Can't post Little League images online anymore!

[James Broome]

I was informed today that a new Little League International rule (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online.

From the rule:Example 2: A web site that is not operated by a chartered local Little League wishes to post an image of a youth batter at the plate, and the image is identified in some way as a Little League image (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification). The web site operator would need permission from Little League International to post this image. The web site also would need to obtain written permission from the parent or guardian to post the photo. It is recommended that the web site operator also receive permission from the photographer.
Every single image that I've shot of LL participants has the name of the local Little League written right across the chest of their shirts. No real way I can get around that. This is not good news for those of us selling LL photos online, is it?

I've already disabled my existing LL galleries. I'm posting this news to help others out there who have LL galleries up as well.

[MichaelKirk]

Best me to the post by 8 minutes :D

A MUST read for anyone shooting Little League baseball.

Michael







I was informed today that a new Little League International rule (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online.

From the rule:
Every single image that I've shot of LL participants has the name of the local Little League written right across the chest of their shirts. No real way I can get around that. This is not good news for those of us selling LL photos online, is it?

I've already disabled my existing LL galleries. I'm posting this news to help others out there who have LL galleries up as well.

[James Broome]

Kind of related: is there a way to disable an entire category instead of the individual galleries?

[DJ-S1]

Wow. Thanks very much for the info!

Looks like I won't be doing any shots this year then. There's no way I'm going to keep track of whether or not a certain kid's Mom signed a release - I don't even know 95% of the kids names!

[DrDavid]

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

[sportsshooter06]

I have found this link at sportsshooter.com, I think it is an important article or comment for everyone to read. I may have posted it in the wrong place, but please , make comments on your thoughts.


http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp

[frozenrope]

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

To a certain extent, that may be true David but keep in mind that they absolutely can prohibit you from photographing their events. Even though many of the LL fields are on public park property, they have an agreement that allows them to use and basically control the fields. If the local league is in jeopardy of losing their charter, they will be motivated to make sure they are enforcing the LLI rules. If you refuse to abide by them they can just severe your relationship with them and your access is lost.

Most leagues issue media releases though, so it's important to make sure your league's release covers you too. I'm not sure what this means yet as far as how one needs to gain permission but this is something everyone that does shoot LL pays attention to.

[nipprdog]

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.

Shooting and posting images from a jounalistic/editorial point of view is one thing.

Shooting and posting images containing the league's likeness(patch), with the intention of making a profit, is another.


This will be interesting to see what develops. It could set a bad trend for other sports to follow. :dunno

[DrDavid]

Shooting and posting images from a jounalistic/editorial point of view is one thing.

Shooting and posting images containing the league's likeness(patch), with the intention of making a profit, is another.
Profit has nothing to do with it. Newspapers make money too....

David

[i_worship_the_King]

I have no legal background, but from everything I've read about the rights of photographers they have no right to enforce this. Sounds like some arbitrary, stupid rule that they'll only dream of enforcing in high-level tourneys where they get kickback from whoever gets to shoot the event.:deal

[DrDavid]

To a certain extent, that may be true David but keep in mind that they absolutely can prohibit you from photographing their events. Even though many of the LL fields are on public park property, they have an agreement that allows them to use and basically control the fields. If the local league is in jeopardy of losing their charter, they will be motivated to make sure they are enforcing the LLI rules. If you refuse to abide by them they can just severe your relationship with them and your access is lost.

Most leagues issue media releases though, so it's important to make sure your league's release covers you too. I'm not sure what this means yet as far as how one needs to gain permission but this is something everyone that does shoot LL pays attention to.
The land they use isn't controlled by them. It is a public area. Technically, the worst that can happen is that I lose my built-in advertising (i.e. the League can't advertise my website). They may also prevent me from going ON the field itself during the game. But, there's nothing anyone can do about me taking photos and posting them.

LLI knows this; that's why the first paragraph says that if local, state, provincial or national laws conflict, that those laws prevail. In the US, they DO conflict; and the national laws prevail.

I should mention, I actually went to law school. I'm not just talking out of my butt here.. :thumb (BUT, I am not a lawyer)

The reality here is that LL is on VERY thin ice; it's not the photographers that have to worry, it's LL that should worry that they can be sued for economic interference, etc..

David

[KED]

But, there's nothing anyone can do about me taking photos and posting them.

David
Like you, I went to law school and like you, I'm not a lawyer (at least not anymore, thank god). I think you are spot-on in the quote above, but when you go further, to the question of selling images, particularly if they contain the Little League logo (even as in an arm patch), you are in a very gray area. Just as the Olympic rings, and even the name "Super Bowl", are covetously protected by scores of lawyers, so, arguably, could be the Little League logo.

It's an interesting topic to me. I have recently begun shooting NCAA D-I lacrosse (I post my shots mainly for download by players and parents, but also sell prints thru SmugMug), and it has actually crossed my mind that one is technically posting images of people for profit, and that usually calls for a release. I'll worry about that when someone sues me, and if I were shooting Little League I think I would look at it pretty much the same way.

[DrDavid]

it has actually crossed my mind that one is technically posting images of people for profit, and that usually calls for a release. I'll worry about that when someone sues me, and if I were shooting Little League I think I would look at it pretty much the same way.
Again, newspapers sell photos (and articles) for money. They include logos as a normal part of publishing. They make profit. They are protected by the 1st Amendment. Likewise, photographers do the same thing. The ONLY difference is in HOW we publish. I publish on the web (where courts have decided that it's the same as publishing on paper), newspapers publish on paper and on the web. I create journalistic and artistic images for sale. Newspapers create journalistic and artistic images for sale (yes, they really will sell you photos).

