the local paper no longer publishes Little League scores or coverage because of the photo policy.
I feel sorry for the League presidents because they are going to get an ear full and will see their numbers drop as parents migrate to travel teams who will receive more coverage. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 10:06 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> I think many people are misinterpreting the rules. It does not say a thing about photographers not posting anything on the web...
From the website:
Example 1: A web site posts an image of a youth batter at the plate. As long as the batter is not identified in any way as a Little Leaguer (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification), Little League International would not be involved in this process. That issue would be between the photographer, the child’s parent/guardian, and the applicable laws.
As long as you don't name the child or show any prominent Little League symbols, there is not a problem.
As long as you are not owned or operated by the League, you can post what you want. League members seem to have a different sort of rules, and that is what the other examples are addressing.
Don't be Chicken Little. The Photopocalypse is not happening. (Thanks for the word MG) |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Somerville | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> I wonder how many people who have spouted off in this thread, bothered to read the whole posting including this choice tidbit:
"When the web site is that of a news organization (such as a local TV station, newspaper, etc.), generally speaking, the permissions noted above are not required. However, the local Little League should always be aware when the news media is recording images of children, so the parents can be fully informed."
And they don't even say anything about Newswebsites whoring their editorial integrity by posting heaps of non-captioned photos to increase pageviews and maybe make a few-dollar profit off the images...possibly even in the ultra-screwed up editorial landscape that is Illinois right now. But wait! There's more. Breaking news. Maybe VIP has scored an exclusive vendor relationship with LL Int'l!
________
Or maybe not. I seriously and sincerely doubt that Little League is going to go after the moms and dads sharing photos on a family brag page. And doesn't it make sense to have a release on a child you're going to post on a website which may be construed as commercial in nature--namely the Little League Local site?
And there's no god-given nor gov-given right to make a buck off anyone's likeness without a release, is there? What I see this doing is enabling Little League to monitor and enter into contracts with vendors, WHO THEY MAY BACKGROUND CHECK, before allowing any old schmuck with a camera, a business card and an online storefront to sell photos of the kids and who knows what they're really all about (there's no one matching this description on this board, is there?)
And I'm sure that every little leaguer's parent is going to have to sign a contract allowing for their kids to be photo'd by the media or REGISTERED EVENT PHOTOGRAPHERS. And if they don't--they won't be excluded from participating, I bet. There's a number of leagues that have things like this in effect, from what I can tell: A few years ago, I had an assignment for a paper covering little league. The coach pulled me aside when I showed up and pointed out one child and asked me to please please please make sure he wasn't in any photos because of a terrible family situation--that's all he needed to say to me, and I obliged. I could have spouted off nonsense about a free and independent press being a bulwark against the force of imperialism and totalitarianism as well as a profiteering venture to flood websites with outtake slop to desperately attempt to stay out of the red, but I simply said, no problem; sounds like he's had a rough go of it.
Good grief, everyone here is so reactionary around here any more! Read the whole article before ranting and raving about the 1st Amendment! |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 11:26 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> before allowing any old schmuck with a camera, a business card and an online storefront to sell photos
Jack, with all due respect. Constitutional rights are not vested in "news organizations." They are reserved by the people, or in your words, any schmuck with a camera. Selling a photo is not commercial usage.
"And I'm sure that every little leaguer's parent is going to have to sign a contract allowing for their kids to be photo'd by the media or REGISTERED EVENT PHOTOGRAPHERS. And if they don't--they won't be excluded from participating"
I don't understand your point here.
" allowing any old schmuck with a camera, a business card and an online storefront to sell photos of the kids and who knows what they're really all about (there's no one matching this description on this board, is there?) "
That would be me; however the parents know what I'm really about. Trying to make a buck. Sorry if that offends you. By the way, if any parent requests that I not post any images ( and they have), I honor that request and simply move on. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 11:26 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> ROTFLMFAO..........
After all the discussions in the IHSA thread, this one really cracks me up. This is where that double edged sword the IPA was using will come into play. It's been argued that the selling of reprints is an editorial product. So, there you go.
So, all one needs to do is set up a web site and publish a box score with the images and, BAM, you're now providing a public service......... just like a "newswebsite."
