Ryder wrote:
That's a very one sided presentation of the issues Carl. It mostly protects you and not so much the league or the kids. I've campaigned against some of those things happening in my area (especially at public school events but youth leagues too.) Especially restricting access for all but one photographer.
Your analogy to McDonalds fails completely imho as you do not own the land you are trying to set up as "for my use only." If it is your property, generally speaking that is respected in this country...as is freedom of choice in most things (including where to buy pics) and competition.
Not looking for a fight here, so don't flame me. We paid our local football league over $2500 this year based on percentage. They do not make one nickel off of parents passing out free pictures, or other photographers shooting and selling. Why should I pay that much, and the freeloaders get by for nothing? If they would work their end tighter, this could be $4000 or more. I have been president of several Youth leagues, and I assure you any league will miss that much money........
Let me chime in on this one, but I am sure there are a lot more on here that have other ideas. For me I get everything in writing. I offer to give 10 percent back to the league that I am shooting for. The one thing that you must remember is that exclusive means that no other commercial shooters can conduct business there, but it does not ban the parents from shooting. I have seen many parents with better equipment then I have shooting their childs team and telling me they dont need my service. I still shoot since I am shooting from the league and you will be suprised at how many sales I get from the shooters team! I also include on the contract how long the pictures will be available and also a clause that states not every team or child may be shot. Might be overkill here, but I have a section stating what kind of paper I use and the name of the printer I use, I do this so there wont be any suprises later. I hope that this helps.
A majority of members here do shoot for youth leagues, soccer, baseball, peewee football, etc. That is the majority of my business. Basics of any contract are there to protect you, the league, and the kids.
In my contracts to protect myself, I have 2 main points. Point one, insurance. This is necessary to protect myself from possible lawsuits, injury to myself or being the cause of injury to others, and so on. Point two. Exclusivity. Basically, what it states is that the league has contracted me to provide action and/or T&I photos to the parents of the league. Since the league has contracted me they know who I am, what I am doing and that I am insured. It is required that for the safety of the league and of the kids that no one else be permitted to be on the field of play or in non spectator areas taking photos. Many leagues today are starting to have background checks done on EVERYONE involved, so that also plays into the exclusiveness, if you are going to go through the process of bidding for the contract, go through a background check, and then have Joe Hobby Shooter come along and start shooting and selling or giving away taking away from my sales, well...what do you think McDonalds would do if you set a bar-b-q grill in front of one of there locations and started giving away burgers or selling them for cheaper?
As for kickbacks or donations, never offer them, but if the league requires one or asks for one, tie this in with the exclusive part of the contract. If anyone else starts shooting on the field, kickback is null and void. Keeps the league watching out for non contract shooters and lets me concentrate on shooting.
That's a very one sided presentation of the issues Carl. It mostly protects you and not so much the league or the kids. I've campaigned against some of those things happening in my area (especially at public school events but youth leagues too.) Especially restricting access for all but one photographer.
Your analogy to McDonalds fails completely imho as you do not own the land you are trying to set up as "for my use only." If it is your property, generally speaking that is respected in this country...as is freedom of choice in most things (including where to buy pics) and competition.
Ryder wrote:
That's a very one sided presentation of the issues Carl. It mostly protects you and not so much the league or the kids. I've campaigned against some of those things happening in my area (especially at public school events but youth leagues too.) Especially restricting access for all but one photographer.
CR
With all due respect, I must disagree. First, contracts are designed to protect both parties or one party would have to be a fool to sign it. The league/school is protected by the fact that the photgraphers are at the very least on the sidelines with permission, after going through the proper channels.
I would assume that the league or school often requires a contract, or some kind of agreement, for hotdog vendors, uniform retailers, referees, umpires, the place they get the balls and bats, etc. Why do people think it should be any different for photography?
Here is another analogy for you. Try going to school on picture day and setting up beside the Lifetouch photographer. Start taking pictures and handing out cards and see how long that last.
A lot of people are starting to smell money around youth sports since digital has become mainstream. I hate to say it but times are changing. If a person does not have the business sense to negotiate a contract he is liable to wind up shooting for someone who does.
I too have a concern with the exclusivity issue being for the benefit of anyone other than the photographer.
I struggle to see the benefit to the parents who in the end are toting the note for everything - particularly when an exclusive contractor does not provide complete coverage and removes galleries after a limited time period.
The League does not need to assign exclusivity to anyone to protect itself. It has other means to do so. If it is worried about photographers on the field of play - they simply need to control it.
Also, the McDonald's analogy is quite tired and very flawed. McDonald's has competition setting up next door constantly, whether it's a hot dog vendor on the streets of Manhatten or Burger King on the opposite corner. They have competition from every restaurant in driving distance and the grocery store. They compete on the basis of product quality, price and marketing. Not by getting every other store on the block banned.