It is the same thing. In the US, there is NO difference between the LA Times and John Smith Photography as regards to what they can and can not do with images. The first amendment applies to everyone; it's not selectively applied based on media share and market penetration.

David

[nipprdog]

Like you, I went to law school and like you, I'm not a lawyer (at least not anymore, thank god). I think you are spot-on in the quote above, but when you go further, to the question of selling images, particularly if they contain the Little League logo (even as in an arm patch), you are in a very gray area. Just as the Olympic rings, and even the name "Super Bowl", are covetously protected by scores of lawyers, so, arguably, could be the Little League logo.

Exactly. Their mention of the patch is key. I learned that a few years ago when a charity orginization I was involved with wanted to sell some of my Nascar images as fund-raisers. I had to call an emergency "keep me out of jail" board meeting. :D

[DrDavid]

Exactly. Their mention of the patch is key. I learned that a few years ago when a charity orginization I was involved with wanted to sell some of my Nascar images as fund-raisers. I had to call an emergency "keep me out of jail" board meeting. :D
I still have to disagree. Newspapers publish logos all the time. The act of including a logo isn't the issue; it's how prominant or important the logo is. If I sell a picture of a Ford Mustang, there might be an issue because the entire purpose of the photo is the Ford Mustang. In the case of a kid, the importance of a logo is, well, not important. But, even with the car--do you think every photo used in the LA Times or NY Times has a media release? Of course not! That would be rediculous!

In the same vein, if I have a photo of a politician who just picked up a hooker in his Ford Mustang, the fact that the Ford logo, the Mustang Logo and anything else is visible in the picture isn't relevant.

The logo isn't relavant. It's a smoke screen. They know they have an unenforceable rule, and they're just trying to scare. That's it. Seriously, move on, there's nothing to see here :deal

David

[KED]

Seriously, move on, there's nothing to see here :deal

David
I can see why you aren't practicing law. There's always something more to see, and always someone who's willing to see it the "other" way. I've already stated that if it were me I would just bull-rush this, but you can't possibly believe that you have summary judgment in your back pocket.

[DrDavid]

I can see why you aren't practicing law. There's always something more to see, and always someone who's willing to see it the "other" way. I've already stated that if it were me I would just bull-rush this, but you can't possibly believe that you have summary judgment in your back pocket.
LOL.. I'm over simplifying it. You're right. Of course there's another side to the argument. But, the reality is that on the scale of things to worry about for most (all) photographers, shooting LL games is a very low risk in the USA. Now, other countries could be different, but, I'd be surprised if LL ever sues anyone (successfully or otherwise) over this issue.

I just wanted to make sure that people realize that your constitutional rights trump a private companies' bylaws.

Oh, and law.. Ick.. I finished my first year and decide there was no way in hell that I'd want to do law for the rest of my life.. That was about it. I enjoyed it at the time, but, doing it as a job for the next 30 years was a tad, uh, depressing. :D

David

[KED]

But, the reality is that on the scale of things to worry about for most (all) photographers, shooting LL games is a very low risk in the USA.

Agreed -- hence my "bull-rush" strategy and comment.

[/QUOTE]I just wanted to make sure that people realize that your constitutional rights trump a private companies' bylaws.[/QUOTE]

That's where generalization becomes hazardous, and where your right to shoot -- on public property -- is distinguishable from your right to publish, for profit at least.

[/QUOTE]Oh, and law.. Ick.. I finished my first year and decide there was no way in hell that I'd want to do law for the rest of my life.. That was about it. I enjoyed it at the time, but, doing it as a job for the next 30 years was a tad, uh, depressing. :D

David[/QUOTE]

Yeah well, you figured it out six years faster than I did (got the degree and practiced for 4 yrs), but in hindsight I am WAY better at what I do now as a result of all that -- for example, look at how I wrecked you on this topic! JK JK JK JK JK :bow

[James Broome]

I just wanted to make sure that people realize that your constitutional rights trump a private companies' bylaws.

I'd love to agree with you (in the larger sense of what you're talking about, I do), but whether a local little league operates on publicly owned property (county park, etc.) or not isn't going to prohibit them from saying who can be there and who can't. If they have reason to remove someone from the park, they can and will do so. Does that mean you don't have the right to be there? No, it doesn't. You very well may have the right. But it's going to cost you time, trouble, and money in a court to prove it. In the mean time, you've been kicked out of the park. Period.

If you attend a fund raiser for a politician in the local city park and yell "You suck! You suck! You suck!", you're going to find yourself in jail for a while - whether you really had "freedom of speech" (and were on public property) or not.

[tonichelle]

news papers make profit, newspapers use logos

newspapers also have special passes and normally special aggreements when it comes to school and other child sport/activities....

at least our local newspaper did

[bham]

From a legal standpoint, the Little League International is just telling those that are in essence their subsidiaries, to be smart and follow its guidelines (and limit or avoid possible litigation). The international organization has authority over its subsidiaries, but not anybody else.

This is either in response to a situation that happened or after seeing other organizations go through situations with parents and photos of children (the reason for most rules and laws).

Funny how they think that news organizations have a different set of rules. Some freedoms are called freedom of the press, but nowhere does it state that you must be an "news" organization to be granted those rights.