This won't be the last thing like this to happen. So, be careful what arguments you make....... it may be that double edged sword bouncing back at you. |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 12:24 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> Clark Brooks: "Can someone please, please tell me where it says in the constitution a third party can regulate what the press or a member of the media can or can not publish? Where are these organizations like the state high school associations and now the LL find these statutes in the constitution?????
Attempting to enforce this rule in my mind violates the right to free speech and freedom of the press. > Geez.... "
Except, Clark, that I'm not a member of the press or media. I'm a youth sports photographer full time. My business is photographing these kids and selling them online. This rule essentially puts an end to that practice when it involves Little League teams.
Besides, there are portions of the rule that free the press and members of media from such restrictions.
Nick Doan: "As long as you don't name the child or show any prominent Little League symbols, there is not a problem.
As long as you are not owned or operated by the League, you can post what you want. League members seem to have a different sort of rules, and that is what the other examples are addressing."
The article specifcally states that photographers hired by the league or used by the league must abide by these rules. It also states that web sites "not operated by a chartered local Little League" (ie, my business web site) cannot post pictures of LL players.
As far as "prominent Little League symbols" go, that is entirely your interpretation. I'd love to use it, but that's not what the rule states. It says the players cannot be identified as LL players. Since every single LL player I photograph has the name of the local Little League printed on their shirt, it'd be hard for me to bypass that one.
Jack Howard: "And I'm sure that every little leaguer's parent is going to have to sign a contract allowing for their kids to be photo'd by the media or REGISTERED EVENT PHOTOGRAPHERS."
You'd figure that was the case, Howard. I thought so too. Well, until I called my local LL president. She said she'd add that in for next season! Besides, along with that agreement, I'd also have to get the blessing of Little League International. Ugh.
I'm looking forward to hearing from the local LL president after their meeting Wednesday. I've been their photographer for 3 years now and have earned a very good reputation from both coaches and parents. I'd hate to throw all that away due to this idiotic rule. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 12:51 AM on 03.10.08 |
| ->> James, LL International has many rules. You are not bound by them. If you choose to follow these rules, that's up to you. They have no authority over you. LL can make rules all day long. It doesn't matter. Unless the local LL affiliate has hired you. If they are not paying you, their rules don't matter. |
|
Kristopher Wilson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Liverpool | NY | USA | Posted: 1:57 AM on 03.10.08 |
| ->> HA HA! Thank goodness youth baseball in my hometown is all Babe Ruth. Oh wait, I guess the clock's probably ticking there too... Screw it, I'm gonna go shoot some flowers. |
|
D. Ross Cameron, Photographer
|
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 3:39 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> This just in: The American Horticultural Society (AHS) has just posted a new regulation regarding the publication of flowers on the Web. Seems that, if you don't have the permission of the flowers' respective seeds, you "may not post more than seven (7) images of any given flower while said flower is still in bloom, and in any case not more than 72 hours after the germination of said flower."
There could be some First Amendment issues here, I'll get back to you when we know more.
Tired of the idiocy,
DRC |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 8:31 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> Jeff - like the others before you, it sure would be easy to take your word for this. If my local LL chapter gets into hot water because they allowed me to do what I've been doing, I'm pretty sure a "Jeff Martin said it was OK" isn't going to help either of us much.
The rules say they apply to me. Why do you say they don't?
DRC - I did laugh a bit, but I have to ask - when did flowers around the world start paying The American Horticultural Society money for the privilege of blooming as well as agree to terms just to germinate? It was a funny analogy, but it doesn't really jibe here.
Trust me folks, I'm not screaming that the sky is falling. I just wanted to report this odd rule. It screams "unenforceable", but so did Peter Wolf's patent. We see where that got us. |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 8:37 AM on 03.10.08 |
| ->> Of course, you were just poking fun at Kristopher with the flowers gag. I had to go and get all serious on you. My bad. Like I said, it *is* funny! |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 10:28 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> James, do you have a contract with the local LL to provide services or is this just a situation where you show up and shoot. If you are under contract, not following rules could case you to lose it. If the situation is less formal, this is why 'Jeff Martin said it was OK." LL international makes rules not laws. If you are not a member of LL international or in business with them, why would their rules effect you? Unless you are using those photos for commercial purposes, the law of the United States says you DON'T need a release. Simply selling a print is not a commercial use in the eyes of the law.
