Archive 2010 · NJ photography Laws
p.1 #1NJ photography Laws
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etc
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
Jun 07, 2010 at 08:45 AM
p.1 #2NJ photography Laws
Tell the Pres. your cousin Guido will have him wakin' up wid da fishes 
GL Marc 
GL Marc Jun 08, 2010 at 06:04 PM
p.1 #3NJ photography Laws
It was my understanding there aren't any laws in NJ, just guys that tell you it'd be a good friggen idea to do what they say...
Seriously, you should ask a local attorney within the context of the use.
Seriously, you should ask a local attorney within the context of the use.
Jun 08, 2010 at 06:37 PM
p.1 #4NJ photography Laws
Thanks guys. If it comes to that I have a few friends who "know a guy" who's "a friend of ours"
I was hoping that some where in the FM universe was a local (NJ) lawyer who was also a photog who who could just point me in a direction to a statute.
I was hoping that some where in the FM universe was a local (NJ) lawyer who was also a photog who who could just point me in a direction to a statute.
Jun 08, 2010 at 07:35 PM
p.1 #5NJ photography Laws
Where were you taking pictures? (That's rhetorical, the people that know if there are contracts in place that cover the location would be the administering agency.) A soccer game may be played on a publicly owned field but the league/team may well have rented the field and have the right to enter into their own exclusive professional photography contracts. That's the same as a couple renting a public rec. hall, rec. room, gazebo, etc. and having the right to exclude non-guests, etc., from the facility. So it could very well be that they have the right to exclude you from the vicinity of the field depending on the rental/use agreements.
Jun 09, 2010 at 08:53 PM
p.1 #6NJ photography Laws
Craig Gillette wrote:
Where were you taking pictures? (That's rhetorical, the people that know if there are contracts in place that cover the location would be the administering agency.) A soccer game may be played on a publicly owned field but the league/team may well have rented the field and have the right to enter into their own exclusive professional photography contracts. That's the same as a couple renting a public rec. hall, rec. room, gazebo, etc. and having the right to exclude non-guests, etc., from the facility. So it could very well be that they have the right to exclude you...Show more →
I am under the impression that even if the league has rented the field, as long as it is open to the public (no fenced area, no tickets sold, etc) than I have the right to photograph.
From what I've read online (always a dodgy source ) even a mall or building's atrium that are privately owned, If they are "open to the public" are then public spaces as far as the law is concerned and you have a right to photograph there.
Where were you taking pictures? (That's rhetorical, the people that know if there are contracts in place that cover the location would be the administering agency.) A soccer game may be played on a publicly owned field but the league/team may well have rented the field and have the right to enter into their own exclusive professional photography contracts. That's the same as a couple renting a public rec. hall, rec. room, gazebo, etc. and having the right to exclude non-guests, etc., from the facility. So it could very well be that they have the right to exclude you...Show more →
I am under the impression that even if the league has rented the field, as long as it is open to the public (no fenced area, no tickets sold, etc) than I have the right to photograph.
From what I've read online (always a dodgy source
) even a mall or building's atrium that are privately owned, If they are "open to the public" are then public spaces as far as the law is concerned and you have a right to photograph there.Jun 10, 2010 at 05:58 AM
p.1 #7NJ photography Laws
mbaumser wrote:
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etc
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
This is not a State issue, but a local one. You need to contact the town that you are in and find out what the rules are if any with respect to photographing in the park or on public property. Since you have not put the situation in context, and only indicated what the soccer league president has said to you as oppose to what you have said to him, categorizing his comment or the potential of sending a letter as harassment might be a stretch. We have no idea what you said to him to elicit that kind of response.
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etc
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
This is not a State issue, but a local one. You need to contact the town that you are in and find out what the rules are if any with respect to photographing in the park or on public property. Since you have not put the situation in context, and only indicated what the soccer league president has said to you as oppose to what you have said to him, categorizing his comment or the potential of sending a letter as harassment might be a stretch. We have no idea what you said to him to elicit that kind of response.
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?
Jun 10, 2010 at 08:26 AM
p.1 #8NJ photography Laws
A property owner generally has the right to restrict activities on "his" property. The property owner, in this case, apparently the local city/parks department, whatever, may have assigned the area to the league and the league may have the right to restrict certain kinds of activities. State laws do vary on the extent to which "free speech" activities might be allowed or restricted by property owners. You'd need to get accurate local advice which might be dependent on the specifics of your particular situation.
