U.S. legality of taking kids pic at sports events

I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old, I'm 34 years old. I stand outside when they are on the playground 'in case' for hours watching them run around in circles.

My Mom didn't do that, she stayed inside and looked in on us every once in a while out the window. I'd be gone all day by the age of 6 or so, in creeks, walking through rain sewers, having all sorts of adventures.

Was one parenting style different than the other? Was one style wrong? Who knows. I talk to my wife about it all the time. Both of us did things like this. My wife had over 200 acres of timberland in Oregon to run around on and would have a lunch packed by her grandmother and off they went.

Why do I feel I need to do this?

News reporting styles have changed over the last 20 or so years I think. I've actually made a game of the alarmist attempt at ratings promos they do now between shows with 'news at 11' and it turns out to be some puff piece. But if you pay attention to just the 15 second spot they do you'd think someone is chopping kids heads off.

Should you be vigilant? Sure. Are we maybe a bit over the edge? I think so. As a parent do I fight the urge every day? yes, and then of course the one time I let my 2 year old run around the back of the house without me 2 steps behind him he climbs in a wading pool fully clothed carrying three DVDs he snagged while I was cleaning out the car...
--
http://public.fotki.com/trekkie

--

--

That wasn't my understanding either Jeff, although I've heard the similar things from staff at our local Junior College, which requires a signed release when you register.

I know there are experts on this forum in this area of knowledge - so please correct me if this is wrong - but I always thought that editorial (news of various media) publication was always ok without a release (I'm sure exceptions can be made for the reasons Jeff listed - embarrassing situations etc).

• then the next line is commercial use. Now I've heard various definitions of commercial use. One local pro that runs his own stock agency said it only crosses the line into commercial use if the image is being used to endorse something. He told me this when I asked if I needed a property release for this image:

That is a privately owned ski resort on private land, although the image was shot from a public road through public land. He told me I can sell that image all I want, and as long as the buyer is not using it for product endorsement no release would be needed - would be fine for a print on a wall - even in a commercial location. He told me the same goes for people. Was he right???? Seems like crossing the line to me - you can make money on an image of a person as long as it isn't being used for product endorsement - I mean, didn't that just make it commercial by the photographer making money on it? But then again people sell images to newspapers all the time and since they are being used for editorial that is ok . . . confusing

When it comes to the example of the college - I guess everything they publish could be considered endorsing their school/program - and thus the need for the releases?
Cindy

--

Jeff Peterman said:

Jeff Peterman said:

Jeff Peterman said:

My Galleries Here: http://www.pbase.com/cindyd

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sis-Q said:

When it comes to the example of the college - I guess everything
they publish could be considered endorsing their school/program -
and thus the need for the releases?

Click to expand...

I really think the issue in learning institutions maybe an expectation of privacy in the classroom. A classroom isn't exactly public like a park or public ball field. To be in the school or class room we need permission. Not just anyone can walk in at anytime without getting permission ... so the students and faculty have some expectation of privacy.

Now if you happen to be at a stadium watching a ball game where TV, video cameras and photo journalist are of course everywhere ... the reasonable person has no expectation of privacy. Heck if you are a cute girl or a half naked guy painted up and in a snow storm then your likely to end up on TV.

Walking down the street and you can be photographed and yes the photographer can sell that image without your permission (but not to advertise a product). This was brought up recently decide in favor of the photographer in a New York case involving an Orthodox Jewish gentleman that sued a photographer that had taken his picture on the street. The photographer had the photo for sale in a gallery and in book form. The court decided in the photographers favor. The gentleman had no expectation of privacy walking on the side walk.

--
Bill
Taking It One Day At a Time



http://www.pbase.com/slowpokebill
'The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.' Unknown
'Every man dies; but, not every man lives' Braveheart
'Sometime the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't' Little Big Man

Dave Chrismer said:

Dave Chrismer said:

Papparazzi types would be out of business if they had to get permission to sell celebrity photos. Of course those same photos can't be used in a commercial ad to endorse a product, for instance, without permission.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Celebrities are a special case - it's hard for them to sue for privacy when they do so much to be seen in public. Even then, they can and do sue over some shots, and often win.

--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com discount code: rLhBMD1iJah9w

just after I posted these questions I saw the other thread going and followed this link:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#1

Although still somewhat confusing there is a lot of good info in there. The selling of prints questions was answered as art, like editorial, is a protected right and no release is needed - unless (there is always an unless) the art is being used to endorse a political or religious viewpoint, or commercial product, or the art is something like the cover of a book that is used to actually sell the book . . . could get grey quite fast. But the question of just selling prints - like your example of the Jewish gentleman - seems well settled.

Things actually (for the time being) are pretty clearly in favor of the photographer. We are covered for editorial, art, fair use, the only thing to really worry about for images shot in and from public places is endorsement - but endorsement can be in political, religious, or commercial form - so one must be careful even if no money exchanged hands.

