Shooting Soccer Pictures on Public Property

I live in California and I've been taking soccer photos of my daughter's team

and the opposing team each week and posting the photos online for purchase.

Last week a man came up to me and told me that his company has the "exclusive

contract" with the recreational soccer league and that I should stop taking

pictures.

 

Am I wrong to think that on public property I have the right to shoot and sell

the photos?

 

Thanks in advance for any help that you might be able to give me!

 

Lori

Many sports leagues raise money by selling the rights to take and sell pictures at their events. You're entirely within your rights to take pictures. However, they're within their rights to object to your use of their events to promote your sales.

Obviously this guy felt threatened (maybe "lens envy"...was your lens bigger than his? hee hee...). In my mind, he's got no authority to stop you from shooting a thing. Think of it: how many hundreds of cameras are there at any given day of games? As a parent, I'd most certainly have one with me. I don't even think it's a matter of being on public property. Some "exclusive contract holder" is going to tell me I can't take pics of my kid? Rigggghht. I'm no lawyer, but I'd ignore him.

Thank you Bert and Chris for your quick responses! I think you may be right about the lens envy, Chris. I went online to his website and most of his pictures were what I delete off my camera as "throwaways" while I'm shooting.

 

Bert, I suppose that it is possible that he is giving some sort of kickback to the league in return for the title "official photographer", but he isn't even mentioned on their website at all.

 

Thanks again!

 

Lori

Lori,

Let me answer as a youth sports photographer that deals with this a lot. The guy who came over was well within his rights. The first thing you need to do before posting pictures on a web site for sale is to check with the league to verify that it is ok. They may have a contract with a company already. Some companies, like mine, are small, and they may not be able to have a photographer at every game, but not seeing a photographer does not make it ok for you to shoot. Just because the photographer is not there, does not mean there is not a signed contract. The photographer who approached you may have agreed to a exclusive contract with the league in exchange for a vendor fee or kick back to the league. With my league contracts, no photographer except for news media is permitted to shoot from the sidelines without my express permission and no one other than me is permitted to distribute photos taken at the games to parents, coaches, players or fans. If they do and it is discovered, my contract goes into a different mode. I usually pay a vendor fee or give a kickback to the league. If my contract is violated, that vendor fee is immediately refunded or no kickback is paid out. I also have a stipulation that any profit made from sales of photos away from my business, all profits must be paid directly to the league. If the photos are given away, the league and myself decide on a fee and the league invoices the person violating the contract. This may sound harsh, but there are reasons behind it for me. One is to safeguard my business. This is how I make my living, and if someone else is selling without a contract, and I have a contract, my sales suffer. Second, it guarantees the league that the photographer is fully insured. If for some reason a player or coach gets injured by me or my equipment (tripping over a monopod, strobe falling from its mount onto a player, etc) I am covered. Also, the league knows who is selling their likeness and to who. While you were on public property, the city leases the fields to the league, and they are in control of everyone involved with the league, from refs, coaches, and vendors.

 

Now, unless the photographers contract says that no photos can be taken by fans, you are free to take photos for your personal enjoyment, but that is the extent of it.

 

I know it sounds silly, but honestly, sports photographer is 10% shooting, 90% business.

 

I do think it is odd that the photographer approached you themselves. In the leagues I shoot, the league is responsible for making sure the photographers on the field (sidelines) are suppose to be there and if not, remove them. I would rather focus on taking pictures and let the league deal with people who are not suppose to be there.

 

If you are thinking it is still not a big deal, let me give you an example of how it can hurt the contracted photographer and the league. During my states little league all star tournament, I was the contracted photographer. I was set to issue the league a hefty kick back. There were 8 baseball teams for major, minors, and juniors, and 8 for softball majors, minors, and juniors. We had pool and finals. With baseball, I was averaging about $300 to $500 in sales per game and with softball juniors and minors I was averaging between $250 and $400 a game, but with Majors I was averaging $50 a game. I then found a board up by the main snack hut with Majors softball photos from some of the games I did not cover. There was a sign that said "Free, take as many as you want" The Major's tournament director was standing there and I asked her what the deal was? And her response was, "I did not know you were going to be doing photos for our games, so I asked my husband to take some photos." I took her into the league presidents office, pulled out my contract and asked her for her tournament packet and showed her that I was the only photographer permitted to distribute photos of the games and turned to the president and informed her that she had just cost the league over $1000. When pool play was over, Softball had a new tournament director for the state finals, but the damage was done and I was flooded with, "You aren't giving photos away like in pool play?" questions, and my sales were down 50%.

