Hi,
I've been a roller derby fan for about a year now, and I bring my camera to bouts to take pictures. Mostly I've been shooting the Old Capitol City Roller Girls, but I've been branching out and watching other leagues as well. What are the generally accepted practices for derby photography? Mostly I've gotten reactions of "Yay! Someone's taking pictures of us!" but I've also seen the "Only WFTDA-certified photographers with signed releases" rules at the championship tournament, and I'm wondering where things change. What if someone wants to use one of my photos in a publication (online or in print)? Where can I go to learn about my responsibilities, and what people expect of me? Can you help me find this information?
Thanks,
"KORfan"
This subject is covered by basic copyright law and while my grasp of the photography particulars isn't perfect (since I'm not a photographer), here's my quick summary:
In almost all situations, if you shoot a picture, you own the copyright. Unless it is a specific kind of work-for-hire (such as a portrait shop that employs you and provides the equipment and film), you can do whatever you want with any picture you take, derby or otherwise. A league can opt to not allow cameras in to bouts or practices at their discretion but as long as you're able to take pictures, you own them. Where law leaves off and etiquette takes over is that if a league likes one of your pictures and wants to use it for a brochure or their website or something like that, it is a generally accepted practice that you allow them to use it without compensation as sort of a "donation to the cause". That's not a legally enforceable demand, it's simply courteous compliance with roller derby's "Don't be a douchebag" rule. There are circumstances under which you could potentially owe a photography subject residuals if you publish a shot for money but I THINK that that does not apply in a situation like a live sporting event. I'm admitedly shaky on residuals so don't take my word for it. Hopefully I can get clarification from all you from the veteran photographers out there in Derbyworld.
If any of you have additional or better knowledge on photography rights and laws, put 'em in the comments and I'll add them to the body of the post under your name for everyone's benefit.
-----
Edit: This only covers US copyright law. If any of you have insight on the laws of a different country, please post in the comments!
Edit 2: Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. Let's see what Wet Spot has to say on the subject.
You're right and you're wrong.
Yup, the photographer owns the copyright and no one can take that away from them.
HOWEVER! This does not mean they can sell their work. If there is a model or subject in the photo or even if the photo is in a private space (venue is considered a private space) the photographer needs to get model releases and venue releases.
So if you take a photo of a jammer then you need to get that jammer's permission to sell that photograph and she may request a cut of the cash in exchange for permission.
Wet Spot
Edit 3: Here's an Australian perspective.
I'm a derby girl from Central Coast Roller Girls, Australia and a photographer who works at a major newspaper in Sydney.
In some cases if you publish or sell a photo of a person you require a signed model release from the person in the photo.
A league can say if they want photographers in a bout, hand out media passes and get them to sign a release, basically saying whatever they want. ie: the league can use any photo, league must approve publication of images, copyright can even be signed over to the league, most leagues wouldn't go this far, as photographers and leagues work together, but always read the fine print of the release so you don't loose copyright of your images. (Lots of bands make photographers sign similar releases when shooting gigs)
Photos on facebook can be used by anyone. For example, if there is a person who has committed a crime and we can legally name them, we sometimes grab a pic from facebook of the person. If its up there you can use it. Also if someone dies and there is a major news story going on we go on facebook and get pics of the people, not so nice but thats what happens. Check your privacy settings people :D And photographers, watermark your photos. :)
Bruises, Linda. xx
| Share |
Posts
I'm a professional photographer - and a derby player. You're correct in saying that the copyright lays with the photographer, unless specified in some agreement signed beforehand with the league in question.
ReplyDeleteAt our bouts, we require floor passes for all photographers, and we limit the number available. The back of our press passes states the uses permissible by the league, and by the photographer, and through which media outlets the league is ok with the stuff being distributed. Of course there's a bunch of other fine print as well. I can find the entire text for anyone who wants it - it's pretty standard stuff. We adapted it for Roller Derby based off of having shot professional basketball teams, and the verbage on the back of our press passes from that.
I would like to see the full text version of your photog agreement
DeleteWhats posted on FaceBook becomes Public Domain, so if you want to save what rights you have to 'clean' photo you should 'Watermark' them with something visible to identify the photo posted.
ReplyDeleteActually, pictures posted to Facebook do not become public domain. However, Facebook may use any photo you have posted in any way they wish for as long as the picture is posted.
