Very annoyed with one particular parent... [Sitemap]

DrDavid

Mar-06-2008, 08:22 PM

I've been taking thousands of photos for my community Little League. Everyone is happy, except for ONE person who is complaining that her precious little baby boy's face is visible in two group shots. There are no identifying marks on the child, and even the team banner, which is visible, doesn't even have the kids name.

The photos were taken in PUBLIC, in a PUBLIC area. I explained to her that the 1st Amendment covers the usage pretty clearly. But, she complained to the Little League themselves. They waffled back and forth and are now asking me to remove the photos. I don't want to piss off the Little League, as I want to continue doing photography for them, but, I'm really pissed off that some woman is demanding her child's image be removed from the website--especially when the child is barely visible.

What do you do in this situation? Stand by your laurels and say, "It's protected by the 1st Amendment" and risk the Little League simply not hiring you next year? Remove the photo, even though it creates a bad situtation that other parents can complain about THEIR child in the photos and ask that they're removed too?

I'm annoyed over this.... Especially because I know where this is coming from. Another photographer in my area is all pissy that I got the gig and she didn't. She's been prompting others to complain. Funny thing is that the woman who complained is, herself, a photographer (IMHO, not a very good one). She should know the law, and the rules.

Am I being touchy on this issue? Should I just remove the photos and go on with life? Looking for some input into this....

David

LUCKYSHOT

Mar-06-2008, 11:59 PM

I would say remove the picture, better to keep the gig.Then i would shoot her sons team and spend all day getting sports illustrated type shots of every kid but hers. but then again the photos arent the problem its her friendship with another photographer and her desire to get him in.
I deal with this from time to time on Long Island and unfortunately all you can do is take down the photo and move on, these leagues in their mind have to grease the one squeeky wheel, because they dont want to deal with it either
Good luck

Chris

www.longislandimage.smugmug.com (http://www.longislandimage.smugmug.com)

Skippy

Mar-07-2008, 12:09 AM

LUCKYSHOT

Mar-07-2008, 12:16 AM

I personally think cloning in another childs face is underhanded, and spiteful to the parent who complained. And I am bothered that I didnt think of it. I would definately take this route. :thumb

Richard

Mar-07-2008, 12:37 AM

Clone in another childs face over the top of that child's :D
.

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Even if the law is on your side, it is better for your long-term business prospects to avoid a confrontation. At the same time, you don't want to waste a perfectly good shot that all of the other parents will enjoy.

Regards,

nipprdog

Mar-07-2008, 01:25 AM

Clone her face over the top of his. :wink

Scott Crouse

Mar-07-2008, 03:18 AM

Mulder32

Mar-07-2008, 04:37 AM

Scott's idea in the previous post seems to make the most sense. I'm assuming the league has some packet each parent gets in the beginning of the year, and you could request a form be put in about pictures. That way, it's in the parents' hands. As long as you have a list of children not allowed in pictures, then you should be fine.

The cloning idea for the current situation is not bad, but I don't know if I could go there. Better yet, if parents complain, make sure they know the reason why you can't post the picture.

If the other photographer is truly telling parents to complain, then shame on him/her. That kind of underhanded behavior reflects incredibly poorly on him/her as a person, not just a photographer. Good luck with this and hang in there.

anwmn1

Mar-07-2008, 05:31 AM

Couple of thoughts-

If the childs face is barely visible don't bother with cloning another face over his/hers just clone it out (depending of course on body visible or not). There may be a gap between kids but that child will not be there anymore.

I also agree with getting something put into the sign up paperwork notifying parents pictures will be web posted. One thing you can do if you already haven't- is to have a gallery for each team and password protect it with the caoch's name. A little more work for you but a little more comfort for the parents. :deal

I also agree that on picture day when parents are filling out order packets have a place on your form for them to mark if they absolutely do not want their childs photo posted on the web. This way you can have them removed for the team photo - part of the consequence. It doesn't make much sense to take 2 team photos just so you can post one to the web and it is not fair to all of the other kids and families to not have the team photo posted because of 1 or 2 childs parents.