The local should not get into trouble for allowing you to do this. They don't have any way to stop you. They can tell you not to take pictures of their games or post photos. You do not have to comply if the games are played in public.
For legitimate legal advice, you should see a lawyer. Once again, I don't know what your exact relationship is with the local LL. I know I can go up to the town's ball fields next month and shoot/post all the LL games I want. It's constitutionally protected. |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 10:37 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> I have an exclusive contract with my local Little League to provide action photographs to parents/players.
And I understand the constitutionality of 'public places' and right to privacy (public parks, etc.), but I also understand they have the right to protect the kids that play within their organization. If you show up to the park you mentioned and just start shooting, wouldn't you expect to be asked by a LL official what you're doing there? And if your reply is "I'm taking pictures of these kids", wouldn't you expect to be asked to either stop or leave? And yeah, you could argue that it's your constitutional right to be there and to take pictures of people in public places, but I'm also sure they'd still remove you from the park - public or not. |
|
Bill Miller, Photographer
|
Thousand Palms | CA | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 03.10.08 |
->> It seems that everyone always goes off half-cocked when some new rule or policy is announced. That is the case here. Get your facts before you open mouth and insert foot.
If only someone had called the LL office media department they would have gotten the policy guidelines relating to event photographers. In talking with Chris Downs, Media Director of LL all a event photographer must do is have an agreement {in writing/signed} with the League, stating their arrangment. With that the photographer can then post the images online.
What the League wants is a paper trail, and parents to be aware that their childs photo may be posted on the internet.
So simple - no panic - a reasonable answer. If you have any questions call or email Chris Downs 570-326-1921
cdowns@littleleague.org |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 11:35 AM on 03.10.08 |
| ->> Thank you Bill. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> Moo woo rhump ugh moo hwaat....(wrestling to get my foot out of mouth) Yeah, I'll be the first to admit I jumped the gun on this one.
I didn't follow the link James posted in his original message. My first post was based on the clause/example he used was the entire policy. I was wrong. After reading the entire policy statement on the LLO site, I have a better understanding what's going on as the policy relates to vendors under contract and not the media or photographers shooting on spec.
Thank you, Bill for making the call and seeking clarification.
I have to give myself a 4.9 for style, 8.0 for creativity and a 1.9 for interpretation :( |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 12:26 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> Clark - I've taken Bill Miller's excellent advice and have emailed Mr. Downs for clarification on this rule, but where do you see in the rule that it does not relate to photographers shooting on spec?
I admit that I am being cautious until I receive more info on this situation, but following the 'better safe than sorry' adage in this case isn't costing me anything. |
|
Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> I think this could only bind you if you have a contract with Little League that mentions it (aka, a credential; a contract to provide photography; a kid in little league who took home a sign-up sheet that you signed) Any of the above might include, "I agree to abide by the TOC and policies on littleleague.org..." so be on the look out.
If you have a contract with the local little league, this will likely show up in some form in your next agreement. It is very easy to deal with if you require in your language that the Little League group require children signing up to agree to be photographed. If they refuse to do so, tell them that you can't photograph them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all kids who want to sign up for a sport have bring home a form for their parents, one that absolves LL of all liability, etc? Can't they just add a photo release to that? (BTW, while children cannot sign contracts, their parents can sign on their behalf and it will be enforceable). I'm quite sure that they will require releases for the LL world series. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to use those photos for promotional purposes. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:01 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> James Broome,
I'm glad you've decided to contact the LL Media Office for clarification of the rules. However, might this not have been the best course of action before posting your original message?
I can appreciate the fact that you wanted to warn others, and call attention to the policy. But, this really reminds me of that Chicken Little story...
Between this site and Fred Miranda, you would think that LLB is going to sue everybody and beat them up with their own camera gear. |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 3:28 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> Nick -
It *may* remind you of Chicken Little....if the message I get back says this is nothing to be concerned with. Since I haven't heard back yet, we can't yet say it is, can we?
If you have read the rule, you'll see why people (including myself) are so concerned about this. It was originally posted by someone else at Fred Miranda. I read the linked rule and decided to mention it here. If there are those that feel it doesn't concern them, fine. As I've already stated, I'm not screaming that this is the end of the world, I'm bringing it up as a possible news item / concern.