 

My advice, is always check with the league prior to shooting, and always check and get permission if your intent is to sell. When I shoot something that I am not the contracted photographer for, I contact the league to see if there is a contracted photographer and if so I contact them to tell them why I am there (when I am not shooting for sales of action photos I am either shooting stock stuff or for local newspapers) and when I get to the games, prior to shooting, I find the contracted photographer to let them know who I am and that we have already talked, so they do not have to stop their shooting to "chase" me off.

Are seriously saying that parents are banned from shooting photos at games their own children are playing in? I can see rules preventing such parents from selling their own shots for profit, but... wow.

 

As the original poster mentioned, she'd be stuck buying crappy photos from some hack who was giving kickbacks to the league.

You have one 'edge,' in that if you have a daughter on one of the soccer teams. Does the league have a general release for all images taken by the "guy with the contract?"

 

 

 

 

But, on the other hand, are you licensed and collecting sales tax on the images you have available for sale on the Internet? If you do not have the sales tax collection situation controlled (like in collecting it and paying the state their share,) you may want to figure out how to start.

 

 

 

 

One can shoot on public property. One of America's freedoms....

Lori,

after reading Carl's post, my response was a bit short-sighted... (Carl, I still remember that awesome team shot from the Knik Thugs you posted awhile back--wow!) He brings up some very good points that I hadn't taken the time to consider. Of course you (or anyone else) shuld be able to photograph your own child's team. Selling them is where the problem could be, though as Carl said, it's odd that the shooter approached you himself. Seems like the league should be trying to somehow enforce any exclusive deal, if they have nay financial interest in it...

 

Of course, on the other side, if the shooter is in fact a "hack," who is there primarily because he's the one most willing do give money to the league, an opportunity is there for others to shove him out by simply showing better work. IF that is the case, that's exactly what he's concerned about.

 

I have had teams call me from a large soccer organization (and more recently a huge football organization), simply because they prefer my work to what the league has decided for them. I don't normally shoot the team photos at games, and only show up to their games when the team has asked me to, and don't sell anything onsite. If I'm asked by a team to shoot action shots, a team rep gets info from me on where to find them (web gallery, again, only with permission first). That way, these parents can still get work they're not getting elsewhere, and it doesn't look like I'm trying to showcase my work to undermine the league's guy.

 

I avoid agreements requiring kickbacks, simply because they can easily come down to who is most generous with the league, as opposed to quality, and for reasons mentioned above, I see them as really difficult to enforce. I don't have contracts in place with any of the orgs I shoot for; my thinking is that if my work is what it should be, the work will be there. There are more & more parents with DSLRs, so I just keep providing the best work I can.

A Hack or not, if he has the contract, there is little that can be done. I do not ban people from taking photos at the game, but they must take them from the spectators area. This is for the safety of everyone involved. Too many times at events have I seen a photo parent nailed with a line drive because they were not paying attention or stand on the soccer field to get a better view to shoot. I say a ref run right over a soccer mom who was reviewing the photo she just took while standing 10 feet in bounds. The league has the comfort of knowing that I am insured, know the sport, know where the safe places are to shoot from, and take risks without holding the league responsible if I get hurt.

 

On another note, I was given a notice from a league about a year ago that I was not to post any photos of a specific player on my website or display pictures of this player in any form. It turned out that it was a nasty child custody case and the parent was afraid that the other parent could track where they were through my photos. While I do not post the names of any kids, I followed the leagues request and there was no problem. The point is, you never know if you are not in communication with the league. Honestly, even if you do not pay a vendor fee, give a kick back of some sort, and only shoot your kid playing, if you are doing it from the field, in other words, not from the spectators area, but from the team areas, you need to let the league know and find out if there would be any problem with you being there.

 

The problem today is that with DSLR's so much more affordable, everyone has them, but just because someone (I am not singling Lori out at all) has a real nice SLR system, does not give them the right to photograph what they want where they want whenever. Look at media photographers. They have to request credentials for major sporting events. At news scenes they are suppose to check in with the media relations officer or designated police contact for media access. And at just about every youth event I have ever been to that the news media shows up, they will talk to the officials at the field to let them know that they are there.