Best of luck and do not let one parent and one jealous photographer ruin a good gig.

Art Scott

Mar-07-2008, 06:35 AM

Put a nice SM over his face....let's face it...Smuggy is very cute:D:wink

DrDavid

Mar-07-2008, 06:46 AM

I love the idea of cloning him out, or replacing the face. I actually was thinking of doing that! I was thinking of a yellow smilie, but, a smugmug logo would be even better! :clap

Some people just like to complain I think. I'm **SO** tempted to post her "Photo Website" on here so that everyone can email her and explain what the 1st amendment means to them. But, I'm far too professional to plunge to such a low-handed dealing. But, it's awfully tempting.. LOL

David

claudermilk

Mar-07-2008, 08:24 AM

Cloning her kid out was my first thought. Scott's idea is a good one, too.

As mich as a PITA as she is, my feeling is it's just as much her right to want to keep her kid's image off the 'net as it is yours to take his photo in a public place. Whose rights end where? Is it really worth that battle here? Seems like the downside far outweighs the upside. Win or lose the battle, the war will certainly be lost. Just a couple of thoughts.

Bodwick

Mar-07-2008, 08:50 AM

The future of school photography...

Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/06/nsmiley106.xml)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/06/nsmiley106.jpg

Richard

Mar-07-2008, 08:53 AM

chuckinsocal

Mar-07-2008, 10:22 AM

Cloning another kid's face in doesn't sit well with me simply because it's not reality. What would be reality though is if you either blurred his face or made it ugly beyond recognition. Then when people ask you could say Mrs so-and-so didn't want her kid to be in the photo. Then people will ask her what's up and she'll have to answer for it. You will have shifted the onus back to her.

Just a thought.

Chuck Cannova
http://chuckinsocal.SmugMug.com

Van Isle

Mar-07-2008, 10:36 AM

I'm going to take a different stand. No confrontation, just don't change anything. You're within the law. Carry on. By acquiescing to her demands or the demands of the "league" you're eroding the freedoms that we take for granted. There will always be someone who complains about something and there is very little to be gained by trying to pander to all the folks who complain.

VI

Van Isle

Mar-07-2008, 10:44 AM

Seriously, did she not understand what was happening when the kids were lined up in front of the black box on a tripod? :dunno

Her opportunity to not allow the photo to be taken has long since passed. Don't be attached to this job, however much you feel you value or need it. Move on if you need to. There are hundreds of leagues with thousands of parents near you who will appreciate your work if you need to change venues.

Good luck.

VI

bikingbets

Mar-07-2008, 10:53 AM

What a timely discussion we're having here!!

The future of school photography...

Telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/06/nsmiley106.xml)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/03/06/nsmiley106.jpg

photodoug

Mar-07-2008, 11:25 AM

black bar across the eyes....worked for years.

DavidTO

Mar-07-2008, 11:28 AM

Make a custom watermark that will block his face for web display only?

DrDavid

Mar-07-2008, 12:18 PM

Make a custom watermark that will block his face for web display only?
I'm seriously wanting to take the photo, replace it with the photo of his mom from her website with a word balloon that says something like, "My child's image is missing because I think the Bill of Rights only applies when I feel like it!"

But, well, that'd probably cause more problems than it's worth....

David

chuckinsocal

Mar-07-2008, 12:25 PM

I'm seriously wanting to take the photo, replace it with the photo of his mom from her website with a word baloon that says something like, "My child's image is missing because I think the Bill of Rights only applies when I feel like it!"

But, well, that'd probably cause more problems than it's worth....

David

Or ... "my kid's too ugly to be in this photograph" ... rofl ...:rofl

MichaelKirk

Mar-07-2008, 12:27 PM

Touchy subject, especially when children arer involved.
I'm not 100% sure on the specific of this as I personally have not gone through it myself.

If the photos are taken at a league activity - even though they were "Possibly" shot on public property, the Leage either ownes, rented or has a contract to use the land in 99.9% of the cases so in the end what they say will go. Not sure if they can make you take the images off your website, but I am almost certain then can prevent you from SELLING the images....so you can keep your 1st ammendment rights, but never sell a single photo.