[bham]

Like you, I went to law school and like you, I'm not a lawyer (at least not anymore, thank god). I think you are spot-on in the quote above, but when you go further, to the question of selling images, particularly if they contain the Little League logo (even as in an arm patch), you are in a very gray area. Just as the Olympic rings, and even the name "Super Bowl", are covetously protected by scores of lawyers, so, arguably, could be the Little League logo.

It's an interesting topic to me. I have recently begun shooting NCAA D-I lacrosse (I post my shots mainly for download by players and parents, but also sell prints thru SmugMug), and it has actually crossed my mind that one is technically posting images of people for profit, and that usually calls for a release. I'll worry about that when someone sues me, and if I were shooting Little League I think I would look at it pretty much the same way.

You don't need a release you shot photos at an event open to the public. But technically the NCAA has a rule about selling photos of current student athletes. Now since you are not a member of the NCAA they can't do anything to you, but they can ask that the member school to send you a cease and desist letter and move to restrict your access. For lacrosse that could be hard, for Div I basketball or football, the school could revoke press pass, etc.

Now unless someone complains or notices, or knows the rule, you are not likely to have a problem. I just wouldn't advertise it to much, especially where members of the Athletic Department might see.

[kc_tinman]

I have no legal background, but from everything I've read about the rights of photographers they have no right to enforce this. Sounds like some arbitrary, stupid rule that they'll only dream of enforcing in high-level tourneys where they get kickback from whoever gets to shoot the event.:deal
I respect other people's property of course. This is a different matter. Public events on public property cannot be censored in my opinion. If you ask permission do do something from a bueracrat 99% of the time you will get a NO. It is becoming difficult to do anything in this country without breaking a law or being sued. A shame really. Any parent afraid of having their kid's pic on teh internet should not have them playing sports at all but rather locked in a closet for maximum protection.

[DrDavid]

I respect other people's property of course. This is a different matter. Public events on public property cannot be censored in my opinion. If you ask permission do do something from a bueracrat 99% of the time you will get a NO. It is becoming difficult to do anything in this country without breaking a law or being sued. A shame really. Any parent afraid of having their kid's pic on teh internet should not have them playing sports at all but rather locked in a closet for maximum protection.
If it's good enough for Michael Jackson's kids....

[kc_tinman]

Further more about the LL patch being displayed. If a person wanted, they could paste that patch all over a website, a youtube LL game / slide show, etc. They are fighting a losing battle that has no point anyway. Why would they not want their sport / League advertised for free? Pre historic thinking will doom many a business (music artists set on drm music)

[Furono]

Why would they not want their sport / League advertised for free? I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.

This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.

Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.

I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.

Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.

[LUCKYSHOT]

Question?
Even if Little league international bans us. They themselves are not the almighty final word in LL baseball. Here on Long Island, We have over 100 town league and almost none of the ones I know of Are affilited with LL international, most are Either PAL, CYO, or williamsport league to name a few. i have found that these rules against us typically do not ever end up holding Water
Chris

[mercphoto]

Why would they not want their sport / League advertised for free? Pre historic thinking will doom many a business (music artists set on drm music)
Furono's right about this: not all advertising is helpful. Further, you are basically saying that that a second party should have the legal right to advertise on behalf of the first party whenever and however the second party wishes. I'm sure you wouldn't agree if you were the first party. :) This same line of argument is used all the time by businesses and people who illegally obtain photographs for use in magazines and websites: we credited the photo, why doesn't the photgrapher want the free advertising?

[bham]

I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.

This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.

Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.

I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.

Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.

I understand your point, but if the patch is one inch by one inch it is unlikely to be readable on a photo of the child playing, at screen resolution, unless the photo is very very large. Kinda like Ralph Lauren may not like me selling photos of people at parties drunk wearing their small logo on their shirt. Ralph Lauren really can't stop me. The logo would be just as hard to see as the LL International logo. But its pretty unreasonable for any lay person to assume that Ralph Lauren is endorsing the activity, the party, or the sale of the image.

[jeffreaux2]

We went through something similar last year with the Louisiana High School Athletic Assoc. at the girls basketball playoffs. They wanted everyone to sign a release saying that they understood that the only photos that could be sold or web posted MUST be taken by the photographer who has the sole contract for all LHSAA events. Which...is an absurd contract anyway. How could he possibly cover all LHSAA events? It would be different if he sub contracted others to help photograph every game across the state on a given night, but he doesn't.

Anyway, all of the newspaper photographers walked out of the event refusing to sign the agreement. There were no pictures of the playoffs in the paper. After a couple days of it the LHSAA backed completely off their position.

My question would be....

What if I take a kazillion photos of my own kid playing ball and plaster it all over the web. Am I going to be in trouble?

They will say that the rule is to protect the kids, but I bet there is money motivating it somewhere.

[Mitchell]

This is absurd. Let me be the first to post a LL shot from this weekend with the patch clearly visible on the pitcher.

This was taken in my home town's municipal baseball complex. How can I not be allowed to take photos of these kids?

http://www.clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/photos/263995043_u4o2M-L.jpg

[DrDavid]

This is absurd. Let me be the first to post a LL shot from this weekend with the patch clearly visible on the pitcher.