 

My guess is that if Lori contacted the league prior to the game, they would have told her that they have no problem with her shooting from the spectator area, but since they have a contract with a photographer who will have full access and will be selling the photos, they would probably tell her that she can not sell the images via the website.

 

It may sound overboard, but honestly, I treat all levels of sports the same. I treat a high school basketball game the exact same way I would a college game, and a little league baseball game the same way I would a pro game. I do not cheer from the sidelines and I focus on the action and what is going on around the action all while being aware of what is going on around me for my safety and others. I would honestly never photograph a league that one of my children was in because I would rather cheer for them. No matter how good or how bad the contracted photographer is, they are the one contracted, and if you do not like it you have two choices. Live with it and shoot from where you can, without violating their contract, or put the camera away and enjoy your kids playing the game.

Chris S brings up a great point and I should expand on it. When I go into a league to negotiate a contract, I NEVER bring up a kickback or anything that I will give to the league. Usually they will either inform me that there is a vendor fee, which I am more than happy to pay, or that they require a percentage of my sales back. I will usually negotiate this way down. Honestly, if the kickback is more than 10%, I walk. But I have given other things to leagues instead of money. I have umpired for baseball leagues during the post season (where another company had that contract to shoot) and I have donated all star team shots for media guides. If I do not have to give money, I will not offer it, but if it is brought up by the league, I will if it is a fair amount.

 

My main points at a contract negotiation are stressing the quality of my shots and stressing that I am fully insured. I go into a meeting with samples of the products I sell, examples of my work, and a laid out plan of how I will sell the images.

Great comments on this thread. I have had similar problems. Parents are becoming rather sensitive about why people are taking pictures of their kids. People always ask who I am. Fortunately, I am usually shooting pictures of my kids' teams or a neighbor kid's team. But it is weird having to have people vouch for me. Not quite sure what how this will end. Nonetheless, it is nice to know I am not the only one having these experiences.

Carl:

 

"A Hack or not, if he has the contract, there is little that can be done."

 

Assuming that the soccer game in on public property, how would a contract affect a third party that didn't sign the contract?

 

 

Eric

"A Hack or not, if he has the contract, there is little that can be done. I do not ban people from taking photos at the game, but they must take them from the spectators area."

 

 

 

 

Pure, to be polite, B.S. I'm a military retiree, and it was pure joy to explain to the "Little League-authorized" dude that, yes, I could shoot photos on the base's Little League field. My retired military I.D. did not have any notation that offset that right.

 

 

 

 

America is still a free country.

Eric, while the field may be public property, owned by the city, the league pays a use fee and reserves the fields. They have control of the event and people involved. If they tell you to leave they are within their right. The city will not back you up at all, because they have an agreement with the league. Go down to your public parks office and ask them for information regarding the contracts between the city and the little league. It will all be in the agreement. If they wanted to, they could charge people to come in to watch the games. It is public property and now you have to pay to watch a game? Because, while the field is public, the group using the fields are not public. Sure, anyone can join if they meet the requirements and pay the leagues fee', but the league is still a private group.

Gerald, that is a different situation entirely. A field on a military base is not the same as a field on a public city park. But I would hope that any photographer who does not have a contract with a league would have the courtisy to seek out a league official or talk to a visible photographer working the games to see if it is ok to shoot. Even if I was contracted by a little league on a military base and you came onto the field and flashed your id and started shooting, my vendor fee would be imediately refunded by the league or the kick back the league was going to get from me would be void, so while you feel you are within your right because you have a military ID, you would be costing your league money they already had or taking money they would have had out of their pocket.

1. The photographer's contract is with the league, so he should file a complaint with the league.

 

2. The league has every right to ask you if you are taking the photos for personal use or for sales.

 

3. Since it is a public venue, i.e., you did not pay an entrance fee, the league has NO cause to ask you to ceast and desist taking photos ***for personal use.***

 

4. The league would be within their right to ask you to stop selling the photos **IF** they find out that you are selling the photos, whether or not they have an exclusive contract with another photographer.

 

5. **IF** the league knows that you are selling your photos and does not ask you to stop and IF they have an exclusive rights contract with another photographer, the photographer with whom they have an **exclusive** (if that's case) contract may have cause for legal action against the league.

<i>I have had similar problems. Parents are becoming rather sensitive about why people are taking pictures of their kids. People always ask who I am. -- Jason</i>

<p><p>

This is a totally different issue -- not one of legality and contracts, but rather a sad sign of the times in which we live.