ReplyDeleteYou're right and you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteYup, the photographer owns the copyright and no one can take that away from them.
HOWEVER! This does not mean they can sell their work. If there is a model or subject in the photo or even if the photo is in a private space (venue is considered a private space) the photographer needs to get model releases and venue releases.
So if you take a photo of a jammer then you need to get that jammer's permission to sell that photograph and she may request a cut of the cash in exchange for permission.
I'm a derby girl from Central Coast Roller Girls, Australia and a photographer who works at a major newspaper in Sydney.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases if you publish or sell a photo of a person you require a signed model release from the person in the photo.
A league can say if they want photographers in a bout, hand out media passes and get them to sign a release, basically saying whatever they want. ie: the league can use any photo, league must approve publication of images, copyright can even be signed over to the league, most leagues wouldn't go this far, as photographers and leagues work together, but always read the fine print of the release so you don't loose copyright of your images. (Lots of bands make photographers sign similar releases when shooting gigs)
Photos on facebook can be used by anyone. For example, if there is a person who has committed a crime and we can legally name them, we sometimes grab a pic from facebook of the person. If its up there you can use it. Also if someone dies and there is a major news story going on we go on facebook and get pics of the people, not so nice but thats what happens. Check your privacy settings people :D And photographers, watermark your photos. :)
Bruises, Linda. xx
Actually, in most sports, since the team or league owns the copyright to the players and the logo and just about everything else, and since you (as a photographer) are gaining admittance as a guest with the league's permission, it's pretty standard that the team or league owns the copyright to the photos, regardless of who took them. Usually news uses are allowed, but sale of the images is reserved by the league/team. Here's the relevant verbiage:
ReplyDelete"The use of images, video, or audio of [league] bouts in any format or excerpts thereof shall be absolutely prohibited except as expressly authorised herein. Any other use requires prior specific written approval from [league].
"The use of any images, video, or audio of the bout, player interviews or other activiteis at the bout taken or made by the accredited organization or the individual for whom this credential has been issued shall be limited to news coverage of the game by the organization to which this credential has been issued unless expressly authorized in writing by [league]."
Two other things that you want to be aware of as a photographer at any sporting event: player safety and distractibility.
Some sports or venues limit or prohibit the use of flash, either on-camera or ceiling-mounted, during the game, to avoid distracting the players; the NFL is known for this (which is why you see guys with huge lenses on the sidelines - a large lens lets in lots of light, essential under dim field lighting conditions).
Second, most sports in which there's the potential for players to collide with photographers (like derby) prohibit the use of rigid lens hoods on the sidelines. Those things can seriously cut up photographers, fans, or players. Instead, you can purchase soft, collapsable rubber hoods that are safe and permitted.
Best of luck with your derby photos!
Like most people have said, in the US, the photographer owns the copyright and always does unless they sign away their rights. I went to one bout and the agreement the team had me sign took away my copyright ownership. Needless to say, I didn't take a single shot at that bout. I'm not going to be trackside, putting $3,000 worth of equipment in danger of flying skaters to not even own my own pictures.
ReplyDeleteI will bend over backwards for my regular team because they treat me with a lot of respect. I'm okay with leagues who want to control their image, but they shouldn't do it at the expense of the photographers who are donating their time and resources to provide them with pictures.
As far as selling pictures, there are situations where images can be sold and published without model releases. I might be wrong so someone who does commercial work might want to clarify.
The only time that releases are essential, is when the image is used in connection to a business or organizational promotion. Going back to the picture of the jammer, that picture could be sold to a news organization and they could use it to report on the team or the event where the picture was taken. Neither I nor the news organization need a model release.
Now, if I framed that picture and sold it as art, I would not need a model release either. In both scenarios, the key is that the subject did not have an expectation of privacy since it was a public event. However, if I wanted to sell that picture of the jammer to be used in an advertisement, then I would need a release because it's using one persons image to promote a commercial venture.
I don't do commercial work, so I might be wrong. Hopefully, someone will be able to confirm or deny this information.
Keep in mind that the waiver those photographers sign doesn't just have legal photo jibberish in them. Another reason most leagues have limited photographers on the floor and make you sign a waiver is for injury and damage reasons. While taking photos you can get hit by a rough group of sliding roller girls, injuring yourself and your equipment. Note* Liability Waiver! :)
ReplyDelete