This was taken in my home town's municipal baseball complex. How can I not be allowed to take photos of these kids?
I'm sorry Sir.. I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting pictures of children taken in a public place. This isn't a free country you know! :rolleyes

[Mitchell]

I'm sorry Sir.. I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting pictures of children taken in a public place. This isn't a free country you know! :rolleyes

I love it!!:thumb

[bham]

This is absurd. Let me be the first to post a LL shot from this weekend with the patch clearly visible on the pitcher.

This was taken in my home town's municipal baseball complex. How can I not be allowed to take photos of these kids?

http://www.clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/photos/263995043_u4o2M-L.jpg

I can see a patch, I can't read the writing on the patch. Unless you were familiar with the logo the average joe couldn't tell you what it was.

[KED]

You don't need a release you shot photos at an event open to the public. But technically the NCAA has a rule about selling photos of current student athletes. Now since you are not a member of the NCAA they can't do anything to you, but they can ask that the member school to send you a cease and desist letter and move to restrict your access. For lacrosse that could be hard, for Div I basketball or football, the school could revoke press pass, etc.

Now unless someone complains or notices, or knows the rule, you are not likely to have a problem. I just wouldn't advertise it to much, especially where members of the Athletic Department might see.
I currently engaged in a whole imbroglio with my son's college about getting a field credential (posted on elsewhere, won't bore you with the details), but as a result I am becoming familiar with some of this NCAA nonsense. I think you might be overstating the NCAA prohibition, since I know for a fact that Brown pays a photographer to shoot various sporting events, and he in turn posts the shots for sale on his website.

[frozenrope]

Maybe, before we get too worked up about this someone should call LL for clarification. Here is what was posted in another forum referring to a sportsshooter.com thread (thanks Nicky)

From a post by Bill Miller on SS.com:

->> It seems that everyone always goes off half-cocked when some new rule or policy is announced. That is the case here. Get your facts before you open mouth and insert foot.

If only someone had called the LL office media department they would have gotten the policy guidelines relating to event photographers. In talking with Chris Downs, Media Director of LL all a event photographer must do is have an agreement {in writing/signed} with the League, stating their arrangment. With that the photographer can then post the images online.

What the League wants is a paper trail, and parents to be aware that their childs photo may be posted on the internet.

So simple - no panic - a reasonable answer. If you have any questions call or email Chris Downs 570-326-1921

cdowns@littleleague.org


Here is the original message: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=28595

[KED]

That's great until you get to the "in writing - signed" part. Good luck. The day I would engage in that kind of brain damage to shoot fidgets would be many days after I had already shot myself, and I don't mean a self portrait!

I started off in this thread focused on the legal nuances, just for intellectual kicks, and hence gave some props to LL's position. But from a practical standpoint, as I have already said, if it were me I would be blasting and posting and not being all that nervous about LL showing up at my door.

[kc_tinman]

I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.

This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.

Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.

I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.

Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.

Your point is valid about using a logo for inappropriate reasons (LL patch for beer commercial). however one has to reach to the extreme to find a reason supporting a silly rule. My point was nnot that every use of someone else's image or logo is OK. My point is to say that it is pointless for them to try & stop the use of something that can be duplicated (images) and posted everywhere just because someone wants to show them they can. When attention is brought to a ban like that it just makes more people likely to buck the system.

[KED]

Do we have anyone here on Dgrin who actually knows about the legalities here? Otherwise this is ridiculous. Just keep on shooting already.

[frozenrope]

That's great until you get to the "in writing - signed" part. Good luck. The day I would engage in that kind of brain damage to shoot fidgets would be many days after I had already shot myself, and I don't mean a self portrait!

I started off in this thread focused on the legal nuances, just for intellectual kicks, and hence gave some props to LL's position. But from a practical standpoint, as I have already said, if it were me I would be blasting and posting and not being all that nervous about LL showing up at my door.

I do it for every league I shoot for already. We have an agreement in place before the season starts and the player enrollment package includes information to the parents that photos will be posted online. They have an opt out should they so choose. I've never had an opt out yet. It really isn't a big deal like you're making it out to be, to get an agreement from the league authorizing you to shoot if they don't have one in place with someone else already.

[frozenrope]

Originally Posted by Furono
I don't agree with you and here's why. What if somebody took a picture of LL with the patch showing and it showed on a brochure not sponsored by them (maybe a beer drinking event I don't know). People would think they were somehow involved when they weren't. Or your using them to promote your products or event thats not tied to them in anyway. Same with anything else.

This is a very muddy issue. It comes down to fair use and newsworthyness. Newspapers and news magazines (and maybe now web blogs) have a "fair use" privilege to publish images in connection with reporting a newsworthy event. They also have the money and lawyers to fight anyone who wants to pick a fight. I'm guessing most small photography businesses don't.

Using somebody, someones building or company logo on a brochure for your company isn't newsworthy. Using the LL patch picture in the local newspaper or flyer maybe is. It depends on how it gets used and represented. Maybe if it's sold to a parent and put on a nightstand it's newsworthy. Again something for the lawyers.

I know that you can take and sell a picture of somebody and not need a release. As long as that picture is used as news and possibly bought by a news organization and is newsworthy and is not fictionalized.

Bottom line, if your company depends on it get the advice of a lawyer. Do not listen to people on the internet.

Using the image commerically, as in flyers or advertisements, bring in a whole litany of different legal issues versus shooting and posting the images for sale as prints to friends and family. Their are copyright issues as well as consent of the party(ies) in the images for the photos to be used. This is not what LL is trying to address here.

