Now that everyone has given their 2cents, where is the legal opinion?
Now that everyone has given their 2cents, where is the legal opinion?
In the mind of a lawyer somewhere. Only problem is it costs more than two cents. [Originally Posted by Bob
]
right... my daughter plays club softball so the way it works is the hired photog has access on the field for the best possible shots. Parents shoot from anywhere off the field.
In your soccer case, they could restrict the field to some setback but once they get to the point where the rest of the parents are, all bets should be off.
I shot the High school varsity 5A-I State finals here in AZ which my daughter is on the team... every photog on the field had a press pass or an orange vest showing credentials to be on the field (except me and my partner
My gentlemens handshake with the school coach was any sales I made off of shooting these events, I'd donate back 25% to the school so when I was called out byone of the officials, my response was" I was hired by the coach to document the event"...both me and my partner were left alone after that.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
I haven't had issues with local high school or even college sports because I'm usually shooting for the local paper. Even for the various Texas state finals, the media credentials were handled very professionally. The paper sends a fax to the UIL and they have credentials for me at will-call.
I'm more and more convinced that the soccer association has attempted to sell exclusive rights to the other event photographer that they don't own or control.It would be like me marking off a section ofa lake and selling exclusive fishing rights. It may sound great, but Inever really owned the dang lake. The soccer association doesn't own my child's likeness or the property upon which sheis competing.
Even if the association rents the fields from the city, they allow open access to the event and they allow cameras. They just didn't like the quality of my gear. More precisely, thier professional didn't like the quality of my gear.
I might be more polite next time, but I'm not puttingaway the camera.
Mine was the Laymen verbiage for the legal. I work for some local magazines and we have been through this quite a bit. Anything that can be seen from a public are is open game. That is how the paparazzi make a living. In fact the paid photographer may be the one closest to violating some law since he is photographing minors and for profit. The only thing that is saving him is that he is selling the images to the childs parents otherwise he needs a release.
The only time you run into issues is if you shoot a picture of someone and put it in an ad to try to sell a product. If you use it for editorial purposes, the general public is at your mercy.
I'm not a lawyer, but why not try putting the burden of proof on the official instead of trying to defend yourself? Simply ask, politely, "OK, would you mind telling me what law gives you the authority to tell me I can't shoot photos here?" Or simply, "Sorry, can you tell me exactly what law you believe I'm violating right now?" Especially if the official is threatening to call the police.
No matter what the response is, you can follow up by asking if the law differentiates between different types of photo equipment. The official won't be able to answer any of these questions, and you can shut the whole thing down by saying -- again, nicely -- "Actually, I do know the law, and I have every right to make photographs of my child and anyone else in public view. The law is very clear on that, so please let's not make this into a problem."
By the way,even if the official photographer has a contract granting exclusivity, if it's an open event on public property, how can two other parties agree to take away your rights without your consent?
If they threaten to call the cops, tell them to go ahead. The police aren't going to arrest you for taking pictures of your own kid just because you have a white lens. Just remember to be reasonable, and if the cops are misinformed enough to ask you to leave, respectfully ask them the same questions you asked the official.
If that doesn't work, say something about collateral estoppel. I heard it on Law & Order.
This link, given earlier in the thread, is to a document written BY a lawyer.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Bob's question ("where is the legal opinion?") is rhetorical. No lawyer is going to offer a legal opinion on a forum. Even if one wanted to, and he/she was willing to take the risk of creating an attorney client relationship (no matter how many disclaimers), I doubt he would even be able to without performing additional research, such as reviewing the signed contract.
As the linked document says, "This guide is not intended to be legal advice nor
does it create an attorney client relationship. Readers should seek the
advice of a competent attorney when they need legal advice regarding a
specific situation."
This is funnier than you can imagine. Only this forum will truly appreciate this reply. There was another very serious photographer roaming the sidelines near me with two Nikon D3x bodies. One was sporting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the other had a 200-400mm f/4.0 on it, but of course, those lenses are black. The picture nazi's never even spoke to him. Apparently, white lens equals professional while black lens makes you an amatuer.
Maybe they just knew all pros shoot Canon...
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
haha! that is funny! So next time just purchase a lens cover thats black? :P
Wow! That's over $22k in gear!!!
Cory,
Thanks for the link, I must have missed it earlier.
Bob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote