Can't post Little League images online anymore!

James Broome · March 9, 2008

I was informed today that a new Little League International rule 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 · March 9, 2008

8 minutes
Best me to the post by 8 minutes

A MUST read for anyone shooting Little League baseball.

Michael

TPJ wrote:

I was informed today that a new Little League International rule 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 · March 9, 2008

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

DJ-S1 · March 9, 2008

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 · March 9, 2008

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 · March 9, 2008

no photos, but something to read
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 · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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.

DrDavid · March 9, 2008

nipprdog wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

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.

DrDavid · March 9, 2008

frozenrope wrote:

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..

(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 · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

KED wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

KED wrote:

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.

DrDavid · March 9, 2008

nipprdog wrote:

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.

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

David

KED · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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

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 · March 9, 2008

KED wrote:

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.

.. 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.

David

KED · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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.

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

James Broome · March 9, 2008

DrDavid wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

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 · March 9, 2008

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 · March 9, 2008

KED wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

i_worship_the_King wrote:

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.

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 · March 9, 2008

kc_tinman wrote:

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 · March 9, 2008

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 · March 10, 2008

kc_tinman wrote:

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 · March 10, 2008

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 · March 10, 2008

kc_tinman wrote:

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 · March 10, 2008

Furono wrote:

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 · March 10, 2008

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 · March 10, 2008

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?

Can't post Little League images online anymore!

Comments