[KED]

I do it for every league I shoot for already. We have an agreement in place before the season starts and the player enrollment package includes information to the parents that photos will be posted online. They have an opt out should they so choose. I've never had an opt out yet. It really isn't a big deal like you're making it out to be, to get an agreement from the league authorizing you to shoot if they don't have one in place with someone else already.
I don't mean to be making anything out to be anything. You make your living shooting across whole leagues -- I shoot my kids and their teammates for free. Whole 'nother story.

[frozenrope]

I don't mean to be making anything out to be anything. You make your living shooting across whole leagues -- I shoot my kids and their teammates for free. Whole 'nother story.

Well it's a part time business but yes, it is a business. And with my agreement, the leagues give me access to areas that are not otherwise accessible for MWD or DWD. On most of the fields I shoot on, I would not be able to get the shots I get without that access. I provide insurance and submit to the required LL volunteer background check and have an agreement in place.

[bham]

I currently engaged in a whole imbroglio with my son's college about getting a field credential (posted on elsewhere, won't bore you with the details), but as a result I am becoming familiar with some of this NCAA nonsense. I think you might be overstating the NCAA prohibition, since I know for a fact that Brown pays a photographer to shoot various sporting events, and he in turn posts the shots for sale on his website.

Well I am just going by what was told to me, by not only a athletic department employee but also a vendor who sells artwork of former athletes.

[Art Scott]

I'm sorry Sir.... This isn't a free country you know! :rolleyes

Actually Dr.David you are 100% correct in this thought......we have certain freedoms granted to us............when in fact the USA is NOT a free country.........

I actually had a security guard shake my pick-up as I was trying to get a sunset while parked in a parking lot...I had just exited a resturant that i did a small food shoot for and walked out ot a very gorgeous sunset......he tried to tell me that since 911 no one can take photos in shopping malls or parking lots etc...now I was actually on the cab of my truck...I lost the photo and when I got off the cab the tripod was ready to use as a weapon and I told him if he was still in the lot when I hit the ground I was gonna kick his very obese a**......well he was gone but I had to have a talk with a city cop for threatening the s.g......no charges and the s.g. got fired....I have been back there several times with the sole purpose of shooting anything from that lot just to aggitate any s.g. around but so far....... nada......for the last 2 years

[KED]

Actually Dr.David you are 100% correct in this thought......we have certain freedoms granted to us............when in fact the USA is NOT a free country.........


It is SUCH a free country that some fatass security guard can hassle you and you can hassle him back. That security guard speaks for nobody but the private property owner (who does, in this free country, have property rights). It is terribly important, in assessing the freedoms that this country does or does not offer, to distinguish between when the government is screwing with you and when "just some dude" is screwing with you -- and then further to realize that he may have been enforcing property rights that exist whether you like them or not.

If you can find a freer country, and if it's that extra freedom that you crave, perhaps you should relocate there and be free of the chains that bind you in Amerika. No doubt you will still be able to post to dgrin from there.

[Foochar]

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to law school, I've been following this thread, but refrained from posting until I had more than just a knee-jerk reaction. I just read over the policy again on the LL website, and I think that there is another reasonable interpretation that I think has been overlooked. First off we have to differentiate between your right to take the picture and your right to use the picture in some way. If you've done much research into model releases you should be familiar with the concept that a release is not required to take a photograph of a person, but may be required in order to use the photograph in certain ways.


First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.

Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.

So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.

To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.

[Rhuarc]

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to law school, I've been following this thread, but refrained from posting until I had more than just a knee-jerk reaction. I just read over the policy again on the LL website, and I think that there is another reasonable interpretation that I think has been overlooked. First off we have to differentiate between your right to take the picture and your right to use the picture in some way. If you've done much research into model releases you should be familiar with the concept that a release is not required to take a photograph of a person, but may be required in order to use the photograph in certain ways.


First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.

Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.

So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.

To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.

I Agree...

[SavedByZero]

public field, public domain, shoot at will.

[sanford tullis]

I have just read this entire thread, my comment is this: LLI isn't the only game out there. If you shoot L.L. sports and do not like the rules set by the org. than go to the next one. I shoot football for my local county, I shoot one park every game on Saturday's. By league rules I (and no one else) is allowed inside the "red zone" I abide by the rules. If you do not want the hassle of shooting at these, org. than locate a local church who has a season. Many of the churches will allow you to shoot, just to help promote the events, to help the kids.
Too many people have forgotten the games are for the kids anyway.
I have gotten completly away from shooting L L sports at the county parks unless a parent ask me to shoot thier child, than I always have more parents "hire" me to shoot thier children while I am there.

[Bassett1976]

Alright, maybe I'm way off base here. (sorry for the pun)

Photographs and/or video of any children must not be posted on a Chartered local Little League’s web site without receiving written permission from the child’s parent or guardian. Photos on web site owned or operated by a chartered local Little League must adhere to the standards for Little Leaguers appearing in the media at: http://www.littleleague.org/media/Proper04.pdf (http://www.littleleague.org/media/Proper04.pdf)

To me, it sounds like you cannot post on the Little League web site with all of the restrictions.

Also, the little league page goes on to say.
Little League International has no control over non-Little League owned/operated web sites that post photographs of children, provided those children are not identified in any way as Little Leaguers.

I still think its prudent to have an arrangement with the local Little League. Second, if you post pictures just make sure the Little League patch and the names of the players are not posted or shown on the pictures. You can always blur out the LL Patch and if a parent purchases a picture you can give them the original copy.