I have heard back from Mr. Downs. He has requested the text of the agreement between my company and my local Little League for review. Again, I'll be sure to follow up with everyone here once I hear something back substantial. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 6:07 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> In defense of James' post, I just read the text in the link, and nowhere is there any language to abrogate the tone and severity of that narrative. It says nothing about what a photographer must do to satisfy those requirements other than "get permission". And if I were a photographer such as Paul Alesse, the nations foremost Little League photographer, or others who shoot LL on a regular basis, I would still be more worried about what appears in that text than a casual conversation with some guy at the office on the phone. When push comes to shove, it's what's on the written disclaimer that will guide a judge's decision rather than some off-the-cuff discussion on a telephone.
With all due respect to Bill Miller, who took the time to call, and to Chris Downs at LL, WHY in the hell did Chris not also describe the "simple" process a photog has to follow to be in compliance? All the detail in that policy is there for a reason, and I would not be so quick to accept Chris Downs telephone conversation. I would ask him to put that conversation in writing and post it along the other stuff in the written policy. THEN we have a "chicken little" scenario we can point to. As it stands, we still have a bunch of nonsense gibberish that no one can live with. Chris Downs needs to re-write his policy to truly reflect reality, if reality is truly different than what is currently posted. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 10:18 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> James, I understand that you want to maintain your relationship with the local league; however..
"And yeah, you could argue that it's your constitutional right to be there and to take pictures of people in public places, but I'm also sure they'd still remove you from the park - public or not."
I don't think so. They better have the cops there for that and then their lawyers. Granted I have a pension that gives me a little more freedom, but I'm not going out of the public park on their say so. I don't suggest these practices when you are working for someone else (or yourself) who is counting on you to deliver the goods. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 10:46 PM on 03.10.08 |
->> FWIW, I'll bring to light a few facts about this policy, since I am, and continue to be, the Official Photographer of the LLWS...
1) This is not a new rule. It has been the policy of LLB for over 10 years and as a matter of fact the rule has been relaxed over the years. At one time, NO website outside of the Little League Network (now run by Active.com and Eteamz) could be created by a LLB league official. Simply stated... if you are an officer of your local Little League and wanted to create a website for your league, you HAD to use the official LLB network. And when you did that, minors in photos could be posted on that site with proper parental permission. No additional permission from LLB was required beyond that point.
2) The rule has since been relaxed to allow photos of LLB players on websites outside of the LLB network as long as a written document has been drafted by the league and photographer and that documentation is submitted to Williamsport for review. This relaxation came into light, simply because it was impossible for LLB International to police the net.
3) As stated, LLB has left it up to individual leagues to enforce the rule and is requesting "a paper trail". People are under the impression that LLB International governs everything from media coverage of the LLWS down to how the grass is grown on each field across the globe. This is not the case. There is very specific chain of command in LLB. COACH-LEAGUE PRESIDENT-DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR-REGIONAL OFFICE-CHARTER COMMITTEE-PRESIDENT & CEO. 90% or more of the issues are initiated and enforced at the local league level under the auspicies of LLB and the league constitution. LLB isn't going to micromanage the day to day affairs at the local level. They have a framework in place that employs a large amount of qualified volunteers and they trust those volunteers to do what's best for the players in their leagues. It's not a perfect system, but what really is?
This issue is not being enforced by headquarters, it's being asked to be enforced by the local league and that papers be filed with Williamsport. I really think everyone is making more of this than need be.
4) If you think about it, you want this policy to be enforced. You need this policy to be enforced. Plenty of leagues are employing photographers and those photographers are posting those images online. LLB is well aware of this and is also aware of how the local leagues use photographers for fund raising revenue and donations within their league. They are just asking individual leagues to formalize it in writing and submit it to their office for approval. If you are employed as the official photographer for the league, this policy will actually wind up protecting you by preventing other non-authorized photographers showing up to the field, snapping away and selling the photos on their own site. In the past, if this was happening, your legal issue was between you and the violating photographer. Now, it's between the violating photographer and LLB. It's not such a bad thing when LLB comes to your defense. ;-) |
|
Jim Donnelly, Photographer
|
Coral Springs | Fl | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 03.11.08 |
->> Jeff, I think you are misinformed. When LL games are played on a Public Park, they have "rented" these fields or have a "permit" to use these fields. They have the right to control what happens on these fields and who is allowed on them. Otherwise, how would they be able to eject an unruly coach, parent or player?
