Godfrey, this is very interesting to me -- I have a lot of requests to purchase individual prints of baseball photographs I have taken, but my agreement with MLB upon accepting the press pass is that I may only sell photographs for editorial use. While I don't believe that the wording of the agreement explicitly says that I can't sell prints, this is what I've been told by team representatives. Are they misinterpreting the law? And if so, what is "editorial" about a framed print on a wall?
(This is not to say that the photographs cannot be purchased and used in advertisements or for posters, but a separate license fee has to be arranged with both Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association.) I'm interested because I have a show of my baseball images coming up in May, and to be able to sell some would certainly be helpful to the year-end bottom line,though at the same time I have to be cautious not to alienate the team or the league. -Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: copyrights Date: Mon Apr 3, 2006 3:22 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I am not a copyright lawyer. This position was stated at a recent exhibition sponsored by the Bay Area Press Photographers Association... one of their more successful local photographers who has sold such work broadly to both national and international magazine publications for editorial use gave this guideline for when releases are necessary in his experience: 'Photos of people taken in public places where the "expectation of privacy" is not assumed do not require releases if used for editorial publication. There's a lot of qualitative assessment in that statement, but unless the photo is being printed as advertising for some brand name product or event, it would be considered an editorial photograph just like a print I sell out of my gallery listing. I don't have releases for such work, and the act of obtaining releases would likely make it impossible for the work to be done in the first place. Work that is to be used in promoting events and/or products, where the significance of the person in the photo is linked to the value/ use of the advertisement and desirability to a purchaser of the promoted item, always requires a release.' If the T-shirt is not being used as an advertisement for some product or event, I think it would fall under the notion of editorial use and therefore not require a release unless it were a photo made under private or exceptional circumstances that assume an expectation of privacy. Godfrey On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Cotty wrote: > > Without a doubt, unless you have a signed model release form of the > subject, you are infringing personal liberties by 'publishing' the pic > in this way - especially making financial gain from it. > > That said, it was 5 years ago and the chances of the subject coming > across the one T-shirt are remote, so why not. If she sees it, your > friend can claim ignorance and say he picked it up at a flea > market :-) > Publish and be damned!