Wow..my head is spinning with all of the information contained in this thread. I have emailed the youth soccer league and haven't received a response yet.

 

Maybe my skull is extremely thick, but I still have a hard time understanding why the "official" photographers contract would have anything to do with me. My understanding would be that his title would garner him recognition on the league's website. I know that competiton is involved and sometimes that makes people turn ugly.

 

In extremely simple terms I believe that on public property and with a team that my daughter pays to be a part of I should be able to photograph her and her friends. I post the photos to a website and price the pictures barely above the cost of paper and ink. My time is given freely and there is no charge for that.

 

In fact, we could turn this around and wonder if he has a right to photograph my daughter since my contract as her mother would take precedence. Haha!

 

I'll let you know what I hear from the league.

Here is a clause we use in our contracts.

 

"Other photographers"

 

MCN Photo will be the sole professional image supplier for the club, no other companies are to be engaged during the season, this does not include press or media representatives.

 

Amateur photographers may take photos during the event if they do not interfere with the contracted photographer and are not shooting his same posed shots. If a problem arises with any participant or attendee(s) the club representative will be advised to handle the situation politely for us by enforcing the terms of the conditions of this contract.

 

Engagement of other professional photographers to perform a similar service as described above without the consent of MCN Photo will constitute a breach of this agreement.

I have had similar problems. Parents are becoming rather sensitive about why people are taking pictures of their kids. People always ask who I am. -- Jason

 

Here is how we deal with this one

 

Identification

 

All MCN Photo staff will wear name badges and passes including photo identification when dealing with the club. A copy of these passes is required to be signed by the club representative and is included with this agreement.

 

MCN Photo will be granted access to the field to carry out the work described above and will abide by the rules set down by the club regarding conduct.

Lori,

 

My take on this is that, if your league has an "official photographer," you should allow him to make a living. It's not the easiest occupation to be in now that everybody and his brother owns a digital camera. At the very least, you should probably limit yourself to taking pics of your own child for your own enjoyment. I'm a rank amateur by the way, so have no direct interest in this situation being resolved favorably for the pro. Just my opinion.

With all due respect to everyone participated in this thread, once a parent commercializes (sales/purchase,) then he/she steps into a different realm. The commercial part is where it gets sticky. If one were to photograph his/her own child, there isn't a problem there with exception to filed access (not an issue in youth sports, but maybe limited in different state, collegiate, pro leagues which normally require credentials assuming editorial application or club affiliation.) What Carl and Mark explained above is really the protocol and the proper channels to navigate through.

 

"Sign of time" indeed is what we're dealing with nowadays. With poster's position as a parent, and as a given example by Carl of the child not to be posted due to custody problem, there is definitely an issue also regarding privacy. Waiver forms are becoming more common at schools as a legal instrument to free the institutions from possible legal action and that is why all the hoops one has to go through to just simply photograph.

 

If it was me, I'd just have fun photograph my child and her teammates, share the photos with her team online, and enjoy my daughter growning up right in front of my eyes. It is much less stressful that way, IMHO.

<i> I post the photos to a website and price the pictures barely above the cost of paper and ink. -- Lori</i>

<p><p>

It does NOT matter how much you charge; whether it is $1 or $1M; Charging for your effort makes it a commercial venture, so you may run into a bit of a contractual/legal hassle.

If you were selling the pictures, then yes, the other photographer was right. I work as one of the photographers at a triatlon series (which al take place in provincial parks) and we have to pay $2000 for exclusivity rights per year. Also, legally you need a vender's permit to sell them. If you were just taking photos, then you've done nothing wrong, but if you've been selling them, he had every right to tell you to stop.

It doesn't even matter if you were giving the photos away... if someone else is under contract with the league then legally you can't "distribute" the photos you took beyond your family.

 

Selling photographs is a business and there are laws which govern business. Too few people realize that their desire to make some extra cash usually violates the laws that govern business. I think that's a point Carl wants people to realize. Its no different for selling cars, paint, insurance, etc.

 

Even if the "hack" is not very skilled, assuming he is legit, he at least made the effort to contact the league and work out some type of contract for taking and selling game photos. His approach to you may have been unprofessional, but he has to protect his financial interests. You are wise to contact the league though to find out if he is the "official" photographer or just some goof trying to scare you off. If he is the official photographer, given his tact, he may not be next season.