Personally, if it was me I would just clone out the individual to the best of your ability and move on - have something in place for next year that when a child signs up - they are signing that you will be taking photos and psoting them on your website.

Michael

DrDavid

Mar-07-2008, 12:35 PM

Image removed to avoid any issues... However, the photo did NOT include the child in question--his face was photoshopped out and replaced by a photo of the mother from her OWN website.

Well, it made ME feel better about the whole thing.. LOL

David

LUCKYSHOT

Mar-07-2008, 02:22 PM

So her website would be? WWW????????????????????? :D :D

tonichelle

Mar-07-2008, 02:47 PM

Elaine

Mar-07-2008, 03:31 PM

As a photographer, I can understand the frustration of feeling like someone is being the boss of your photos and where you can display them, especially after the fact. As a parent, I can understand the prerogative of limiting your child's exposure on the web. It seems that a password protected gallery may alleviate that parent's fears, but obviously I don't have a grasp on the entire situation.
Rather than lose the job or get too upset, I would do as others have suggested and plan for next time by having some steps built into your photo system to prevent the current situation.

Nikolai

Mar-07-2008, 03:37 PM

Turn this lemon into a lemonade...
Clone the baseball cap as if it was down and compeltely cover his face.
Then put your studio logo on his cap/shirt, making the id totally anonymous and getting yourself a free ad space...

snaptie2002

Mar-07-2008, 04:14 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I may be missing something here but I don't see anything on your website that makes me think it is for anything but selling photos.

That is not covered by freedom of the press. I suppose you could twist the freedom of speech thing around to make it something to hide behind like some strip clubs do or someone that wants to pee on a flag and call it art , but really...........why? Because you want to protect the constitution or because you are upset by some one you think is pushing you around?

Legalities aside I think a mother has a fundamental human right to say where she does or does not want her minor child's picture to appear.

Marty

J-N Design

Mar-07-2008, 04:20 PM

Is it not a violation of her copyright to use her photo without permission?:dunno I'd think you run the risk of a lawsuit if she saw this. Just blur / clone out the kid and be done. And be glad you are not shooting soccer. My understanding is that in some places they don't let anyone shoot the kids just in case one of them grows up to be famous. Something about not wanting embarrassing photos cropping up.

digitalpins

Mar-07-2008, 04:33 PM

I would just blur the one kids face out or like mentioned before blur the baseball cap down over his face or if their is a way you can photoshop the kid out completely. I dont think blurring the one kids face out is being mean to her its just that one parent that wants to complain. Its not fair to the others on the team that they wont have their photo.

Now when the kid ask why his face is blurred out she has to explain it to him.

nipprdog

Mar-07-2008, 04:45 PM

I guess I just don't see the reason to be anatagonistic towards that parent.

whether or not the reasons are to benefit another photographer, why stoop to that level even as a joke for other photographers?

Speculation isn't truth, for all you know she just doesn't like havig her kid on the web. It happens, and even though I am a photographer and I get that it's a pain, at the end of the day I also understand parents fears. Even if they are a bit out there or over protective, I know first hand just how far pervs will go.

Just drop the photos off the site until you can clone him out or totally blur his face/number and move on.

Good post. I'll take the blame since I was the clown who suggested to use her photo. Not my best post here. :wink

As a parent, I can understand the prerogative of limiting your child's exposure on the web. It seems that a password protected gallery may alleviate that parent's fears, but obviously I don't have a grasp on the entire situation.

Good point. All of my kid's galleries are password protected. For over a year, shooting various sports in multiple leagues and cities, I've never had to deal with this issue. Parents like hearing the word 'private'. :wink

David, you should consider going private. If you had started that way, this issue might not have happened. :wink

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I may be missing something here but I don't see anything on your website that makes me think it is for anything but selling photos.

That is not covered by freedom of the press. I suppose you could twist the freedom of speech thing around to make it something to hide behind like some strip clubs do or someone that wants to pee on a flag and call it art , but really...........why? Because you want to protect the constitution or because you are upset by some one you think is pushing you around?