The city also has the right to control business activities on public property or even in the city, hence the need to have permits, business licenses, etc., or the control of vending type activities in parks, etc.
You'd need to know what they are asserting and what your position is with regard to your activities with respect to the city, etc. Otherwise we'd just be guessing. It won't help to leave out pertinent details, like you were right up there at the playing field, taking pictures to sell, they have an exclusive enforceable contract with a pro, etc. You should still start off checking with the city to see what regulations might apply to your activities.
So,
The city also has the right to control business activities on public property or even in the city, hence the need to have permits, business licenses, etc., or the control of vending type activities in parks, etc.
You'd need to know what they are asserting and what your position is with regard to your activities with respect to the city, etc. Otherwise we'd just be guessing. It won't help to leave out pertinent details, like you were right up there at the playing field, taking pictures to sell, they have an exclusive enforceable contract with a pro, etc. You should still start off checking with the city to see what regulations might apply to your activities.
So,
Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58 AM
p.1 #9NJ photography Laws
James10013 wrote:
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
MarcThis is not a State issue, but a local one. You need to contact the town that you are in and find out what the rules are if any with respect to photographing in the park or on public property. Since you have not put the situation in context, and only indicated what the soccer league president has said to you as oppose to what you have said to him, categorizing his comment or the potential of sending a letter as harassment might be a stretch. We have no idea what you said to him to elicit that kind of...Show more →
yes I'm offering the images for sale. that should not be an issue as they are not for commercial (advertising) use. The laws on this are very clear so I'm not concerned.
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
mbaumser wrote
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etcDoes anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
yes I'm offering the images for sale. that should not be an issue as they are not for commercial (advertising) use. The laws on this are very clear so I'm not concerned.
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
Jun 10, 2010 at 09:11 PM
p.1 #10NJ photography Laws
mbaumser wrote:
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
MarcThis is not a State issue, but a local one. You need to contact the town that you are in and find out what the rules are if any with respect to photographing in the park or on public property. Since you have not put the situation in context, and only indicated what the soccer league president has said to you as oppose to what you have said to him, categorizing his comment or the potential of sending a letter as harassment might be a stretch. We have no idea what you said to him to elicit that kind of response.
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?yes I'm offering the images for sale. that should not be an issue as they are not for commercial (advertising) use. The laws on this are very clear so I'm not concerned.
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
Why doesn't your sale of the photos constitute commerce in and of itself? You are engaging in the business of selling your photos.
If you have valuable assets, you need to get good local legal advice from someone who will be willing to sit beside you in a court of law.
James10013 wrote
mbaumser wrote
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etcDoes anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
Why doesn't your sale of the photos constitute commerce in and of itself? You are engaging in the business of selling your photos.
If you have valuable assets, you need to get good local legal advice from someone who will be willing to sit beside you in a court of law.
Jun 10, 2010 at 10:15 PM
p.1 #11NJ photography Laws
Soenda wrote:
Why doesn't your sale of the photos constitute commerce in and of itself? You are engaging in the business of selling your photos.
If you have valuable assets, you need to get good local legal advice from someone who will be willing to sit beside you in a court of law.
It's consider 'Art' and by extension 'free speech'. You can take anyone's picture print it, hang it in a gallery, sell the print, use it inside a book, etc. As long as it's not used for advertising, no release is needed. (A book can be considered advertising for the book and shouldn't be used without a release)
There is enough on the web including specific cases where the courts have found repeatedly that as long as the subject is in a place open to the public and the photographer is also in public view, pictures can be taken and used for any non-advertising use.
My only question was if anyone knew if there were specfic NJ statutes that were exemptions to the general rules.
Thanks everyone, I'm going to have to consult a lawyer if it comes to that with the league.
Why doesn't your sale of the photos constitute commerce in and of itself? You are engaging in the business of selling your photos.
If you have valuable assets, you need to get good local legal advice from someone who will be willing to sit beside you in a court of law.
It's consider 'Art' and by extension 'free speech'. You can take anyone's picture print it, hang it in a gallery, sell the print, use it inside a book, etc. As long as it's not used for advertising, no release is needed. (A book can be considered advertising for the book and shouldn't be used without a release)
There is enough on the web including specific cases where the courts have found repeatedly that as long as the subject is in a place open to the public and the photographer is also in public view, pictures can be taken and used for any non-advertising use.
