2. Private v Public/Permission and Consent
• The location of the sporting event determines the legality in
which photographs may be taken.
• Professional stadiums or fields – private
• Community, local, state, or national government owned and
controlled property – public
• On public land, pictures of individuals are allowed to be taken
without permission
• Common courtesy to obtain a written release when
photographing individuals for publication
3. Restrictions for Photographing Sporting Events
• Major and minor league ballparks differentiate professional
and personal-use of cameras
• Camcorders are traditionally prohibited from venues
• Facilities are less inclined to impose restrictions on
photographing events for personal use
4. Recent Photography Cases
• Leonard v Stemtech Health Sciences, Inc
– Copyright infringement and registration
• Glik v Cunniffe 2011
– First and Fourth Amendment right
• Nessenweig v DiCaorcia 2005
– Right of Privacy/Publicity
• Elane Photography v Willock 2006
– Discrimination on Sexual Orientation
5. Brief Overview
• Leonard v Stemtech Health Sciences, Inc. – Microphotography expert Andrew Paul
Leonard’s photographs of bone marrow stem cells were stolen and used on the
Stemtech website and other marketing materials. The court rules in Leonard’s favor
for copyright infringement.
• Nussenzweig v DiCorcia – Phillip-Lorca DiCorcia photographed Hasidic Jew Ermo
Nussenzweig walking on a public street in New York without his knowledge or
consent. DiCorcia sold 10 prints of the image for between $20,000-$30,000.
Nuessenzweig sued DiCorcia and the Pace/McGill gallery for privacy and religious
reasons.
• Glik v Cunniffe – Simon Glik filmed Boston police officers making an arrest in a
public park. The officers saw Glik recording the arrest and they arrest Glik for
wiretapping, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. Glik sued
the City of Boston and the arresting officers claiming they violated his
constitutional rights
6. Conclusion
• Most photography cases are all about copyrights
infringements, ownership and violations.
• With the use of photos without consent are situations
where kids are involved at their local games.
• There are many restrictions that most people don’t
know about when taking photos in public, most
people think they can just take photos of what they
see and that isn’t really the case.
Editor's Notes
Leonard – He was awarded $1.6 million in actual damages, but denited statutory damages b/c he didn’t register his images until after the infringement occurred.
Nussenzweig – the court ruled that the photograph was art, not commerce, and protected by the first amendment
Glik – United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the officers violated Glik’s contitutional rights. The court ruled hat the right to film public officials in public places was “clearly established” and Glik’s actions didn’t violate state law.