Agreed. I have no idea what this has to do with the First Ammendment.

Onrey

Mar-07-2008, 05:12 PM

David, just take down the few photos with her child in it, your not going to make a killing off a few photos. Her being a photog or her friend whos a photog that didnt get the Job is beside the point, perhaps its them sturring up trouble perhaps the Mother has other reasons. I have ran into circumstances before where mother father are seperated/divorced ect, abusive parent, you name it...get the drift...its not always about us and OUR rights, sometimes its just the right thing to do. If you dont take them down, there will be more stirred up and you will more than likely lose the job next year. If parents want that photo(s) make special arangments.

I certainly understand Venting, everyone does it or needs to do it, BUT I believe you have gone beyond venting and stepped up to being bitter. Just take em down, forget about her, the other photog and concentrate of taking great photos that all the parents/boardmembers will love and want you back next year. If not it will affect your shooting anytime she is around or near.

I'd also take the photo down in this post...Period....and consider PMing a Mod, see if they will delete this thread. you would be suprised how many of my customers have googled and found my posts here on Dgrin.

Just my .02

DrDavid

Mar-07-2008, 06:15 PM

I took down the photos of her kid. The photo I posted has the mother's face posted over top of the kids face.. Take a closer look; her kid was NEVER in the photo on here.. :rofl Sorry if no one got the joke.. :dunno

Private galleries... There's an easy answer to why I don't want to do that. I'm having a hard enough time getting the team mom's to pass out their league flyers, etc.. so that they even KNOW about the photos. Seriously folks.. We've sent out THREE flyers (that have been put into the team's mailbox--the same mailbox that they get CRITICAL league information from, posted the link on the Little League website, posted it on the community message boards, and I still get "Gee, I didn't know that you were doing the photos!" Adding a password would make it even worse. There are hundreds of kids and dozens of teams. We're going to be distributing flyer # 4 this weekend. Hopefully THIS flyer will be distributed by the team mom's.

Anyways, the photo IS down (and has been down since last night, 3/6/08, when I was asked to remove it by the league). But, thanks for letting me bitch a bit.. :D

David

Foochar

Mar-07-2008, 06:27 PM

It's just as much her right to want to keep her kid's image off the 'net as it is yours to take his photo in a public place. Whose rights end where?

While she has the right to complain about it (it is speech after all) she does not have the right to actually have it taken down. The moment you walk out in public (in the US) you loose some of your right to privacy. The subject has control of the use of their likeness for marketing and promotional purposes, but it is widely accepted case law that a photograph in and of itself is art, and not a piece of marketing or promotional material. Print the same photo on a shirt or mug and it has become marketing for the object and requires a release.

By acquiescing to her demands or the demands of the "league" you're eroding the freedoms that we take for granted.

Seriously, did she not understand what was happening when the kids were lined up in front of the black box on a tripod? :dunno

Her opportunity to not allow the photo to be taken has long since passed

I personally agree with Van Isle's position in this case. If she had approached this from a different perspective and come to you and asked to have the picture taken down for a justifiable reason than I would consider it, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If she didn't want the picture to show up she should have excluded her child from the team picture. What if the newspaper had shot a picture and printed it on their front page and website. If she had the same reaction what would the newspaper's reaction be? I think we would all agree that if the newspaper was reporting on the game and wanted to use the image it would be a freedom of the press issue.

If the photos are taken at a league activity - even though they were "Possibly" shot on public property, the Leage either ownes, rented or has a contract to use the land in 99.9% of the cases so in the end what they say will go.

While I agree with this in principle, I have a problem with the league changing the rules after the fact. If they are allowing the posting of all the other team photos, but not these specific ones I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on.

Legalities aside I think a mother has a fundamental human right to say where she does or does not want her minor child's picture to appear.

As I mentioned earlier, the moment you show your face in public you waive this "right". When you are not in private you do not have the right to privacy. If this was the case you could never do any street photography that involved minors without prior authorization. Taken to an extreme this would mean that the famous image from Trang Bang, Vietnam (warning, disturbing image) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg) could not have been published without first obtaining permission.