My only question was if anyone knew if there were specfic NJ statutes that were exemptions to the general rules.
Thanks everyone, I'm going to have to consult a lawyer if it comes to that with the league.
Jun 11, 2010 at 05:49 AM
p.1 #12NJ photography Laws
mbaumser wrote:
Does anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
MarcThis is not a State issue, but a local one. You need to contact the town that you are in and find out what the rules are if any with respect to photographing in the park or on public property. Since you have not put the situation in context, and only indicated what the soccer league president has said to you as oppose to what you have said to him, categorizing his comment or the potential of sending a letter as harassment might be a stretch. We have no idea what you said to him to elicit that kind of response.
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?yes I'm offering the images for sale. that should not be an issue as they are not for commercial (advertising) use. The laws on this are very clear so I'm not concerned.
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
Marc,
The inherent problem here is that you have limited your definition of commerce to advertising and in doing so you may have missed the boat. The definition of commerce is much broader than advertising: The fact that you are selling images falls within the definition of commerce and if you are selling them on-line, you site or that portion of your site is a commercial one. The term commercial use is one which is undertaken for a business purpose, rather than hobby, recreational, educational, or other purposes. You may want to look up the legal definitions of commerce and commercial use, or better yet if you have doubts, consult with an attorney yourself who can advise you as to whether you are engaged in a commercial activity.
Perhaps you need to look at this from another perspective: You are taking pictures of children who are engaging in an organized recreational activity, and trying to make a profit off that. Generally when you sign up for a sponsored recreational activity, the sponsoring organization - in this case the league - has responsibility for the players while they are playing. When the players or their parents signed them up, I'm sure they did not have the expectation that they or their children would be photographed and have those images displayed on the web for sale either to them or to anyone else who cares to buy them and use them as they see fit. (Are you restricting image usage when you sell them? Are you representing to buyers that these images have no model releases and making buyers release you from responsibility for any usage after purchase?)
The league may have concerns over liability (injury as well as other) exposure to them arising out of your activities both on and off the field. As someone else pointed out, you do not know the terms of the arrangement between the league and the locality. The league may feel that the players fall under the league's umbrella, as opposed to being viewed as a collection of "individuals"; you may/may not or don't know the terms of the consent agreements parents have signed. An attorney can best advise you on this.
Have you thought about approaching the league and asking them to be designated the "official " photographer and sharing a percentage of the sales proceeds with them? Honey would seems to be a far better tonic in this situation than the vinegar both you and the league official appear to be serving up.
If you do decide to go up against the league and lawyer, you may be putting your own activities under unanticipated scrutiny: You might want to consider having a business licence in hand at a minimum, and liability insurance.
One of the issues in citing case law as broadcast over the web, is the cases and nuances of the situations vary from case to case and by locale and is often influenced by how a particular judge interprets the law . Too often the results are being filtered down and interpreted by people with little or no legal background. The questions of "art," "my right to take a picture," and "personal versus commercial use " are all on a very slippery slope because in many cases since "apples and oranges" are involved, the situations are rarely black and white, but grey as is the situation you have described here.
James10013 wrote
mbaumser wrote
I know the general rules very well: Anything shot in an area open to the public is okay... As long as the image is not used for advertising no release is needed... etc etcDoes anyone know a) if there are any NJ specific exceptions or b) the specific NJ statutes where it says "Photography is legal in public places...."
I need to prepare myself fully to deal with a soccer league president that is threating me with "a letter from his lawyer" (which I also know, could be considered "harassment" by him towards me)
Thanks
Marc
While "open to the public" means that people should not have an expectation to privacy in a setting, it does not necessarily mean that you can photograph or engage in certain types of photography at will or without consent.
Generally when the issue of lawyers come up in situations like this, the photographer is usually trying to sell images: Are you taking or offering the images for sale?
I have not spoken to him directly. He sent an e-mail and my only response was to ask if I had the permission of all the parent would that be acceptable. he never replied.
after that everything has been him directing comments in my direction that I could hear but not engaging me directly
Marc,
The inherent problem here is that you have limited your definition of commerce to advertising and in doing so you may have missed the boat. The definition of commerce is much broader than advertising: The fact that you are selling images falls within the definition of commerce and if you are selling them on-line, you site or that portion of your site is a commercial one. The term commercial use is one which is undertaken for a business purpose, rather than hobby, recreational, educational, or other purposes. You may want to look up the legal definitions of commerce and commercial use, or better yet if you have doubts, consult with an attorney yourself who can advise you as to whether you are engaged in a commercial activity.