[georges]

Assuming that we're talking about a parent making available prints to other parents, and not someone trying to make a business of event photos...

I'm surprised that no one has considered simply cloning out the little league patch.

[Art Scott]

Assuming that we're talking about a parent making available prints to other parents, and not someone trying to make a business of event photos...

I'm surprised that no one has considered simply cloning out the little league patch.

Gotta remember that could add upto hours of work as there is not a way to do an action for it as that patch will not be in the same place in any 2 pictures....it is a good idea but also a time hawg.....

[acidburn_85]

I just checked and the local little leauge here runs through the Dixie Youth Baseball Organization so I'm in the green...Hope this gets overturned for all you other shooters.

[Foochar]

I just checked and the local little leauge here runs through the Dixie Youth Baseball Organization so I'm in the green...Hope this gets overturned for all you other shooters.

If your local organization refers to itself as a "Little League" and you use the same phrasing on your website you could still be in trouble (as could they for referring to themselves as a "Little League".) Based on the research that I have done Little League International, Inc. actually has the phrase "Little League" as well as "Little Leaguer" (referring to a player) trademarked. While we may think that this grant of trademark is excessively broad, since Little League International, Inc. has a congressional charter it is pretty hard to argue against their trademarks in a court of law. (For more detail on their grant to the names Little League and Little Leaguer take a look at US Code Title 36, Chapter 1305, Section 130506 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/usc_sec_36_00130506----000-.html)

[frozenrope]

If your local organization refers to itself as a "Little League" and you use the same phrasing on your website you could still be in trouble (as could they for referring to themselves as a "Little League".) Based on the research that I have done Little League International, Inc. actually has the phrase "Little League" as well as "Little Leaguer" (referring to a player) trademarked. While we may think that this grant of trademark is excessively broad, since Little League International, Inc. has a congressional charter it is pretty hard to argue against their trademarks in a court of law. (For more detail on their grant to the names Little League and Little Leaguer take a look at US Code Title 36, Chapter 1305, Section 130506 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/usc_sec_36_00130506----000-.html)

Dixie Youth Baseball Organization does not refer to themselves as Little League. That was simply a mistatement by the poster.

http://youth.dixie.org/site3.aspx

[AaronNelson]

sorry if these questions were covered, (i think ive covered the whole thread already, but incase i missed)

may i ask...

is little league banning parents from taking pics of their own kid?

is little league banning a photog from taking photos of a kid they were hired to shot?

or is this aimed at photogs that shot randomly and then post on the web for sale?

seems to me like the big photo companies are behind this.....

[frozenrope]

sorry if these questions were covered, (i think ive covered the whole thread already, but incase i missed)

may i ask...

is little league banning parents from taking pics of their own kid? NO

is little league banning a photog from taking photos of a kid they were hired to shot? NO

or is this aimed at photogs that shot randomly and then post on the web for sale? YES, for sale or other use.

seems to me like the big photo companies are behind this..... What makes you think that?

[AaronNelson]

we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
:thumb

[johng]

we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
:thumb

True - and also protection from litigation.
but in this instance all it requires is a more formal process. If LL in your area has a contracted photographer you should respect that. If not and you wan the job simply work with the organization to be the contracted photographer. In this manner the organization knows who is photographing the kids and displaying the content on the web. And doing their due dilligence to prevent unauthorized publication of jouveniles photos on the web. You can argue all day about whether a person has the right to do so but LL is simply making a good faith effort to prevent future litigation from an overly litigious society.

So if you're serious about shooting a team or teams for sales the door is still open to you (unless someone else is under contract).

So this is slightly different than IRAQ - they're not pushing for one company to do LL photogrpahy across the entire United States. So indepedent contractors still have opportunity.

Or have I missed something here?

[frozenrope]

we can talk about contracts for a complete iraq rebuild or photos of little leaguers....
its all the same....someone wants the money and exclusive rights....
:thumb

This is not about any vying for exclusive rights to shoot Little Leaguers. It's not all the same. :scratch

[AaronNelson]

True - and also protection from litigation.
but in this instance all it requires is a more formal process. If LL in your area has a contracted photographer you should respect that. If not and you wan the job simply work with the organization to be the contracted photographer. In this manner the organization knows who is photographing the kids and displaying the content on the web. And doing their due dilligence to prevent unauthorized publication of jouveniles photos on the web. You can argue all day about whether a person has the right to do so but LL is simply making a good faith effort to prevent future litigation from an overly litigious society.

So if you're serious about shooting a team or teams for sales the door is still open to you (unless someone else is under contract).

So this is slightly different than IRAQ - they're not pushing for one company to do LL photogrpahy across the entire United States. So indepedent contractors still have opportunity.

Or have I missed something here?

:thumb im there with ya on everything.
im just checking what all your gentlemens thoughts were on specifics to what i do...

mostly, i just wanted to make sure i can take photos of my own boys and not worry about being approched by anyone from the league.

[AaronNelson]

This is not about any vying for exclusive rights to shoot Little Leaguers. It's not all the same. :scratch

(im just waiting to see the other shoe to fall)

inotherwords, im waiting for the announcement from little league naming the authorized companies that may shoot:D

[frozenrope]

(im just waiting to see the other shoe to fall)

inotherwords, im waiting for the announcement from little league naming the authorized companies that may shoot:D

It's going to be a long wait.