Is it not a violation of her copyright to use her photo without permission

It would never be a violation of copyright for the copyright holder (generally the photographer) to use the photo. As I mention above if the image is used in a promotional campaign, or to sell something other than the photograph (such as a mug or shirt) then a model release is required, but it is the user (advertiser or seller of the product) that is required to obtain the release. When the photo is sold on its own it is considered art and accepted case law is that art does not require a release.

snaptie2002

Mar-07-2008, 09:21 PM

Travis,

The Trang Bang photograph is clearly editorial and as such is protected by the first amendment. Therefore it could be published........editorially.
Let’s use a similar photograph as an example. Let’s say the original poster took a photograph of a naked minor running down the street. He does not send it to a newspaper or any news/editorial outlet. He posts it on his website for sale. He would be arrested.
But it’s a public street…….sorry you are still under arrest.
But it is art……………..sorry you are still under arrest.
But her mother signed a model release…………..great, now you are both under arrest.
Sorry I’m not convinced by any of those arguments.

Also I think you may have missed the point of my statement that began with Legalities aside. You responded from a legal stand point which is at best shaky.
Is it legal to post a minor’s photograph on a website for sale without parental or guardian consent? Please direct me to a clear cut law that says so. Really….because I have up to ten thousand on my web site at any given time.

Is it illegal to post a minor’s photograph on a website for sale without parental or guardian consent?
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting to see that law either.

But I don’t need to see either law in a situation like this. Laws can be manipulated, bent and argued over until someone runs out of money but right and wrong stay the same. All that is needed here is a little common courtesy and the most basic sense of right and wrong. If a mother does not want her child’s photograph posted on my website that is all I need to know.

One thing we can all count on, the first time someone refuses to remove a photo of a child and something happens to that child because of it we will see some clear cut laws shutting down the whole way of doing business.

Marty

DrDavid

Mar-08-2008, 06:24 AM

Snaptie,

For a very good read on the laws surrounding photo taking, and the well established case law, check out:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

The actual law can be found here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/3344-3346.html

(e) The use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing such use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a).

David

stirfry

Mar-08-2008, 06:56 AM

Such a sad time when parents are this over protective.

I'd remove the photos for this year and then next year have each parent sign a consent form that clearly states the picture will be posted on the internet. If she won't sign then don't allow the child to stand in for the group photo's that you plan to post. Cruel but then it's mommies fault that little Johnny isn't in the pictures. She can only blame herself when little Johnny is disappointed.

Around here it is common to say something along the lines of, "X-League contracts a photographer to document happenings within the league, and some images may be used for promotional purposes in print or on the web. If you'd like to opt out, check the box ..."

Maybe you could tweak that to reflect your specific (not necessarily promotional) situation; make it an opt-out rather than an opt-in would be my suggestion, and see about putting it on the original registration forms (which, really, the league should be doing IMO anyhow regardless of individual photograph contracts). I'm not sure what your own contract states, but if you aren't already sharing x-number of your best shots for their promotional brochures and website, doing so would be a great way to buddy up to them a bit more (maybe have more of a fighting change when/if this type of situation arises again).

You can totally influence the tides of this situation, as well as your likelihood of a subsequent contract by creative wording. Approach the league with the above suggestion, saying it is your shared desire to respect the privacy and wishes of every participating family (without the ruckus caused THIS season).

I'd just blur the kid's face in the photo, and caption an explanation. Don't waste time cloning or fixing it, your time is more valuable; do the bare minimum necessary to appease her wishes. If it's ugly, it's ugly and she can answer to her teammates. I'd also send a neutrally written explanation to the coach and parents of the affected team, just so everyone was on the same page.

We're a huge baseball family, and have dealt with this very type of squeaky wheel ~ I'd bet that her squeaks can be heard all over the league, and not just with regards to the pictures being on the web .... but at the end of the day, you give what you get when it comes to respect. Indulge her request, and use it as a springboard to turn the favorable perception around to your own favor ...