'
Having said that, I don't blame the shooters that ask for it - I blame the leagues that agree to it. It is the League's responsibility to represent the interests of it's participants (and parents) and quite frankly I think they do a poor job of it.
snaptie2002 wrote:
...
Everything I shoot is on county property. If the parents would like to truly tote the note maybe I can get a roll back on my property taxes. I am not trying to take advantage of the parents but I don't owe them anything either.
...
At the very least, we owe parents professional courteousness and respect.
One way of thinking about it:
Parents "own" and have extensively financed the models you are working with, at no direct charge. In order to participate, they usually had to sign away the model rights to the organizing sport group. As a photographer, how would you feel providing the model for free, paying all expenses, and signing away most rights?
...with all of the youth leagues, events, horse shows, rodeos and the one school I currently have a contract with, exclusive photography rights are mandatory. This protects your business interests and lets the client know what to expect from you...the photographer.
The last thing a board member for a youth league, school athletic or rec director wants to hear are complaints about a photographer. They have more important things to deal with and that league or school will survive without any pictures being taken.
With that exclusivity comes responsibility so be careful what you ask for. If you don't deliver, top-notch professional products and service or don't show up for action coverage, if requested....you will regret ever signing that contract.
Along with those exclusive rights to sell, you will also have a group of board members, coaches, parents, rec directors, groundskeepers, booster club presidents, athletic directors...etc...on your side.
You get the ad in the program, a display near the concession stand, a banner hanging at games, the right to sell images on-site or on-the-web, league or school links to your website, frequent PA announcements at games.
In turn, you may be asked to give back a percentage of your sales, donate photographic products or services and possibly sponsor a team.
Even if you only contract for the team and individual photo packages for...say...a youth baseball or basketball league with 500 participants, you could be looking at over $10,000 minimum in sales. Throw in some action coverage or a tournament to that and you could add a few more thousands of dollars in sales.
All the best,
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
Ryder wrote:
That's a very one sided presentation of the issues Carl. It mostly protects you and not so much the league or the kids. I've campaigned against some of those things happening in my area (especially at public school events but youth leagues too.) Especially restricting access for all but one photographer.
Your analogy to McDonalds fails completely imho as you do not own the land you are trying to set up as "for my use only." If it is your property, generally speaking that is respected in this country...as is freedom of choice in most things (including where to buy pics) and competition.
Not looking for a fight here, so don't flame me. We paid our local football league over $2500 this year based on percentage. They do not make one nickel off of parents passing out free pictures, or other photographers shooting and selling. Why should I pay that much, and the freeloaders get by for nothing? And if the league would work their end tighter, this could be $4000 or more. I have been president of several Youth leagues, and I assure you any league will miss that much money........
This subject comes up often enough and it's a pretty tired argument, honestly.
The truth of the matter is, an exclusive contract really doesn't work "for the benefit of the league". That aspect of the contract is purely to protect the business interests of the photographer. Not saying it's positive or negative, but that's what it is. Trying to confuse the issue with talking about insurance and such is really just that, confusing the issue.
It's my personal opinion that exclusivity clauses in the contract are kind of lame. Sure, you're going to see the amateurization of the youth league sports photography market (if amateurs can provide the same product for less/free, of course, which is debatable), but that's just kind of the way the cookie crumbles. Protectionism never really works long-term and often accellerates the undesirable outcome.
Personally, if I was barred from shooting my kid playing whatever sport he/she decides they wanna play by the league, my kid wouldn't be playing in that league anymore. As was mentioned above, I'm not here to provide you a revenue stream selling me something I could easily create myself with my child as the subject.
jbregar wrote:
Personally, if I was barred from shooting my kid playing whatever sport he/she decides they wanna play by the league, my kid wouldn't be playing in that league anymore. As was mentioned above, I'm not here to provide you a revenue stream selling me something I could easily create myself with my child as the subject.
Speaking of missing the point, none of the exclusivity clauses I've ever seen prohibit mom or dad from photographing their own kids, Hell, they can even photograph the entire league. However, mom or dad would NOT be allowed inside the fences during a baseball game (Like I am). Nor would they be allowed to sell the photographs they took.
I'm not here to keep Mr. Sports Dad from taking pictures of their children. But if they want to do that, they'll do it from the spectator areas. My clause merely prohibits them (or any other photographer) from being on the field.
jbregar wrote:
This subject comes up often enough and it's a pretty tired argument, honestly.