How could they keep a known pedophile from coaching on the "Public" field?
I love your attitude and arrogance, but LL has been around a long time and they have ridden in this rodeo more than once.
Like Paul says, this rule has been around for quite a while. Its a CYA deal. They want to cover their butts and rape the photographers for every penny they can because the photographers are making a profit off the kids in their leagues.
You can say what you want about it being a public field but once that league signs a contract for use with the city, they are responsible for what happens on that field. If you think you have the right to take my kid's picture on that field and use it for your profit without my permission or the league's, come on down and we'll see who wins in court. Of course, that is what LL is trying to avoid with this rule, although they didn't do a very good job with clarification.
LL has so many dang rules they take the fun out of the game that doesn't even resemble baseball anymore. Babe Ruth and PONY Ball seem to have the right idea - let the kids play the game and quit micro managing it!
Having said that, I will continue to take pictures in the leagues I have contracts for, the ones that have parents sign releases for at the beginning of the season, and the ones that sign a "Hold Harmless" for my company ahead of time.. If its for a newspaper or other publication, that's a different story... But for profit... the league has every right to control who profits from their kids. Like it or not.... Good luck with your pension. |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 9:52 AM on 03.12.08 |
->> Hi Jim,
Points all well made, and I agree with you about selling images of LL players, that indeed would require parental consent, and I don't think people would argue that's a legit issue. But the LL rules are specific about the simple act of being present during the game with a camera in your hand and just posting an image on-line regardless if you're going to sell it or not. I think that is what is irritating so many people.
Amen to your point about letting the kids play; I do not have any kids in LL, as they got burned in T-ball by a coach who thought he was in the World Series... I think it's time some parents formed their own local kids league that simply says "Come on down and let the kids play." Sign a medical release in case someone gets hurt, and PLAY BALL! I know a ton of good, competent umpires who would love to send down a two-man crew for something like that. Who cares if people take pictures? I repeat what I asked in my original post; someone tell me what is the actual, measurable harm to a child or his/her family by a photog posting an image of an anonymous LL player? Now, if you say "This is Johnny Smith of Anytown, USA" then you have a different matter. But these overzealous parents who get their undies in a twist over something they THINK they should object to need to take a deep breath and get a grip on reality.
God forbid a bunch of kids should get together and say "Let's go down to the park and play baseball!" The sky would fall in seconds... |
|
James Broome, Photographer
|
Tampa | FL | US | Posted: 10:49 AM on 03.12.08 |
| ->> Jim - I tried to make the same point a couple of times in this thread, but you did a better job than I. I think too many of the "I have the right" folks are looking at this from a purely journalistic viewpoint - which is completely valid in that context. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 12:04 PM on 03.12.08 |
->> If you don't need a release to sell it on newsprint for .50 cents you don't need a release to sell in on Fuji stock for $25.
How many ways can that be said? Access can certainly be controlled. But once the photo is taken, unless the rights have been assigned by prior agreement (credential, contracts, etc) you can use the photo in artistic and editorial uses at will.
So while all these league certainly have the right to toss anyone from a field, trying to control use of an image is a much bigger problem for them. Legally or otherwise.
And as far as all the lip service on suing. Can't we give that a rest? If, IF you have a kid or LEGAL STANDING to bring on an action DO IT and stop talking about it. With the litigious mindset that seems to permeate everything that we do on a daily basis, I would have thought that by now the suit would have been filed, and ruled on. Then we could all get back to work and make pictures that newspaper will only want if we're giving them away, and parents think are the product of a superior cameras and have nothing to do with skill. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 12:12 PM on 03.12.08 |
->> Jim, in my town, nobody pays a rental fee to use the ball fields. I'm sure it's different in other places.
The pedophile coach argument doesn't ho;ld water. He's part of the league (or rather, hopefully not). The unruly parent can be dealt with by penalizing his team if he won't leave.
I wonder if you think you could sue the paper and win for posting an online gallery of photos and selling them for profit. Please explain how the papers online gallery is different than mine in the eyes of the law.
