Can I just check re: law with sports event photography

R

Robbie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
141
Name
Robbie
Edit My Images
No
At a recent sporting event, I was not picked as the official photographer. I went to the event anyway and took pictures on one of the public (road) sections of the course.

I've been contacted by the event organisor today demanding I take my photos down.

I'm right that I can keep them up am I not? The company paid to be the official photographers and have the rights to take photos on the private land where the race starts and finishes, not anywhere in the race??

Thanks!
 
You are perfectly within your rights to take photo's from a public place. I think I'd be asking if the company would like to buy the pics off me!
 
Yep, if the event entered anywhere on public land then you are wholly entitled to take photographs :) Even if you snapped the event on the private land, but from the public road, you would still be in the right :)
 
Cheeky buggers.
 
You only come under rules if you pay to enter privet land then you have to agree to T&C of entry but if you were on public land you will not have commitment to them.
Also I understand if the T&C are not put up to read before you enter and only can be read after you get your ticket this will null the terms as well.
 
Interesting.

I've been told to expect to be contacted by the other company!
 
I think I might be burning bridges with the race organiser, but I want to stand my ground!
 
Oh, the fact that I sell the photos on my website makes no difference, right?
 
If you were on private property and put them up for sale without permission you might be in trouble, but you weren't, so there :razz:
 
Not really... they may argue you should have model releases etc but they're not legally required!
 
Yep I was about to say the same thing. I think they are trying to intimidate you into taking your images down. I'd still offer them to the company at a price, they obviously think they are worth something.
 
To put another spin on this matter - exact same scenario, but on Forestry Commission land... Does anyone know the deal there?
 
Oli R C said:
To put another spin on this matter - exact same scenario, but on Forestry Commission land... Does anyone know the deal there?
Click to expand...

It like the NT if you’re on there land or not makes all the difference.
If in Public Place you do what you want
 
Without looking, I'd guess you'd need permission to sell images taken from FC property. There may be some info on a website somewhere.
The fact that you are allowed access to non public property doesn't mean you are entitled to it, so you'd be better off on the cautious side, I think.
 
Oli R C said:
To put another spin on this matter - exact same scenario, but on Forestry Commission land... Does anyone know the deal there?
Click to expand...

The Forestry Commission is a government owned utility that manages all the government owned woodland and forest, along with some private woodland.

This would suggest the land was public... but it could be along the same lines as military land, and subject to privacy laws?
 
cyclone said:
Yep I was about to say the same thing. I think they are trying to intimidate you into taking your images down. I'd still offer them to the company at a price, they obviously think they are worth something.
Click to expand...

Oh the other company haven't been in contact, just the club that run the race! I've contacted them anyway though, would solve a lot of issues and mean I don't have to number 4000 photos!
 
Oh, sorry, got the wrong end of the stick...

Seems more odd now lol, why would you not want free publicity?
 
If the organisers have sold the photographic rights to the official tog then you will be able to take pics but not sell them.
 
That stands on private land, but not the ones taken from public land.
 
admirable said:
If the organisers have sold the photographic rights to the official tog then you will be able to take pics but not sell them.
Click to expand...

But the image of the race isn't copyrightable, and on public land he can do as he pleases!
 
admirable said:
I'm not saying he won't have copyright.
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is, he is entirely legal in selling images of a race. The organisers have no control over the content of his photographs if he shoots them from a public place.

It's not like architecture/sculptures etc...which is a little more of a grey area regarding selling photos!
 
Agree you can shoot what you like in a public place but if you tries to sell them using the official event name where the event has sold the picture rights then I think that might be the angle they are coming from. As you are using their "protected" name for your financial gain. A simple change of name on your site to something recognisably close but not exactly the same usually gets round this as you were in a public place.
Looking at your location would this be an event of about 13 miles? If so the official photographers being Americans is probably why you're getting heat on this.
 
If you sell any let us know !
Are these those?
http://adventuresportphotography.com/Norwich_Half_Maratho_g78.html

The legal point can only be more around the name and trademark of the event, and use of that name. They have made a financial deal with the organisers (you'd be shocked at the amounts full marathons get paid by the large corporate photography companies - you couldn't make half that per competitor) to have the official rights, not with you.

In my mind that means they have paid for the right to be :
1. officially promoted by the race organisers
2. runner contact information and emails for their spam and sales stuff (official sponsor partner of the race - you signed up for that)
3. Access all areas to take photos (ie. finish line)
4. possibly to be the exclusive photographers promoted by the organisers

Are you getting any of that ? nope.

