Aaron - your agreements with MLB/MLBPA mirror pretty much exactly the arrangements I have with CART/ChampCar and/or the tracks where I had photo passes.
I am, quite explicitly, prohibited from selling copies of the photographs I took (with the exception that I am allowed to sell photographs to the teams themselves, who alread have pre-existing agreements to use images of the cars in their promotional material). That, again explicitly, excludes selling a single print to a fan who just wants to frame it and put it up on a wall in the house. I've had discussions with the licensing folks, to see what would be needed. It's not impossible to get permission, but there's a lot of paperwork involved. I never pursued it, because I didn't envision selling enough prints for it to be worth my while. That situation, and your analogous position WRT baseball, isn't quite the same as street photography - neither of us is taking our photographs in a public place. But the restriction to editorial use is the same - and does not, IMO, extend to selling prints. On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:00:00PM -0400, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > 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!