DavidTO

Mar-08-2008, 07:03 AM

Travis,
The Trang Bang photograph is clearly editorial and as such is protected by the first amendment. Therefore it could be published........editorially.

Marty,

Please edit your post to remove all of the color coding. We have several skins that people can view your post in, and the black makes your post nearly unreadable in some. Please leave the font color at the default setting. Thanks!

Foochar

Mar-08-2008, 07:15 AM

Travis,
But it’s a public street…….sorry you are still under arrest.
But it is art……………..sorry you are still under arrest.
But her mother signed a model release…………..great, now you are both under arrest.
Sorry I’m not convinced by any of those arguments.

Also I think you may have missed the point of my statement that began with Legalities aside.
You responded from a legal stand point which is at best shaky.
Is it legal to post a minor’s photograph on a website for sale without parental or guardian consent?
Please direct me to a clear cut law that says so. Really….because I have up to ten thousand on my web site at any given time.

Is it illegal to post a minor’s photograph on a website for sale without parental or guardian consent?
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting to see that law either.

But I don’t need to see either law in a situation like this. Laws can be manipulated, bent and argued over until someone runs out of money but right and wrong stay the same. All that is needed here is a little common courtesy and the most basic sense of right and wrong. If a mother does not want her child’s photograph posted on my website that is all I need to know.

One thing we can all count on, the first time someone refuses to remove a photo of a child and something happens to that child because of it we will see some clear cut laws shutting down the whole way of doing business.

Marty

I strongly agree that legalities and courtesy are two different things, especially in this situation. With respect to the legalities I would direct you to look into the work of Jock Sturges, whose work is clearly not editorial, however is still considered art. Granted that Sturges is very careful about showing courtesy to his subjects and pulling them from galleries etc. if the subject changes their mind, but that is a courtesy and not a right. I don't have a problem with the mother asking to take the picture down, my objection comes when she demands that it is her right to have the picture taken down. In the case of a team photo, which the OP is referring to you also have to look at the courtesy to the dozen or more other people on the team. Should that mother be able to keep them from being able to view and buy the photograph the way they view the rest of the individual photographs? If that team were to be the league champion would that mother be able to keep that team picture out of a press release on the league website?

Were it an individual photograph of only her child I would probably view the situation differently, not in terms of rights, but in terms of the level of courtesy due to the mother.

The reason that I raising these points is that every time a right is eroded it makes it that much easier for that right to be further eroded. As an example look at the situation brought up on www.freeourstreets.org (http://www.freeourstreets.org) regarding street photography in Silver Spring MD. Although it is not directly related it is another example of the erosion of the rights of photographers for no good reason.

nipprdog

Mar-09-2008, 06:33 AM

Private galleries... There's an easy answer to why I don't want to do that. I'm having a hard enough time getting the team mom's to pass out their league flyers, etc.. so that they even KNOW about the photos. Seriously folks.. We've sent out THREE flyers (that have been put into the team's mailbox--the same mailbox that they get CRITICAL league information from, posted the link on the Little League website, posted it on the community message boards, and I still get "Gee, I didn't know that you were doing the photos!" Adding a password would make it even worse. There are hundreds of kids and dozens of teams. We're going to be distributing flyer # 4 this weekend. Hopefully THIS flyer will be distributed by the team mom's.

"You can't expect them to do your job for you. They might not do it as well as you could." :wink

I'll share with you the best piece of advice I was given last year that mad a big difference on getting orders. Like you, I started out by giving my cards to the coaches and team moms my first coulple weeks. Orders were slow to come in, and not at all like I had hoped. A coworker(former coach) told me not to do it that way, for the reason stated above. So, I changed my ways. Prior to the game starting, I worked the sidelines myself, personaly handing my card (with the password on it) to every parent, grandparent(very important since they aren't getting the flyers from your team moms), and family member. Later on, between innings, I would make another quick walk through to catch the late arrivals. It made for a more personable experience. My potential customers got to meet me, and ask questions, if they had any.