And the league has nothing to say to parent who want to shoot their own kids or even the other kids as long as they do so within the guidelines. In otherwords, they do not go into the playing field and they do not obstruct others ability to enjoy the game and their own children playing.

[skibum4]

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

true, you can post all over (not sure can sell though) depsite that and not get in one bit of trouble with the law. OTOH, they can ban you for life from ever getting a pass or access to shot LL ever again and if you got access through some agency they can ban them as well. So I guess if you don't care to shoot them anymore anyway and didn't access through agency that you could get in trouble (which would not be fair to them), you can do what you like. You'll be on at least some blacklists though. (although i should add i haven't looked over all these posts in detail so i may be missing some important details)

The NBA has crazy restrictive passes even to pre-season games too. Ever wonder why you see galleries from NFL, MLB, MLS, etc. but not, or rarely ever, from NBA.

[MikeMcA²]

I'm not a lawyer, nor have I been to law school, I've been following this thread, but refrained from posting until I had more than just a knee-jerk reaction. I just read over the policy again on the LL website, and I think that there is another reasonable interpretation that I think has been overlooked. First off we have to differentiate between your right to take the picture and your right to use the picture in some way. If you've done much research into model releases you should be familiar with the concept that a release is not required to take a photograph of a person, but may be required in order to use the photograph in certain ways.


First off with respect to the taking of the photograph, assuming that you are on public property, i.e. a field owned by your local town, county, state, etc. that is not admission controlled they are going to have a hard time legally restricting your ability to take photos, assuming you are not interfering with others ability to enjoy the game. If you start blocking people's view etc. they might have a leg to stand on. If the league owns the fields or otherwise controls them (depending on the way the any agreement between the league and the owner of the field is written this is quite possible, just because the property is "owned" by the public does not imply that the public has unfettered access, for example plenty of parks close at night) then they can put whatever restrictions they want on you as a condition of admission/access. This would include restricting your rights to take the photograph or to allow you permission to take the photograph and restrict your use of the photograph in some way as a condition of allowing you to take photograph.

Assuming that you have taken the picture, and had not restrictions placed on you at that point, we have the restrictions on the use of the photograph. There are three basic forms of use for a photograph, editorial (news/journalism), commercial (marketing etc.) and artistic (selling prints). It is widely accepted that journalistic use does not require model releases from subjects etc. and that commercial use does require releases. It is also generally accepted that artistic use, which includes selling prints, does not require releases. It is also generally (although not without some debate) accepted that the inclusion of a trademarked logo etc. in an photograph does not require a release to be used in an artistic way. Just because there is a Coca-Cola logo in your picture doesn't mean you can't sell a print of it, although Coca-Cola might wish it to be otherwise.

So if we assume that Little League international is aware of all of this (and considering the fact that Little League International is a fairly big business, I'm pretty sure they are) what could they possibly mean by the phrasing they have on their website? After rereading the entire linked page (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) I think what they are doing is saying that if an unaffiliated website wants to use the Little League trademarks outside of the actual photograph the permissions must be in place. Keep in mind that Little League International has some fairly broad trademarks (http://www.littleleague.org/common/trademark.asp) including on the phrases "Little League", "Little Leaguer", and the patch. So you take some pictures, and you post them in a gallery called "Youth Baseball" you are probably going to be ok. If you refer to them in the gallery title or in a caption as "Little League Baseball" you are getting onto very thin ice (although some people might argue that Little League has been so diluted by its use to describe all forms of youth baseball that it is no longer an effective trademark, the fact that the trademark is apparently explicitly defined in their Congressional Charter probably renders that argument ineffective). Little League International at that point could try to argue that at that point you are trading on their good will in an effort to market your photos. The same would apply if you would place their logo on your website, or add an imprint of their logo to your photographs (which would imply their endorsement of your photos). I think we would all agree that Little League International is well within their rights to control how their trademarks and used when that use implies that they are endorsing something.

To sum up after thinking on this for several days and rereading their website, I'm of the opinion that Little League International isn't trying to restrict the posting of pictures on "unaffiliated" websites. What they are trying to do is restrict the posting of pictures on websites that are in some way officially affiliated with Little League International. And since they own the trademark on the phrase "Little League" they can restrict the use of that phrase in a marketing context to websites that are officially affiliated, and place whatever restrictions they want on a photographer in order to be officially affiliated, including having the permission of Little League International as well as the parent. They are also probably trying to get their local leagues to be more restrictive when they can be about allowing photographers access and affiliation without agreeing to these terms, but that is well within Little League International's rights, in the same way that any parent organization (Lions Club international in relation to the local Lions club for example) can place stipulations on membership in the organization. In other words having the local leagues tell photographers that they can't post pictures online without obtaining permission from the parents, and that if they continue to do so they will not be welcome on league owned/controlled property, and that their continued presence will be construed as trespassing, and will result in a call to the police to have them removed if they persist.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I think this is an excellent post. There is a current backlash against photography of minors in America, mostly due to increased child-predation and focused primarily on the protection of our youth (but also parlayed--maybe as in this case--by some for their own profit), which can potentially result in over-reaching restrictions such as this current LL issue. Is it right for them to do? I don't think so, but who am I to judge? As in all untested law, this will only be upheld once precedent is set, and that takes the first case to be brought before a court. If you want to be the first case, then take your advice from folks on the internet. :wink For others, I take the advice of our outside counsel on matters where we are on questionable/precarious legal ground: "always ensure that your shield is bigger than the other guy's hammer." This applies not only to how strong your case is, but also to how large and affordable your legal team is. Remember that the largest majority of cases brought in America never go to court, but are negotiated and settled out of court, and the biggest cause of this is expense of litigation. I certainly don't have more money or lawyers than LLI.