Cindy

--

Wm. Bates said:

Wm. Bates said:

Wm. Bates said:

My Galleries Here: http://www.pbase.com/cindyd

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

azoutdoors wrote:
"> I was at a kids public sports event this past weekend where a guy

azoutdoors said:

was taking pictures of the kids competing. He takes the pics, and
puts them on his web site, where the parents can order prints. In
normal terms, sounds like a nice thing for the parents and a nice
way to make some money. But considering the fact that it is kids,
and the bad guys that are lurking on the web....

Would you do this kind of work? Wouldn't you at least try to get a
release? Because it is a public event, legally in the US, does it
matter if you have a release?

Click to expand...

(I apologize if somebody above already provided this link - I didn't read through all the replies)

I followed this link from another thread (thank you) and found your scenario lined out - with answers specific to the legality (not the ethical questions you posed): http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html#7.1

Excerts from that article:

Scenario: "You're at your kids soccer match at school and you're taking pictures. Being the photo buff that you are, you get everything—kids scoring goals, parents screaming from the sidelines, the popcorn vendor, and fans in the stands. Later, you show the pictures to some of the people, and find that some want to buy a print for themselves. This becomes a popular event, and over time, your reputation grows. The local newspaper gets wind of your talent and wants to license a few photos so it can put some in the paper for an article on the school's sports curriculum. Perhaps some shots are so good that the local gift shop wants to sell enlargements of the shot you took of the winning goal at the state championships.

All's going well, till someone tells you that you can't do any of these things unless the people in the photos sign a "release" allowing you to use their pictures.

. . . What are people's rights concerning their own likenesses, and what are your rights as a photographer to use those photos?"

A - From the summary: ". . . If you want to license some to the local paper for a news story, now you know you could—without a release. If you want to sell prints back to the parents, again, you know you can do this—without a release. If the school wants to put your pictures on its website, you know it can do this—without a release. However, if you want to use the pictures for some sort of ad, promotion, or statement, that's another story. For these, you need a release."

also - specific to posting on the web: " . . . photos are also protected by copyright, and because you own your photos, there's no question you can put them on your website without violating copyright. But, when it comes to model releases, the question of "private use versus distribution" requires looking at other factors. As usual, we return to use. Because the ability to sell photos in editorial contexts without a release permits unreleased photos, you are allowed to display them as such. Where it can get sticky for pro photographers is whether the photos can be construed as being a form of advertisement, or advocating a political or religious position. This can be a problem for photographers who specialize in certain kinds of industries, like religious photos or political stock photography. The more specific you are, the more risk you assume. The more general you are, the safer you tend to be.

It has been questioned whether photos on a website constitute a form of self-promotion (i.e., advertising) because your site is something like a portfolio. Yet, this has never been tested in court, so at this point, it's merely conjecture. . . "

Cindy

--

azoutdoors said:

azoutdoors said:

azoutdoors said:

My Galleries Here: http://www.pbase.com/cindyd

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I like this topic and I agree with most of what is being stated.

My situation is slightly different and I would like the your opinions.

My kids are Swimmers and I take a lot of swim meet photos. These events are sponsored by clubs that are members of USS.

Most of the pictures I take are for my kids team. The team requires Photo releases. I put those on the web for parents (with No password) I have taken other team swimmer as a favor to there coach I put them on the web but was a password.

Some time I have an arrangement with the host team and do the photo’s on deck (I am a member of USS swimming so I have credentials to be on deck). At other times I take the pics from the stands.

My question is would you consider the Pools (usually at a collage) to be a public place and the event to be a public event. (There is a charge for admission).

--
http://www.pbase.com \rlajoie

I think this is where "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" fall into play. If you're at a public event on private property you can't really expect any privacy. Therefore, unless explicitly expressed by the organizer, photography is free game.

Of course if you are there shooting away and an authority of the venue comes and asks you to stop shooting then I assume because you are on private property you are required to stop shooting. This would be no different then shooting in a shopping mall or parking lot.

Mind you I'm no lawyer, this is just the way I understand it.

--
Rob Kircher
My Stuff: http://www.pbase.com/rkircher

USS swimming has regulations on pictures on deck. It be approved by the host team.

As far as form the stands it's interesting I did have a few years ago some one with the host team approach me and ask that I stop taking pictures. When I asked why they said the flash was bothering the starts. (I told him I agreed about the Flash that is why I never use one at swim meets (I was using a 1D with 70-200 2.8) he said that was not possible all cameral like that use flash. When I showed him it did not and the people around me said I was not using a flash. he did not believe me.

Long story short a friend at the meet a lawyer said they could not ask me alone to not take pictures when every one else was allowed to (I was not there trying to selling the photos).

I would think the organizers could not tell one individual they cannot take pictures.

Since then the general rule is no flash photos on starts. I never use flash.

--
http://www.pbase.com \rlajoie

It's whether the place is accessible to the public. If anyone can buy a ticket, it's accessible to the public. If you have to be a member of some group, or there is some other form of selection, it is not accessible to the public.

