(03-12-2012, 11:18 AM)koolkellygirl Wrote: To me it's like the idea of taking a photo of an NFL player, at a game, in his uni, whatever, then turning around and selling the photo which shows the player, logo and all. It's unlicensed and illegal. BUT, if you keep the photo, even post it up to show it off, there's nothing illegal about it. But if I go and make a print of it cause I saw it on photobucket, then sell it, that is illegal..Same diff...Except that its totally different because what the original poster put was a derivative of other people's work rather than entirely his own original work - it may not seem like a total difference but it is a huge difference.
I would also argue that the photos in your example are in fact authorized - teams allow fans to take personal use cameras into the stadium as part of the admission ticket and allow personal use photos for non-commercial purposes. Teams could presumably ban those photos since they set the license requirements for entry - but what's the point - even with a good digital camera and lens - you aren't taking publication quality photos from the stands of a massive football stadium.
Posting a photo you personally took at a game can also be argued to be within the core First Amendment activity of news coverage/commentary - your blog has just as many First Amendment rights to free press as The New York Times or the Washington Post (of course, your blog doesn't have Cahil Gordon & Rehill or Williams & Connerly on retainer).
And if all of this makes your head spin, it should - there is a reason why IP law is one of two legal practice areas where practicioners are allowed to state they specialize in it (the other is Admiralty which makes IP law look like a walk in the park by comparison)