Who really owns a photo ?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by paul selhi, Nov 20, 2004.

  1. paul selhi

    paul selhi Guest

    If i take a photo of a football star in a stadium who actually owns the
    rights to the image ?

    me ? the player or the club ?
     
    paul selhi, Nov 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. paul selhi

    Steven Wandy Guest

    If i take a photo of a football star in a stadium who actually owns the
    I believe if you are taking the picture, the sports star during a game is
    considered a
    public figure and therefore you own the rights. (Someone please correct me
    if I am wrong, but I would assume it comes under the same category of taking
    a picture of a celebrity/public figure in a public place.) If you are
    working (for AP for example) then I would assume AP - or whomever highered
    you - would own the rights. My future son-in-law does work for AP, the NY
    Post and the Staten Island Advance and I am sure that the respective
    organizations own the pictures he submits to them. (However, while on
    assigment, he - and I believe other pros do this also - will take more shots
    than he needs for the assignment and the ones he does not submit remain his
    property. Though this might not apply to pictures of individual people.)
     
    Steven Wandy, Nov 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You own the picture. But if you use it commercially, especially in a way
    that implies the subject's endorsement, you may hear from his lawyer.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Nov 20, 2004
    #3
  4. paul selhi

    Matt Guest

    But the player is a public place. Therefore, there is nothing to stop you
    from taking photos, and as the owner of the photo, I can't see on what
    grounds his lawyer could act on if you used it commercially.
     
    Matt, Nov 20, 2004
    #4
  5. paul selhi

    D.R. Guest

    I wonder how the paparazzi get on. ;-)
     
    D.R., Nov 20, 2004
    #5
  6. paul selhi

    dj_nme Guest

    Top posting fixed.
    The grounds for legal action could be if the photo was used in an
    advertising campaign implying that the player endorses it or is used as
    an example of people who do "x" (and could be slander/libel).
     
    dj_nme, Nov 21, 2004
    #6
  7. Pal Sehi writes "who owns the rights, me or the club" which leads me to
    believe we're talking EU soccer, not American football. The National
    Football League owns the rights to a lot of content and routinely goes after
    commercial use of what they consider to be their property.

    Soccer or football, if cameras aren't banned from a venue, then it's fair
    game to use whatever photos you take.
    A newspaper or magazine may ask you for the subject's release before
    publishing your photo, though....
     
    Larry CdeBaca, Nov 21, 2004
    #7
  8. paul selhi

    Alex Guest

    First of all, most venues now put a bunch of small-print legal stuff
    on your ticket. Basically, you agree to not use any photos taken
    within without their express permission.

    Second, he'd definitely have grounds. Otherwise someone can take a
    picture of you and use it to promote genital herpes medication without
    your concent.
     
    Alex, Nov 21, 2004
    #8
  9. paul selhi

    Alex Guest

    I know you were joking but for those who really wonder: Those pictures
    are used for editorial work. Editorial <> commercial.
     
    Alex, Nov 21, 2004
    #9
  10. paul selhi

    Alex Guest

    Of course, I meant "consent", I wouldn't expect you'd be able to
    reproduce a concert of voices...
     
    Alex, Nov 21, 2004
    #10
  11. paul selhi

    Alex Guest

    Take note Canadians. In some places (Quebec esp.) editorial work still
    may require a release. A recent suit and supreme court decision has
    made newspaper photographers' jobs a lot harder.
     
    Alex, Nov 21, 2004
    #11
  12. paul selhi

    Stan Guest


    Model release for one.

    Court decisions, for another. Celebrities have rights to control the
    commercial use of their images.

    Use of a trademark or copyrighted logo, for a third condition. If the
    player was a professional athlete, wearing the official clothing &
    insignia, the team and the league would have a good case.

    Check with your lawyer.


    --
    * * * To reply, remove numbers from address.

    Stan, New Orleans

    http://www.neworleansphotographs.com
    http://www.atneworleans.com
    http://www.sbeckart.com/sbeck
     
    Stan, Nov 21, 2004
    #12
  13. paul selhi

    Carl Guest

    Please could you define "commercial use" with regard to a sporting image
    as described by the OP?

    BTW What do you call 100 US lawyers at the bottom of the Pacific? - a
    fairly reasonable start.
     
    Carl, Nov 21, 2004
    #13
  14. paul selhi

    Stan Guest

    Commercial use would include, but not be limited to, the use of an image
    for a fee in or on such things as magazine covers, book jackets,
    brochures, in books (such as text books, coffee table books, etc.), in
    advertising (TV, magazines, direct mail, billboards, etc.), or on items
    for resale (coffee mugs, t-shirts, calendars, greeting cards, post
    cards, etc.).

    Images used for editorial (photojournalism) would be used in newspapers,
    and news magazines (Newsweek, for example) as part of the news story.


    --
    * * * To reply, remove numbers from address.

    Stan, New Orleans

    http://www.neworleansphotographs.com
    http://www.atneworleans.com
    http://www.sbeckart.com/sbeck
     
    Stan, Nov 21, 2004
    #14

  15. You own the picture, but he owns his face and identity. If the picture is
    used for editorial or art purposes, you're likely on solid ground. But if
    the picture is used commercially, his face or identity, not your picture
    alone, is used in connection with the product. As such, he has a legal right
    to an equal say in the process and to be paid for his services. The fact
    that you took the picture in a public place does not strip him of ownership
    of his face and his identity.

    Stewart
     
    Dwight Stewart, Nov 21, 2004
    #15
  16. paul selhi

    Anna Nimotti Guest

    A sport stadium is not necessarily a public place. Many stadiums are
    private property to which the public are allowed access with the owner's
    consent.

    Whether or not the photo is taken in a public place is irrelevant to who
    owns the copyright in the image. Copyright belongs to the photographer
    who took the photo.

    Owning copyright in a photo only gives you the right to stop others
    making copies of it. It does not give you any absolute right to use it
    commercially. Your use of a photo you own could, in some circumstances,
    infringe other people's rights.
     
    Anna Nimotti, Nov 21, 2004
    #16
  17. paul selhi

    dadiOH Guest

    Another instance...
    If the player were held up to ridicule in some manner

    --
    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.05...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Nov 21, 2004
    #17
  18. paul selhi

    Matt Guest

    I apologise for the mis-interpretation of my post. When I said
    'Commercial', I was referring to selling the photo to the media.

    As a few people have pointed out, there is a difference between editorial
    and commercial.
     
    Matt, Nov 21, 2004
    #18
  19. paul selhi

    Trey Guest

    Hey now, there are good lawyers out there. Its just 99% of the lawyers out
    there give the other 1% a bad name. ;-)
     
    Trey, Nov 21, 2004
    #19
  20. paul selhi

    Trey Guest

    Lawyers have made everyone's job a lot harder.
     
    Trey, Nov 21, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.