Perhaps you need to look at this from another perspective: You are taking pictures of children who are engaging in an organized recreational activity, and trying to make a profit off that. Generally when you sign up for a sponsored recreational activity, the sponsoring organization - in this case the league - has responsibility for the players while they are playing. When the players or their parents signed them up, I'm sure they did not have the expectation that they or their children would be photographed and have those images displayed on the web for sale either to them or to anyone else who cares to buy them and use them as they see fit. (Are you restricting image usage when you sell them? Are you representing to buyers that these images have no model releases and making buyers release you from responsibility for any usage after purchase?)
The league may have concerns over liability (injury as well as other) exposure to them arising out of your activities both on and off the field. As someone else pointed out, you do not know the terms of the arrangement between the league and the locality. The league may feel that the players fall under the league's umbrella, as opposed to being viewed as a collection of "individuals"; you may/may not or don't know the terms of the consent agreements parents have signed. An attorney can best advise you on this.
Have you thought about approaching the league and asking them to be designated the "official " photographer and sharing a percentage of the sales proceeds with them? Honey would seems to be a far better tonic in this situation than the vinegar both you and the league official appear to be serving up.
If you do decide to go up against the league and lawyer, you may be putting your own activities under unanticipated scrutiny: You might want to consider having a business licence in hand at a minimum, and liability insurance.
One of the issues in citing case law as broadcast over the web, is the cases and nuances of the situations vary from case to case and by locale and is often influenced by how a particular judge interprets the law . Too often the results are being filtered down and interpreted by people with little or no legal background. The questions of "art," "my right to take a picture," and "personal versus commercial use " are all on a very slippery slope because in many cases since "apples and oranges" are involved, the situations are rarely black and white, but grey as is the situation you have described here.
Jun 11, 2010 at 05:55 AM
p.1 #13NJ photography Laws
This is an excellent guide
http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
as well as the authors USA articles
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
also
the photographers rights
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Thank you all.
http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
as well as the authors USA articles
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography-rights_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
also
the photographers rights
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Thank you all.
Jun 11, 2010 at 07:38 AM
p.1 #14NJ photography Laws
You seem to continue to make the mistake that you are the only one with rights in this matter. Until you know what rights the property owners and city are asserting, you don't know if you may have infringed them. Since people often take lots of pictures at sporting events or other events in parks, it seems more than a little likely that your actions were sufficiently beyond the norm to arouse the negative reaction you are getting.
Pay attention to where Kantor and Krages diverge. One of them is a lawyer.
I think it's likely that they think you may be encroaching into operating a business activity where there are already established contractual relationships or regulations that can be enforced legally. Or he is just wrong about the taking and selling of the pictures. But that can't be established playing Twenty Questions on a forum, that's going to come from the specifics.
Pay attention to where Kantor and Krages diverge. One of them is a lawyer.
I think it's likely that they think you may be encroaching into operating a business activity where there are already established contractual relationships or regulations that can be enforced legally. Or he is just wrong about the taking and selling of the pictures. But that can't be established playing Twenty Questions on a forum, that's going to come from the specifics.
Jun 11, 2010 at 05:26 PM
p.1 #15NJ photography Laws
Craig Gillette wrote:
You seem to continue to make the mistake that you are the only one with rights in this matter. Until you know what rights the property owners and city are asserting, you don't know if you may have infringed them. Since people often take lots of pictures at sporting events or other events in parks, it seems more than a little likely that your actions were sufficiently beyond the norm to arouse the negative reaction you are getting.
Pay attention to where Kantor and Krages diverge. One of them is a lawyer.
I think it's likely that they think you...Show more →
Craig I appreciate your point of view. And if it gets contentious with them I will clear seek professional legal council.
here is the leagues web page http://www.edisonunitedsoccer.com/ scroll to the bottom and you'll see this:
No pictures are to be taken for websites / resale to club members
Edison United Soccer Association adopted a resolution at the March 2010 Board meeting
Edison United Soccer Association adopted a resolution in March at the Board meeting
1) No pictures are to be placed on any website without the consent of Edison United Soccer
2) Pictures are not to be used for resale purpose
3) All photographers that are posting pictures and selling them are subject to a Fine up to $1,000
4) All pictures from past Must be removed from websites before May 1st 2010
5) Our lawyer is aware of all this policy and will be sending letters after the 1st if pictures are still on the sites
Item one, they are claiming rights to all images even of my own son that are not for sale. They are saying I cannot post my own pictures on my own website. Am I misreading that??