[James Broome]

I'm the original poster of this item. For what it's worth, what it boils down to is obtaining permission from Little League International to post my images of Little League players online. I've been the official (contract, etc.) photographer for my local little league for 3 seasons. With this rule in place, my local president had to forward our contract up to LLI headquarters and have it OK'd by them before I could post LL images online.

The contract has been sent, but I haven't heard back yet.

Folks, this isn't a 'sky is falling' item. LLI isn't telling photographers (parents, pros, etc.) that they cannot take pictures of kids identified as Little League participants. (by the way, the patch is only part of the issue - my local Little League only uses the patches on the competitive teams - the other teams have "XXX Little League" written on their uniform shirts) But it is telling you that posting those images online is in violation of their rules. Will it get you arrested? Hell no. But if you're a pro, do you want to risk your relationship with your customer (Little League) over breaking some rules? I don't. I chose not to post images until I've received the OK from LLI. What you do is obviously up to you, though.

[BGtom]

I have just read this entire thread, my comment is this: LLI isn't the only game out there. If you shoot L.L. sports and do not like the rules set by the org. than go to the next one. I shoot football for my local county, I shoot one park every game on Saturday's. By league rules I (and no one else) is allowed inside the "red zone" I abide by the rules. If you do not want the hassle of shooting at these, org. than locate a local church who has a season. Many of the churches will allow you to shoot, just to help promote the events, to help the kids.
Too many people have forgotten the games are for the kids anyway.
I have gotten completly away from shooting L L sports at the county parks unless a parent ask me to shoot thier child, than I always have more parents "hire" me to shoot thier children while I am there.

y'know, there are other people out there who would like to make a few bucks and don't have the luxury of "...not want the hassle of shooting at these, org." It is galling beyond all reason for these orgz to make mandates that infringe on us, and yet the little guy has no ability to pay for the justice they are entitled to. As Americans, we may be "free", we may have "liberty", but the old axiom still remains...he who has the gold makes the rules. I'm very happy you have gotten completly away from shooting youth sports. :rolleyes

[geospatial_junkie]

I ran into a similar problem with my daughter's ballet recital. In actuality, the only people that can prohibit you from taking photos is the city/town that owns the field. Rent doesn't imply ownership (different for residences and businesses) unless their contract specifically gives them ownership of the field for that duration of time.

Since the games are being held on a field that is rented out by the city/town, then it is implied that the field is PUBLIC property and therefore subject to photographs.

I'm in Ontario and that is how (after extensive research) I've interpreted the law here. Of course, then there is the issue of having to go through the hassle of fighting with organizers, etc.... That's up to you, but in my humble opinion it's not worth the hassle (unless you are making a substantial profit and the parents want it!).

If the parents want you there taking photos of their kids, then they'll exert their own pressure on the league and eventually, they'll allow it. Good luck!:D

http://cartographica.smugmug.com

[hindsy]

I was informed today that a new Little League International rule (http://www.littleleague.org/media/policy_images_on_web_3-6-08.asp) was approved on March 6th, 2008 that prohibits the posting of photos containing Little League participants online.

From the rule:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Example 2: A web site that is not operated by a chartered local Little League wishes to post an image of a youth batter at the plate, and the image is identified in some way as a Little League image (such as: showing the Little League patch, in a caption, signage in the image, or through some other identification). The web site operator would need permission from Little League International to post this image. The web site also would need to obtain written permission from the parent or guardian to post the photo. It is recommended that the web site operator also receive permission from the photographer. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Every single image that I've shot of LL participants has the name of the local Little League written right across the chest of their shirts. No real way I can get around that. This is not good news for those of us selling LL photos online, is it?

I've already disabled my existing LL galleries. I'm posting this news to help others out there who have LL galleries up as well.

I took this as saying that if you are a website operator you need to have written permission from all three. Parent, Little League Int. and the Photographer. Not that the photographer needs to have the written consent. Am I wrong?:scratch

[HockeyFan]

I'm having a difficult time believing that this would hold up in court. What did the players or their parents sign that gives the league this right? I think that it's a bit far reaching.

[nobody]

I have no legal background, but from everything I've read about the rights of photographers they have no right to enforce this. Sounds like some arbitrary, stupid rule that they'll only dream of enforcing in high-level tourneys where they get kickback from whoever gets to shoot the event.:deal

As someone suggested, Little League cannot stop you from standing on public property and photographing their events, but they do have several options: (1) ban any unauthorized photographers from entering the field, or even anywere on thier property. (2) Sue over mis-use of their logo when it appears in photos.

[Foochar]

As someone suggested, Little League cannot stop you from standing on public property and photographing their events, but they do have several options: (1) ban any unauthorized photographers from entering the field, or even anywere on thier property. (2) Sue over mis-use of their logo when it appears in photos.

For editorial or artistic use (as opposed to commercial use) I think they'd have a hard time getting you for misuse of the logo when it appears in photos. On the other hand if you add the logo to the photos, or have it as part of the design of your website, or do the same thing with the phrases "Little League" or "Little Leaguer" they may be able to go after you for trademark violations.