Your position is one of taking photos in a public place of the public. This is legal in this country.

You have two choices:
1. withdraw from the market place
2. stay and sell the photos

The promoters have fewer choices
1. get upset that they can't control the world or make money from you (especially if they could have made more money from you - but I seriously doub't it!)

The official photographers can't do much at all, as the agreement contract is between them and the race organisers - not you.

If the official photographers have an exclusivity clause with the race organisers, then you might want to mitigate your position slightly by emphasising on your website that they are "unofficial" photos and add a weblink to the official ones. Also I wouldn't go using the full sponsored race title - there may be trademarks involved.

Also because of the exclusivity agreement - you will find that they (should) have to refuse any profit share you might want to offer ?. Always a nice touch and makes you appear generous to a T, - if they have morals and abide by the contract themselves - so always a good acid test of who you are dealing with.

Finally - if you are going to do unofficial jobs, make sure your exposure and image quality is professional and your prices reasonably aligned and competitive - otherwise you will reduce your local markets price expectations in when you have official jobs - killing your business in the long run. The event organisers don't want a load of dark rubbish sillouettes put online "showing off" their great event do they ?!- especially if you want the official job at some point in the future.

oh - and get your images online faster and indexed before the official ones. It's a competition, and therefore a race to be had.

I don't know of any organiser succesfully getting anything beneficial out of these threats, you might like to ask for a copy of the agreement/contract with the official photographers so they can show you which bit of the agreement you have broken ?... ;-)

And I've never known an official photography company to take someone elses images after an event. The budget has been set and the job done, you're too late.

Let us know what the outcome is. Have a nice chat with the other company - again do remember to ask for a copy of the contract !!!

Oh - and as for the bit about the Forestry Commission - you can. They encourage it. You need permission to stage an event on their land (and pay a fee), but you can take plenty of pictures without asking. Again the promoters of the event might want a look in if they don't already have an *exclusive official photographer*, so it's always best to have a chat first. Then you know what you're letting yourself in for, and frankly not doing so is rude and not very business minded, or helping the event photography community at large.
Also - don't dump on your fellow event photographers - we all have to make a living somehow ! Get involved early and often is the best motto.
 
Provided you are on a public right of way the you can legally take and sell the photos.

As a side note how did you let the comptetitors know where to go to buy the images? If you went to the Car Park and leafleted or even handed out business cards at the finish you may have breached T&Cs or even bye laws so you could be sued / fined for that (although quite unlikely IMO).

However, the world of Event Photography is pretty small and you need to consider the full implications of turning up and taking photos like this. Ignoring the legality issue, how would you like it if you had paid to be the official tog and someone did this to you?

As an Event Photographer myself I would be quite cross about it if I was the offical tog; I certainly wouldn't pass on any work to you or recommend you to an organiser if I was unable to do a job and I would probably let all the Event Photographers I know about your actions.

Other Event Togs might get a bit more vindictive than me e.g. a quick call to revenue and customs about you not being entirely honest about your income or even a call to FAST (federation against software theft) about your use of priated software. Even assuming you are 100% legit (which I suspect you are), the time and hassle of answering official questions is time away from the business. OK both of these are low and underhand but in their view this could be exactly what you are being.

Another point to consider is that the organisers might have a black list and that they might talk to other organisers too. If they do what impact would this have on your chances of getting official status in the future?

The choice is yours as to whether you continue to sell them, although if you do make sure your pricing is reasonable and in line with the competition (if for no other reason that why accept any less than what people will buy them for).
 
ShootaSal said:
Agree you can shoot what you like in a public place but if you tries to sell them using the official event name where the event has sold the picture rights then I think that might be the angle they are coming from. As you are using their "protected" name for your financial gain. A simple change of name on your site to something recognisably close but not exactly the same usually gets round this as you were in a public place.
Looking at your location would this be an event of about 13 miles? If so the official photographers being Americans is probably why you're getting heat on this.
Click to expand...
Who has said anything like this? NO ONE
 
It wouldn't be the City of Norwich Half Marathon was it?

I was one of the official photographers - I replied to an advert for local photographers, so went along...

My brief was to get the medal handouts in front of a background erected, but it was initially wet, then quite windy, so was sent out on the course instead. Was given some suggested settings and a 2Gb memory card, so I went out and shot on a low res setting (they wanted 8mp images or thereabouts) until the card was full.