Item two: this is the heart of my contention that I was looking for legal help on if anyone knew the laws of NJ. At the moment I'm happy with what I've gathered from Kantor and Krages and other sources on the web. I've done FINDLAW search on NJ statutes and there are no prohibitions on the books that I find...although I keep looking hoping to find the right combination of key words.
Item three. Where does a private organization get to "FINE" a private individual? I've entered no contract with them.
item four they are taking these right retroactive to some earlier time...I've entered no agreement with them
Item five they have yet to send any letters and until they've explained I consider this an overt threat.
You say they have rights too, they do no doubt but their rights don't trample mine without my consent. See the back of a baseball ticket or amusement park ticket all the fine print where in short it say, "if you enter we own you". There was nothing in the enrollment that I must obey their bylaws. There were other rules I had to sign. No cursing, no yelling at the ref, good sportsmanship etc.
If they had actual rights granted to them by the township as you suggest. Don't you think they would post on their web site: "In accordance with section XXXXXX of the EDISON township ordinances, we are granted exclusive......blah blah blah"
Instead of a veiled threat.
This is the director and the board looking to squeeze a nickle out of me. I have it from other parents that he explicitly said that in no uncertain terms. The exact phrase I was told he used is "if he just gave me some money" I assume by "me" he meant the league and he wasn't looking for himself.
In other situations, you are clearly right. In this situation, I do know some of the back ground and the league has no claim on my rights.
You seem to continue to make the mistake that you are the only one with rights in this matter. Until you know what rights the property owners and city are asserting, you don't know if you may have infringed them. Since people often take lots of pictures at sporting events or other events in parks, it seems more than a little likely that your actions were sufficiently beyond the norm to arouse the negative reaction you are getting.
Pay attention to where Kantor and Krages diverge. One of them is a lawyer.
I think it's likely that they think you...Show more →
Craig I appreciate your point of view. And if it gets contentious with them I will clear seek professional legal council.
here is the leagues web page http://www.edisonunitedsoccer.com/ scroll to the bottom and you'll see this:
No pictures are to be taken for websites / resale to club members
Edison United Soccer Association adopted a resolution at the March 2010 Board meeting
Edison United Soccer Association adopted a resolution in March at the Board meeting
1) No pictures are to be placed on any website without the consent of Edison United Soccer
2) Pictures are not to be used for resale purpose
3) All photographers that are posting pictures and selling them are subject to a Fine up to $1,000
4) All pictures from past Must be removed from websites before May 1st 2010
5) Our lawyer is aware of all this policy and will be sending letters after the 1st if pictures are still on the sites
Item one, they are claiming rights to all images even of my own son that are not for sale. They are saying I cannot post my own pictures on my own website. Am I misreading that??
Item two: this is the heart of my contention that I was looking for legal help on if anyone knew the laws of NJ. At the moment I'm happy with what I've gathered from Kantor and Krages and other sources on the web. I've done FINDLAW search on NJ statutes and there are no prohibitions on the books that I find...although I keep looking hoping to find the right combination of key words.
Item three. Where does a private organization get to "FINE" a private individual? I've entered no contract with them.
item four they are taking these right retroactive to some earlier time...I've entered no agreement with them
Item five they have yet to send any letters and until they've explained I consider this an overt threat.
You say they have rights too, they do no doubt but their rights don't trample mine without my consent. See the back of a baseball ticket or amusement park ticket all the fine print where in short it say, "if you enter we own you". There was nothing in the enrollment that I must obey their bylaws. There were other rules I had to sign. No cursing, no yelling at the ref, good sportsmanship etc.
If they had actual rights granted to them by the township as you suggest. Don't you think they would post on their web site: "In accordance with section XXXXXX of the EDISON township ordinances, we are granted exclusive......blah blah blah"
Instead of a veiled threat.This is the director and the board looking to squeeze a nickle out of me. I have it from other parents that he explicitly said that in no uncertain terms. The exact phrase I was told he used is "if he just gave me some money" I assume by "me" he meant the league and he wasn't looking for himself.
In other situations, you are clearly right. In this situation, I do know some of the back ground and the league has no claim on my rights.
