Organizations like MLB can restrict the use and sale of photos taken at
their events. And they do. If you want to sell pics, I think you have
to make another arrangement with MLB. They probably require licensing
and, quite possibly, cash up front.
Paul
On Apr 3, 2006, at 8:00 PM, 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!