Phil,...
God forbid a bunch of kids should get together and say "Let's go down to the park and play baseball!" The sky would fall in seconds...
When I was coaching, I told the kids to meet at the park the next morning and just play ball. A town worker tossed them off because the fields were already lined for the games that evening at 8 pm. Insane. |
|
Richard Favinger Jr, Photographer
|
Pottstown | PA | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 03.16.08 |
->> So, Paul...
What should us league photographer do? Draw up a small contract and have the local board sign it, and send sent it in or keep it on file? I'm still at a bit of a loss as what to do here. I just read the rule myself.
I took photos for the local League (D27) last year more as a favor. As of 2008 I registered as a LL volunteer and sent in all the nifty paperwork. I don't go as far as to call my self the Official Photographer of the league because I am not, I don't do team shots only the action work. And there is no money changing hands. I take the photos, the league has pick of any image they wish to use in there ads, site, flyers and I sell images to parents off my site.
I'm rank new to photographing Little League, and just got the 300mm 2.8 S VR specifically for this use... Now I read this and it really is worrying me. I had asked the League at the board meetings before signup if they though I needed a release... They just looked at me and say "what for...?" So, signups are over, and no releases.
Our league is small, this year we have around 230 kids signed up all devisions. I see it as a public service and a way to build my skill, not as a way to make huge money.
I do admire your work Paul...I have your LL Shooting manual... LOL :-)
So, what should I (we) do?
What do I need to discuss with the local board? |
|
Jesse Hutcheson, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Newport News | va | United States | Posted: 3:12 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> So...
What does this mean if you have some amazing LL photo you want to put on your online/print portfolio? |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 3:18 PM on 03.16.08 |
| ->> It means you put it in your portfolio. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 3:22 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> Yeah Jesse,
Really, any amazing photo you have you can put in your portfolio - though that one group of people who ride on those animals with big balls and horns will try to tell you otherwise. Remember, you didn't sign a thing. Actually, if you could forward me that email you got, would be interesting. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> Nobody can tell you what non-commercial use to make of your images. However, private entities can refuse you access to their events.
You do not need parental permission to publish or even sell images of minors. If parents don't want their children to be photographed in public places, then their option is to keep them out of public places.
--Mark |
|
Bill Miller, Photographer
|
Thousand Palms | CA | USA | Posted: 8:53 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> Mark, you are wrong and anyone taking your advice would be in deep do-do. You cannot use anyones photograph (in California other states vary) without their permission or in the case of a minor the parent or guardian's permission.
It is called "Right of Privacy" and damages do apply.
Here is a copy of the Calif. Law and cases are cited.
http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Feb/1/130405.html
Note: This information was written by Amy D. Hogue is a senior litigation partner who co-chairs the Firm's 24-lawyer Intellectual Property Group in Los Angeles and heads the Firm's Media Advertising and Content Counseling specialty team. She is a nationally recognized expert in First Amendment law, and in the rights, privileges and liabilities affecting publishers, broadcasters, entertainment companies, advertising agencies, and other purveyors of content communicated through traditional and electronic media. |
|
Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
|
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:15 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> Bill: from your link. Plain as day.....
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a). |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:38 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> Bill:
Let me preface this with I'm am not an attorney but having read the document I can't find any clause that pertains buy a photograph for personal use. The statute as I read it applies to using a photo for commercial purposes. As has been stated in numerous threads on this board, commercial photography is that which serves to advertise, market or endorse a product or service. All other usage is considered editorial. This has been an established practice for decades.
So, specifically where does it state that Mark is wrong? Where is the case law that relates to a photographer selling a photo of an adult or minor in the article. If it was against the law to photograph and license the photo for personal use (sell is the wrong term BTW) the photo of that person there would hundreds of cases not only in California but in other states as well, to cite since this is a rather regular occurance in American society today.
With exception to a few additional clauses the statutes look quite similar to Illinois laws.
Having researched this topic for years, I have been unsuccessful in locating case law where a someone has successfully filed a lawsuit against a photographer for making an image available to them for sale via a website. If you know of such a case please post a link to a story or court papers detailing the decision for the plaintiff. In the link you provided, nearly all of the cases cited were in regard to commercial, not editorial usage. |
|
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
|