Jun 11, 2010 at 07:10 PM
p.1 #16NJ photography Laws
Remember what I wrote about "Twenty Questions?" You keep dribbling out new bits of info or details. You need to talk to your lawyer. You need to talk to the city. My interpretation of their website is irrelevant. They may have someone posting who completely hashed up the policy.
I'd also suggest you determine whether your son wants to continue playing for the team.
I'd also suggest you determine whether your son wants to continue playing for the team.
Jun 11, 2010 at 10:20 PM
p.1 #17NJ photography Laws
Marc,
Stop playing lawyer! If this is as personal as you suggest, your best course of action is to talk to an attorney period. Be careful with the "he said-she said" other parent conversations, as you don't want to become a bad episode of the "Real Soccer Parents of New Jersey." You may find that some of these folks are playing both sides.
Kantor and Kreiger both warn you, what they offer is not and should not be viewed as legal counsel. Although I am not an attorney either, I can point to two things that immediately jumped out in the Kantor guide that are wrong. And to his credit, he acknowledges that some of his opinions and interpretations may be wrong. Generally when there are bylaw and rule changes and an entity has an attorney involved, one might assume they have done their homework and that there is some legal basis for what they have done, and which you as an Internet JD, will not necessarily understand or find. This is why legal counsel may be your best bet.
After reading your last post, I am confused as to what you are looking for: Are you looking to be able to post images of your son, or are you really looking for the the ability to sell images of any player or any game activities?
Since it seems that there is an organized photo shoot for today with instruction for parents, is there a league photographer?
Marc where do the other parents stand? Are any of them photographing their own children and posting their images on their own websites or expressing concerns over the rules?
I don't envy the position you find yourself in as this situation involves a delicate balance of a parent and a child's interests.
Let us know how you proceed and the outcome.
James
Stop playing lawyer! If this is as personal as you suggest, your best course of action is to talk to an attorney period. Be careful with the "he said-she said" other parent conversations, as you don't want to become a bad episode of the "Real Soccer Parents of New Jersey." You may find that some of these folks are playing both sides.
Kantor and Kreiger both warn you, what they offer is not and should not be viewed as legal counsel. Although I am not an attorney either, I can point to two things that immediately jumped out in the Kantor guide that are wrong. And to his credit, he acknowledges that some of his opinions and interpretations may be wrong. Generally when there are bylaw and rule changes and an entity has an attorney involved, one might assume they have done their homework and that there is some legal basis for what they have done, and which you as an Internet JD, will not necessarily understand or find. This is why legal counsel may be your best bet.
After reading your last post, I am confused as to what you are looking for: Are you looking to be able to post images of your son, or are you really looking for the the ability to sell images of any player or any game activities?
Since it seems that there is an organized photo shoot for today with instruction for parents, is there a league photographer?
Marc where do the other parents stand? Are any of them photographing their own children and posting their images on their own websites or expressing concerns over the rules?
I don't envy the position you find yourself in as this situation involves a delicate balance of a parent and a child's interests.
Let us know how you proceed and the outcome.
James
Jun 12, 2010 at 08:06 AM
p.1 #18NJ photography Laws
James10013 wrote:
Marc,
Stop playing lawyer! If this is as personal as you suggest, your best course of action is to talk to an attorney period. Be careful with the "he said-she said" other parent conversations, as you don't want to become a bad episode of the "Real Soccer Parents of New Jersey." You may find that some of these folks are playing both sides.
Kantor and Kreiger both warn you, what they offer is not and should not be viewed as legal counsel. Although I am not an attorney either, I can point to two things that immediately jumped out in the...Show more →
James,
If this becomes a legal action I will take your (and Craig's) advice and get a lawyer. That is without question.
My goal is to understand my rights but without this getting into an overt legal issue I won't really know their postion beyond what I've actually been told by the league which is identical to what they've posted on the web site.
To answer your other questions. There is no league photographer. There is photographer that does team and individual one day a year but not action.
The parents on my sons team love the photos I take. They have no issues with me selling them and are puzzled by the league.
I only have first hand knowledge about one other team in the league and they have no parents that shoot and post.
I'm prepared to offer the league 10% of my profits in exchange for them not hassling me. I figure, after my insurance, and repair costs to gear, I've lose money, not make money and would owe them nothing.
Marc,
Stop playing lawyer! If this is as personal as you suggest, your best course of action is to talk to an attorney period. Be careful with the "he said-she said" other parent conversations, as you don't want to become a bad episode of the "Real Soccer Parents of New Jersey." You may find that some of these folks are playing both sides.