The cards were then collected from the 14 or so photographers, where they'll get sent to head office in the States (I think) where they go through some batch processing and also possibly a race number identifier software to tag them. We were told to ignore those runners whose numbers couldn't be seen. They wanted portrait photos only and complete body shots only.
 
purpleclouds said:
Yep, if the event entered anywhere on public land then you are wholly entitled to take photographs :) Even if you snapped the event on the private land, but from the public road, you would still be in the right :)
Click to expand...

Yes, the law states that you are free to photograph from public land. The subject can be on private land but if it can be viewed from a public space then there is no expectation of privacy.


Steve.
 
:lol: Steve.

Don't beat around the bush, say what you're thinking :D
 
Been busy and just noticed this,

The OP is unclear if he is taking pics from a public road of subjects on private land or if he is taking pics of subjects from a public road and they are too on public ground.

I am presuming the OP was taking pics from a public road of subjects on private land. If this is the case, everyone is entitled to a certain degree of privacy whilst on private land and can object to their pic being taken. There are many cases of togs getting a slap on the wrists for this; Madonna’s wedding is one that comes to mind and Tigger Woods at the open at Carnoustie a few years back, this ended up in all cameras being removed from spectators whilst at the event.

If on the other hand the OP was taking pics from a public road and the subjects were also on the public road then I would think they are fair game and would not reasonably expect any privacy. In saying that, try taking a pic of JK Rowing’s son in a public street and printing/publishing it!
 
Robbie said:
At a recent sporting event, I was not picked as the official photographer. I went to the event anyway and took pictures on one of the public (road) sections of the course.
Click to expand...

This says to me the course has some sections that were on public roads and this is where the photographs were taken.
 
admirable said:
I am presuming the OP was taking pics from a public road of subjects on private land. If this is the case, everyone is entitled to a certain degree of privacy whilst on private land and can object to their pic being taken.
Click to expand...

They can object all they like but the law allows you to photograph freely from a public space stating that if you can be seen from a public space then you do not have any expectation of privacy.

admirable said:
In saying that, try taking a pic of JK Rowing’s son in a public street and printing/publishing it!
Click to expand...

Why? What's so special about him that he requires an exception to the law?


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Why? What's so special about him that he requires an exception to the law?


Steve.
Click to expand...

She took the press to court after they snapped a picture of her and husband out strolling with a baby carriage containing their son. The court ruled in their favour and put a ban on publishing pictures of their son.
 
Byker28i said:
She took the press to court after they snapped a picture of her and husband out strolling with a baby carriage containing their son. The court ruled in their favour and put a ban on publishing pictures of their son.
Click to expand...

Then there must have been some other issue of harrassment involved as well.


Steve.
 
Nope - lost the original case, won the appeal under article 8 of the human rights act

Full ruling etc here: http://www.schillings.co.uk/news/private-client-news/JKRowling’ssonwi/


The Court of Appeal today handed down Judgment in the appeal of Dr Neil Murray and his wife, Mrs. Joanne Murray (a.k.a. J K Rowling) against Big Pictures (UK) Ltd. The case was brought by Dr. and Mrs. Murray as “Litigation friends” of their son, David, now aged 5. Dr. and Mrs. Murray made no claim in these proceedings for protection of their own privacy. It was a representative action brought in their son David’s name to protect David’s rights to privacy and family life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld David Murray’s appeal in respect of covert long lens photographs of him taken by a photographer whilst David was being pushed in a buggy by his parents down an Edinburgh street on a family outing on 8th November 2004.

In a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said (paragraph 46), “if a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent. In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of ‘ordinary’ parents could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish photographs of him.”

In a statement released through their lawyers, Schillings, David’s parents said, "We embarked on this lawsuit, not because we were seeking special privileges for our children, but because we wanted them to grow up, like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusions into their privacy. We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances. However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight. We are immensely grateful to the Court for giving our children protection from covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and material difference to their lives."

Keith Schilling, Senior Partner at Schillings said, “This case is a major development in the law of privacy in this country. Following the House of Lords decision in Campbell v MGN, which established a right of privacy, this case establishes a law of privacy for children in those cases where, understandably, the parents wish to protect their children from intrusive photography by the paparazzi. It will have a profound effect especially on certain sections of the paparazzi, but I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it. After all, the change in the law broadly reflects what was already provided for, voluntarily, in the PCC Code of Practice” (paragraph 6 (v) see below).

“Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child’s private life.”

Neil Blair, instructing solicitor from J K Rowling’s literary agents, Christopher Little Literary Agency, said that, “Whilst the case concerned photography, which has always been recognised as especially intrusive in privacy cases, the principles that this decision establishes are apposite to the protection of private information concerning children generally.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top