The truth of the matter is, an exclusive contract really doesn't work "for the benefit of the league". That aspect of the contract is purely to protect the business interests of the photographer. Not saying it's positive or negative, but that's what it is. Trying to confuse the issue with talking about insurance and such is really just that, confusing the issue.
It's my personal opinion that exclusivity clauses in the contract are kind of lame. Sure, you're going to see the amateurization of the youth league sports photography market (if amateurs can provide the same product for less/free, of course, which is debatable), but that's just kind of the way the cookie crumbles. Protectionism never really works long-term and often accellerates the undesirable outcome.
Personally, if I was barred from shooting my kid playing whatever sport he/she decides they wanna play by the league, my kid wouldn't be playing in that league anymore. As was mentioned above, I'm not here to provide you a revenue stream selling me something I could easily create myself with my child as the subject....Show more →
I respectfully disagree with everything you've said.
-To anyone making a living as a professional photographer ( or attempting to ) this is not a tired argument. It's a business and the original poster had a concern...a very valid concern.
-An exclusive contract does help the league because they get a percentage of sales back to them if that's in the contract. It also places responsibility on the photographer to live up to their end of the bargain.
-Insurance is a big deal to one of the youth football leagues that I cover and certainly not "confusing the issue" . No one except coaches, players, league officials, referees or me...the league's photographer is allowed within the safety lines along the sidelines of games. This is required by the league's insurer. I have to carry $2,000,000 in liability for my business to cover...anything that may be my fault.
-A contract is a contract and if it's negotiated as exclusive then that's what it is...certainly not "lame" as far as the leagues and schools I deal with. Now it does protect me from the "cherry-picker" photographers who don't have the business sense to go out an get their own work. You can call it "protectionism" but I call it good, sound business and it works.
-No league or school I've ever dealt with has prevented any parent from photographing their own sons or daughters while playing sports. Some will restrict them to only shooting from the stands, bleachers or behind the fences...but never denying the right to photograph...but as James Broome stated won't allow them to sell or solicit business.
I personally think more photographers should think like business people and negotiate with youth sports boards, athletic directors, event organizers or promoters and not just as someone with a nice camera and lens wanting to make a few bucks taking snapshots.
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
An exclusive contract has benefit to the league _if_ it has a kickback to the league. I'm not sure how an exclusivity clause has any bearing on the photographer "living up to their end of the bargain." Care to elaborate?
Are you saying that an exclusivity contract somehow forces the photographer to be good at what they do? I suppose it does in that there won't be photos available of the league if the exclusive photog doesn't perform... but that's not something you find out until the contract is executed.
Honestly, unless the photographer is paying the league for the exclusivity (in either raw money or a percentage of sales or whatever) the league is BETTER served at face-value by having as many people in good spots shooting as they can get. It doesn't serve them to enter into an exclusive contract at all, UNLESS they're paid for that exclusivity. Otherwise, competition is always good for the consumer and an exclusive contract is specifically limiting competition.
Let me ask those with exclusivity clauses one question... other than the straw men of tyros running around getting hit in the head with baseballs, what's the situation that makes you feel you need to keep other people from playing in your sandbox? Is it people giving away work or underselling you?
As an aside, when I said it's a tired argument I mean it comes up on this (and most other) board(s) on a pretty regular schedule. People will chime in with their opinions and we'll all have to agree to disagree. Then a month (or a week, or whatever) it will reappear in the same form and be answered again.
jbregar wrote:
An exclusive contract has benefit to the league _if_ it has a kickback to the league. I'm not sure how an exclusivity clause has any bearing on the photographer "living up to their end of the bargain." Care to elaborate?
Are you saying that an exclusivity contract somehow forces the photographer to be good at what they do? I suppose it does in that there won't be photos available of the league if the exclusive photog doesn't perform... but that's not something you find out until the contract is executed.
Honestly, unless the photographer is paying the league for the exclusivity (in either raw money or a percentage of sales or whatever) the league is BETTER served at face-value by having as many people in good spots shooting as they can get. It doesn't serve them to enter into an exclusive contract at all, UNLESS they're paid for that exclusivity. Otherwise, competition is always good for the consumer and an exclusive contract is specifically limiting competition.
Let me ask those with exclusivity clauses one question... other than the straw men of tyros running around getting hit in the head with baseballs, what's the situation that makes you feel you need to keep other people from playing in your sandbox? Is it people giving away work or underselling you?
As an aside, when I said it's a tired argument I mean it comes up on this (and most other) board(s) on a pretty regular schedule. People will chime in with their opinions and we'll all have to agree to disagree. Then a month (or a week, or whatever) it will reappear in the same form and be answered again.
I don't know your situation but I'd suggest hiring on as an assistant to an established photographer who shoots youth sports...for a living. You could learn the ins and outs of the "business of youth sports"...firsthand from them...not from an internet forum.