Kantor and Kreiger both warn you, what they offer is not and should not be viewed as legal counsel. Although I am not an attorney either, I can point to two things that immediately jumped out in the...Show more →
James,
If this becomes a legal action I will take your (and Craig's) advice and get a lawyer. That is without question.
My goal is to understand my rights but without this getting into an overt legal issue I won't really know their postion beyond what I've actually been told by the league which is identical to what they've posted on the web site.
To answer your other questions. There is no league photographer. There is photographer that does team and individual one day a year but not action.
The parents on my sons team love the photos I take. They have no issues with me selling them and are puzzled by the league.
I only have first hand knowledge about one other team in the league and they have no parents that shoot and post.
I'm prepared to offer the league 10% of my profits in exchange for them not hassling me. I figure, after my insurance, and repair costs to gear, I've lose money, not make money and would owe them nothing.
Jun 12, 2010 at 11:48 AM
p.1 #19NJ photography Laws
If there's no league photographer there ought to be one, and why not you?
I looked at your 'sports' website and it's clear to me that you're very capable of doing a bang-up job for that league. BUT if you go and get in a hassle with them I think you can be sure that you've cut yourself out of any hope to get a permit or contract with them.
Draw up a business proposal to take to the league meeting that offers your services. I'd bet they'll be happy to consider it if you're reasonable.
Otherwise I think they've got full power to keep you from doing what you obviously enjoy to do.
I looked at your 'sports' website and it's clear to me that you're very capable of doing a bang-up job for that league. BUT if you go and get in a hassle with them I think you can be sure that you've cut yourself out of any hope to get a permit or contract with them.
Draw up a business proposal to take to the league meeting that offers your services. I'd bet they'll be happy to consider it if you're reasonable.
Otherwise I think they've got full power to keep you from doing what you obviously enjoy to do.
Jun 12, 2010 at 06:56 PM
p.1 #20NJ photography Laws
The parents are the real power. If you are just doing the DWAC thing, then don't sell for over your "costs." (That probably still requires you to be aware of any of the business permit issues, etc., although just printing at WalMart and getting paid to cover print costs, etc., may not raise any hackles. Assuming you don't cut in on a contracted vendor, etc., the city probably won't care. Poach someone else's customers, you'll hear quick.)
If it's a real business, do the real business thing. Approach the league with a real proposal dealing with what you expect to charge and what percentage, etc., could be a fund-raising portion to the league. Show that you have the necessary permits, insurance, etc. Note that for this to work, the prices to the parents will have to be substantially higher. They may be interested in $.50 prints and not remotely interested in $10 prints. For this to be approached as a business effort, the league also should expect that they still come second, you need to reasonably assured that you will make enough to make this worthwhile or they can simply maintain the status quo. No pro and no "better" pictures.
The league probably doesn't have to let you sell to the parents directly/unofficially and can probably keep you from the area of the fields if you violate their by-laws, etc. They should have an understanding (as should you) of what the parents' interests or payment interests are.
You should also be aware, in advance, of any restrictions they will place on posting images. many sports organizations are much more reticent to post "official" p[ictures, names, etc. If you become the "official" photographer, you may well be bound by those policies. If you are just a DWAC, outside of trademark and parent concerns, you could have more "legal" flex when it comes to postings.
If it's a real business, do the real business thing. Approach the league with a real proposal dealing with what you expect to charge and what percentage, etc., could be a fund-raising portion to the league. Show that you have the necessary permits, insurance, etc. Note that for this to work, the prices to the parents will have to be substantially higher. They may be interested in $.50 prints and not remotely interested in $10 prints. For this to be approached as a business effort, the league also should expect that they still come second, you need to reasonably assured that you will make enough to make this worthwhile or they can simply maintain the status quo. No pro and no "better" pictures.
The league probably doesn't have to let you sell to the parents directly/unofficially and can probably keep you from the area of the fields if you violate their by-laws, etc. They should have an understanding (as should you) of what the parents' interests or payment interests are.
You should also be aware, in advance, of any restrictions they will place on posting images. many sports organizations are much more reticent to post "official" p[ictures, names, etc. If you become the "official" photographer, you may well be bound by those policies. If you are just a DWAC, outside of trademark and parent concerns, you could have more "legal" flex when it comes to postings.
Jun 13, 2010 at 10:50 AM