# Legality of Sports Photos



## JT45454 (Jul 28, 2008)

So, I am completely confused on liscensing with sports teams/ leagues, photos, etc. If a printer has a picture of a baseball player [fully hypothetical] , say Sammy Sosa, and he got that picture online (the picture had no copyright listed or labeled), what are some of the pitfalls that a printer could encounter by using the picture? Can he incur the same problems by manipulating the picture so that it is much different from the original? Is there liscensing with the league, such as MLB in this case, that one would have to worry about (even if there wouldnt be more than 100 prints using the manipulated image)? Does the athlete usually own the rights to his/her image? I am completely new in the industry, but coming up with designs, one of which uses a completely changed image of a sports star, but the original is still an image of a famous sports star, and I do not want to run into any complications or legal battles printing these images. Thank you for any advice or help in figuring out the legal logistics of printing an image like the one described.

~JT


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

JT45454 said:


> he got that picture online (the picture had no copyright listed or labeled)


It doesn't need to be listed or labelled - it's still protected by copyright. Unless something is explicitly listed as public domain, you can assume it isn't.



JT45454 said:


> what are some of the pitfalls that a printer could encounter by using the picture?


Equipment seizure, fines, jail time.



JT45454 said:


> Can he incur the same problems by manipulating the picture so that it is much different from the original?


Yes, you can't manipulate it out of copyright.



JT45454 said:


> Is there liscensing with the league


I believe so.



JT45454 said:


> (even if there wouldnt be more than 100 prints using the manipulated image)?


Quantity is a factor only in damages (i.e. how big your fine is), not in legality.



JT45454 said:


> Does the athlete usually own the rights to his/her image?


Sometimes, sometimes they've sold them to someone else (rarer for living people, but it happens).

The right to publicity also varies by state (and country), so it's not guaranteed to be in effect. Then again if you sell a few shirts interstate it probably won't be hard for them to find _somewhere_ they can sue you. Plus right to publicity is frequently case law based (precedent) rather than state legislature, so just because it isn't on the books yet doesn't mean it can't be argued in court.

If you were playing the odds, then yes, they likely own the rights to their image.


----------



## JT45454 (Jul 28, 2008)

Yup, thats what I was thinking, but I was unclear, and havent been able to contact a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property who could answer my questions. Thank you for the quick responses, I do appreciate it. Is there anything else I should be aware of concerning a situation like that?

Thanks again,
JT


----------



## Solmu (Aug 15, 2005)

JT45454 said:


> Is there anything else I should be aware of concerning a situation like that?


Not from me I don't think  Obviously the pitfalls above are things you *could* encounter, and not _necessarily _things you *will* encounter. There are grey areas in copyright, but something like this could get you into trouble in _so many_ different ways that it's just not worth it.

If you use someone else's photo you may or may not get caught, if you use sport's licensing you may or may not get caught, if you use a celebrity's image you may or may not get caught, etc. etc. - but when you start to add it all together, there are just so many aspects that could get you in trouble.


----------



## LJVarlet (May 9, 2008)

What about an original illustration of a famous athlete/musician? I read in another thread that someone can't hold the copyright to their general image. I don't know if that's true. For example you see people walking around with all kinds of Bob Marley and Che Guevara shirts. If an artist makes a painting or drawing of a celebrity does he have the right to reproduce that image?


----------



## Jasonda (Aug 16, 2006)

LJVarlet said:


> What about an original illustration of a famous athlete/musician? I read in another thread that someone can't hold the copyright to their general image. I don't know if that's true. For example you see people walking around with all kinds of Bob Marley and Che Guevara shirts. If an artist makes a painting or drawing of a celebrity does he have the right to reproduce that image?


People have rights to their general image which usually would include paintings and drawings made of them. It's called the "Right of Publicity" and you can read about it on Wikipedia.

Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason you see a lot of people walking around with Bob Marley t-shirts is that his image is licensed by his estate and you can buy a license to produce the shirts.