That week, I had a substantial increase in orders. :thumb I've done it that way ever since. :wink

So, give up on the flyers in the mailboxs. Get a bunch of cards made, and get out there to meet your potential customers.

Also, you need to get the games on your site within 24 hours, before they lose interest. If you can't get them on your site that quick, you need to change your workflow.

DrDavid

Mar-09-2008, 09:20 AM

Also, you need to get the games on your site within 24 hours, before they lose interest. If you can't get them on your site that quick, you need to change your workflow.
I've been working on getting ALL the photos ready at the same time. Then, doing a big blitz of advertising and an on-field presence with laptop computers to process orders manually. But, I'll probably also incorporate the meet and greet approach too and let them know dates and times, etc.. Thanks for the tip! :thumb

Ann McRae

Mar-09-2008, 12:09 PM

A timely post here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=87097)

DJ-S1

Mar-09-2008, 12:23 PM

Yep, this may all be moot. After reading that new rule I'm probably not going to post LL shots online anymore. :cry

DrDavid

Mar-09-2008, 12:49 PM

Yep, this may all be moot. After reading that new rule I'm probably not going to post LL shots online anymore. :cry
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. LL can't prohibit taking photos and posting them. There is such a thing as the first amendment.

LL can go take a flying leap.. They're not taking my rights away. This is VERY settled case law.

In fact, at the top of the article they say that the law takes precedence (no kidding), and the results are that the LOCAL LITTLE LEAGUE can lose their charter (maybe). But, the reality is that unless the LL is PAYING the photographer, there's nothing they can do to the LL, and of course, nothing they can do to the Photographer.

Remember, photo essays are journalistic. A photo shoot of a baseball game is editorial and journalistic in nature. Yes, it's something the parents like, but, it is NO DIFFERENT than any other published media. Newspapers sell photos too... At least in the USA, they have no power to stop it.

David

tonichelle

Mar-09-2008, 05:26 PM

Angelo

Mar-12-2008, 11:42 AM

I strongly agree that legalities and courtesy are two different things, especially in this situation. With respect to the legalities I would direct you to look into the work of Jock Sturges, whose work is clearly not editorial, however is still considered art. Granted that Sturges is very careful about showing courtesy to his subjects and pulling them from galleries etc. if the subject changes their mind, but that is a courtesy and not a right. I don't have a problem with the mother asking to take the picture down, my objection comes when she demands that it is her right to have the picture taken down. In the case of a team photo, which the OP is referring to you also have to look at the courtesy to the dozen or more other people on the team. Should that mother be able to keep them from being able to view and buy the photograph the way they view the rest of the individual photographs? If that team were to be the league champion would that mother be able to keep that team picture out of a press release on the league website?

Were it an individual photograph of only her child I would probably view the situation differently, not in terms of rights, but in terms of the level of courtesy due to the mother.

The reason that I raising these points is that every time a right is eroded it makes it that much easier for that right to be further eroded. As an example look at the situation brought up on www.freeourstreets.org (http://www.freeourstreets.org) regarding street photography in Silver Spring MD. Although it is not directly related it is another example of the erosion of the rights of photographers for no good reason.

the most reasoned post in this thread yet. thanks Travis :thumb

i_worship_the_King

Mar-12-2008, 03:48 PM

I personally think cloning in another childs face is underhanded, and spiteful to the parent who complained. And I am bothered that I didnt think of it. I would definately take this route. :thumb

:agree

SaltFork

Mar-15-2008, 09:37 PM

I realize I'm chiming in after the fact - but what exactly was the woman's beef?

Did she not want her son's photo on the internet.... OR
Did she not want photos of her son sold to other parents?

If it was just about being on the internet then why not just blur the little boy's face in the photo and then put something in the caption like this, "I have been asked to not show one of the little boys on my webpage and I have complied as a courtesy to the parent. However, if you order a print, the blur will be removed and the photo will appear as originally intended. Thanks."

Then, put a 7-day proof delay on that one blurred photo and when someone orders it just replace it with a non-blurred version.

Problem solved....or did I miss something? :dunno