A shopping mall is a private place. You a fully within your rights to take a photo of anyone there as long as your doing so is visible (if you shoot someone across the mall with a long lens, it can be argued that they had no way of knowing you were there and so has SOME expectation of privacy - a grey area). However, if an official of the mall asks you to stop shooting or leave, you must stop shooting or leave - they cannot (as they may try to do) ask to see what you've shot, ask you to give them your memory card, or try and take your camera.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com discount code: rLhBMD1iJah9w

Thanks That Public / Private explanation make sense to me
--
http://www.pbase.com \rlajoie

RobertEL,

Since you asked for opinions, here is mine. I think you should be passwording your galleries. I password any of my galleries that have kids under the age of 10 and any gallery with young girls in it. I find those parents are the most concerned with "pictures of my child on the web".

My subjects are all in full uniform - soccer, baseball and volleyball - and I'm still conscious of the whole 'posting photos on the web' thing. If I was shooting young kids in bathing suits, I would go out of my way to make sure everyone knew I was a trustworthy parent and I would absolutely password my online galleries. It's all about perception. Stand there holding a little point and shoot camera out in front of you snapping a picture and no one gives you a second thought. Hoist a D-SLR and shiney white, 100-400 L lens and my heavens, who knows what you're taking pictures of!

I've been shooting kids sports for 3 years now and have never had a problem. I do go out of my way to strike up a conversation with at least one parent from the opposing team though, to both put their minds at ease and also to drum up some business.

My 7 year old daughter started playing soccer this year and walking around with my 20D/70-200/2.8L setup, I kept waiting for someone to ask, "Who are you taking pictures of?" but no one did.

Thanks for your opinion and I think you are right and I am probably going to password my sites. Originally I did and believe it or not I was asked by the parents/team to take the password off.

Some parents found it hard to access the site with the password on and others expressed concern that I now restricting access to the photo because I was requiring them to enter a password. (It is tied into the Swim Team web site).

But that was several years ago and unfortunately with the state of thing (outlined in this tread) I reluctantly agree with you that I should add passwords.

The other kids are all mine and I hate to give into the hysteria but will probably password those as well.

There are great kids and I am proud to show their Pictures. It a shame that we have to do this because of the few weirdo out there.

--
http://www.pbase.com \rlajoie

In my area, many of the school districts do not allow posting of pictures taken at school sporting events, even if you were hired by the school district to take the pictures.

They are worried about child pornography.

One of the local High Schools that hires us to do Team Sports pictures wanted us to go to the sporting events, take action shots of the school's players, and post them on our site for parents to buy. A portion of the profits would be donated to the school's Athletic Fund.

The School District said we could only do it if we published hard copy proofs. No posting on the Internet. Needless to say, that ended that fund raising venture for the school.

Funny thing, a school less than 5 miles away, in a different School District, does the exact same thing.

Kind of hard to teach our kids how important it is to follow the rules of society, when everybody isn't playing by the same rules.

--
Nick Rego
Manteca, CA USA
http://www.reegphoto.com

I have served as the official photographer for a high school wrestling program for three years. My images are placed in a password protected gallery and access is only granted to the wrestlers, coaches, school administrators, and their families. I allow the wrestlers to download the images for free or purchase prints and gifts at my cost price. I do it for the kids, not the money.

Even with the protection, I constantly worry about the images falling into the wrong hands, but so far I've not had any problems. I stress not sharing the password outside of the "wrestling family", but I truly have no control once the password is given to the gang.

And yes, I operate under the authorization of the parents, coaches, and school administrators.
--
Have fun,
Flip

http://www.sunglophoto.com

Roger Krueger said:

In my 40 years I've
encountered about a dozen people who were victims of childhood
molestation, zero were from strangers, 75% were family.

Click to expand...

is there a way to have photographs on your site viewable by anyone but the family?

--
canonballs

My sentiments exactly. Might as well put bags on the childrens heads when you take them oput, so no one can see them.
--
If you like what I can do with cards, wait til you see what I do with the limes.

Look, I do the same thing....post pics in a password protected folder for use by the pople who I took them for. What do you do though when its the coaches, principals, uncles, aunts or whatever that are the perverts? It happens.

Flip said:

I have served as the official photographer for a high school
wrestling program for three years. My images are placed in a
password protected gallery and access is only granted to the
wrestlers, coaches, school administrators, and their families. I
allow the wrestlers to download the images for free or purchase
prints and gifts at my cost price. I do it for the kids, not the
money.

Even with the protection, I constantly worry about the images
falling into the wrong hands, but so far I've not had any problems.
I stress not sharing the password outside of the "wrestling
family", but I truly have no control once the password is given to
the gang.

And yes, I operate under the authorization of the parents, coaches,
and school administrators.
--
Have fun,
Flip

http://www.sunglophoto.com

Click to expand...

--
If you like what I can do with cards, wait til you see what I do with the limes.