The general rule here (if you want to get down to the very basics) is that the person depicted in the image has rights, and the photographer or artist also has rights. Sometimes there is a conflict between those parties and usually there is no clear cut way to resolve it and it has to be resolved in court.

And then there's some guy wanting to print t-shirts with that picture. He doesn't have any rights unless he purchases them or has the permission of both those parties. It's pretty simple.


----------



## reginammp62 (Jul 4, 2008)

Jasonda said:


> People have rights to their general image which usually would include paintings and drawings made of them. It's called the "Right of Publicity" and you can read about it on Wikipedia.
> 
> Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Simple answer: Dont' do it, it's illegal.
-regina


----------



## betilfan (Apr 28, 2007)

go with state college images. state college teams are the property of the state so their mascots aren't legally protected. they sometimes try to make it appear differrently but any court case I've seen the school lost.


----------



## AustinJeff (May 12, 2007)

betilfan said:


> go with state college images. state college teams are the property of the state so their mascots aren't legally protected. they sometimes try to make it appear differrently but any court case I've seen the school lost.


Could you post a link to some of those cases, because that is absolutely contrary to everything I have ever read or experienced. 

Licensed college merchandise is a $3 billion dollar per year industry. While federal government entities can not hold trademarks or copyrights, this is not true of state government entities, such as universities. You can search the US Trademark database here and you will likely find that every state college mascot you can think of is, in fact, a registered trademark.

Here in Austin, home of the University of Texas, this is taken VERY seriously. Which has something to do with the fact that last year, the school made $8.2 million in royalties. The UT mascot is called Bevo. A few years ago a local restaurant by the same name was forced to change it's name.  Here's a link.

Street vendors often have shirts seized. Even the color - "Texas Orange" (Burnt Orange) is protected. People have had shirts seized that just had the word "Texas" on them because the shirts were "Texas Orange." Here's a link to a story on trademark protection of colors. The way I understand it is that when people (in Austin, at least) see a burnt orange shirt with white lettering, they automatically associate it with UT, so UT has intellectual property rights. Personally, I think this is absurd, but that's the law.

I've seen similar protection from other colleges, including when I was working for a politician who had included his school's mascot on one of his brochures. There was a building named after this guy on this school's campus, yet within days, he received a cease and desist letter. Clearly, universities take this stuff very seriously.

Also, college athletes have the same right to publicity as anyone else. In fact, the courts would likely find that they have greater protection since they are amateurs and, as such, have not made themselves "public figures" to the same degree that professional athletes have.

And there are certainly plenty of people who get away with breaking these rules. But that doesn't mean that it's legal, or that you or I will get away with it.


----------



## sunnydayz (Jun 22, 2007)

Yep I would be careful of the college stuff also  Here is a recent case against a store named joe college LJWorld.com / Jury finds for KU in Joe-College lawsuit. Its a very interesting case.


----------



## JT45454 (Jul 28, 2008)

Again, thank you all for the responses, they all provide very helpful information. What about an image of a dead musician, like rapper Tupac, would it be safe to assume that the rights to his image are owned by another party?


----------



## reginammp62 (Jul 4, 2008)

JT45454 said:


> Again, thank you all for the responses, they all provide very helpful information. What about an image of a dead musician, like rapper Tupac, would it be safe to assume that the rights to his image are owned by another party?


My guess would be YES. His estate would have control over the images and if they belong to some company like Getty Images (which you normally see a lot of watermarks of on images) you'd definately have someone pursuing you.
-regina


----------



## Rodney (Nov 3, 2004)

JT45454 said:


> Again, thank you all for the responses, they all provide very helpful information. What about an image of a dead musician, like rapper Tupac, would it be safe to assume that the rights to his image are owned by another party?


Yes, for example, Tupac's image and rights are owned by his mother. They actually have an official store at CafePress (or they used to).

If it's not you or you didn't create it, you basically have to get permission to use it. If you can't find permission, then it's best not to use it. If you're still curious about the "what ifs", it's best to seek legal advice


----------