Lee Woolery
Speedshot Action Photography
www.speedshotphoto.com
jbregar wrote:
An exclusive contract has benefit to the league _if_ it has a kickback to the league. I'm not sure how an exclusivity clause has any bearing on the photographer "living up to their end of the bargain." Care to elaborate?
Are you saying that an exclusivity contract somehow forces the photographer to be good at what they do? I suppose it does in that there won't be photos available of the league if the exclusive photog doesn't perform... but that's not something you find out until the contract is executed.
Honestly, unless the photographer is paying the league for the exclusivity (in either raw money or a percentage of sales or whatever) the league is BETTER served at face-value by having as many people in good spots shooting as they can get. It doesn't serve them to enter into an exclusive contract at all, UNLESS they're paid for that exclusivity. Otherwise, competition is always good for the consumer and an exclusive contract is specifically limiting competition.
Let me ask those with exclusivity clauses one question... other than the straw men of tyros running around getting hit in the head with baseballs, what's the situation that makes you feel you need to keep other people from playing in your sandbox? Is it people giving away work or underselling you?
As an aside, when I said it's a tired argument I mean it comes up on this (and most other) board(s) on a pretty regular schedule. People will chime in with their opinions and we'll all have to agree to disagree. Then a month (or a week, or whatever) it will reappear in the same form and be answered again.
I would say that exclusive contracts are not exclusive to photographers and youth sports leagues. As a former IT director, I've had to sit through many a presentation from various hardware and software vendors not necessarily trying to sell us a product but rather a package of products and services. Those contracts always involve exclusivity for a specific period of time (1 year). Moving into an IT sales position, my job was to sell IT service contracts which specifically locked us in to an agreed upon period of time (1 year). IT services, copy machines, office supplies, office furniture suppliers, etc...they all do it. Why should youth sports photography be any different.
Yes there are hundreds of IT service vendors out there but once the agreement is signed the best those other vendors can hope for is to convince the company not to renew at the end of the year and sign with them instead. This is how business works everyday, all over the world. It has nothing to do with photographers feeling threatened or angry that someone else is giving pictures away or undercutting their prices. If they want to undercut my prices and prices are what a league has deemed most important, then they're free to put that into their proposal. I personally do not compete on price. That's a bottomless pit that benefits no one but the hack photographer. Additionally, I don't compete based on "pay back". Donations back to leagues isn't even covered in my original proposal. I'm selling my company and our services and not buying our way in. If they want to make league donations a requirement then we can discuss it at that time in the form of a revised proposal, but again, only if the league is sufficiently large enough and the income potential supports a donation. I have several exclusive contracts with several leagues in my area and any other company is more than welcome to submit their proposal for next year. That's how I got my contracts. In my book that's how a free market economy works. To me that's a lot more beneficial and safer for the league. The last thing I want to see is every yahoo with a DSLR jockeying for shooting position on the sidelines of a youth sporting event and then each of those yahoos hounding parents with offers to sell. My daughter plays soccer and the last thing I need or want when I'm at a game is to be approached to 2 or 3 different photogs each promising to sell me better images at lower prices.
Honestly you are correct in that it is a tired argument but only from the respect that those of us who invest thousands of dollars in equipment, ensure we have sufficient insurance, put in countless hours shooting games, processing and uploading thousands of images, getting background checks, putting together professional presentations and proposals, take the time needed to foster a relationship with out clients, and running our business as a business keep losing ground to every yahoo who thinks that they have an inherent right to do whatever it is they want, when and where they want despite any signed agreements that may exist.
Sorry to all for the rant at the end but I'm growing weary of people coming into what is obviously a forum full of professional, and hardworking photographers and informing us that we have no right to conduct business as any other industry does on a daily basis just because they can afford a digital camera and lens. Where were all these people when we were cutting our teeth, and taking our bruises shooting film? Rather than telling me I have no right to an exclusive contract why don't you simply talk to your local high school sports AD and tell them that they cannot sign exclusive contracts. After all it's your tax dollars that pays their salary not mine.
One more thing about contracts . . . they hold each party accountable. That's usually a word amateurs or part time wannabe's don't like. Everyone wants to claim to be a "professional" until the **** hits the fan. Without a contract you're free to run away, hide, and peddle your mediocre skills elsewhere. With a contract you, as a photographer, must stand before your client, be accountable, and ultimately work your ass off to make good on your agreement. There is no where to hide with a contract. So please for those of you who don't willingly put forth proposals and make the commitment to be accountable by entering into a binding agreement, don't preach to me. Exclusive contracts DO NOT limit competition they only serve to weed out the true professionals from the hacks and cowards.
