Nike confiscates tapes

KmH · Jul 8, 2009

Nike confiscates tapes made of a college player dunking on LeBron James.

What Nike did is not legal. The videographer was not legally compelled to relinquish his tape. However, Nike could prevent publication of the video by persuing legal remedies in the courts rather than stealing the videographers property by using coersion.

IMO, as photographers this is something that should cause a bit of outrage and generate some email traffic denouncing the action to Nike's corporate offices.

Josh66 · Jul 8, 2009

KmH said:
IMO, as photographers this is something that should cause a bit of outrage and generate some email traffic denouncing the action to Nike's corporate offices.

Yeah - as I was reading this:

"The worst part is I'm not even sure I had the shot of the dunk," Miller said. "They might have taken it for no reason."

I was thinking - "Might have? They did!"

They were probably worried that if the video got out it would hurt shoe sales.

I would write them some kind of e-mail or something saying how I will have to reconsider future purchases or something, but I never have liked Nike anyway... (More of an adidas guy.)

newrmdmike · Jul 8, 2009

their camp, their place their rules right? . . . in terms of photographers rights this is not really an issue.

the article said rules were not followed. and when something noteworthy came up they fell back on their rules to keep it from causing a stir. sounds okay to me, just a little lame we don't get to see.

Josh66 · Jul 8, 2009

Their rules don't give them the right to confiscate personal property without a court order.

They would have been well within their rights to tell the two people to stop filming (and kick them out if they refused), or prohibit them from even bringing their cameras in.
I don't think they have the right to confiscate film though.

The guys were probably coerced into giving consent. Either that, or they just didn't know better.

KmH · Jul 8, 2009

newrmdmike said:
their camp, their place their rules right? . . . in terms of photographers rights this is not really an issue.

You bet it's an issue, and it goes well beyond photographers rights.

Ever hear of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This is fundamental, don't you think?.

newrmdmike · Jul 9, 2009

. . . . i must be missing something, bc you can sure bet if you were on my property (or my private event) and i said no pictures, and you took them i would have done the same thing.

yeah i'm all about the constitution, and politics . . . . speaking of which kmh, obamas approval just dropped 14 points in your state.

Yemme · Jul 9, 2009

Like Michael Jordan said... Every endorsement that was given back in the day was earned. Now the corporations are just choosing a player with the hopes they have talent.:meh:

KmH · Jul 9, 2009

newrmdmike said:
. . . . i must be missing something, bc you can sure bet if you were on my property (or my private event) and i said no pictures, and you took them i would have done the same thing.

yeah i'm all about the constitution, and politics . . . . speaking of which kmh, obamas approval just dropped 14 points in your state.

I guess that means the answer is no.

When you get some spare time check out what constitutes an assault and what the penalties can be.

newrmdmike · Jul 9, 2009

confiscate is all it says, that could even mean they just said,

"you can't be filming, give us the film or we will give you a hell of a law suit."
confiscate doesn't mean willing physical harm to someone . . . which was what the legal def i found was for assault.

"Ever hear of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights." -yeah, i have. its something i swore to uphold with my life . . . i find it soooo fundamental that i frequently find myself here to make sure i'm up for the task File:Mackall AAF.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so fundamental that i spend everyday in S.O.A.F.
don't question my patriotism.

in the interest of a valid conversation kindly explain to me how there was a rights violation, or an assault . . .when i said I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING i wasn't being a smar tass, but serious-your the working pro and i'm not. i'm only questioning.

musicaleCA · Jul 10, 2009

Not being up on US law, I'll speak to what I know about Canadian law. Here, saying anything like "give us that tape or we'll sue" would constitute a threat, and that alone is a criminal act here. We have fairly severe fines and reasonable jail times for such behaviour. It is also entirely illegal for anyone to confiscate the personal property of someone else without a court order, or in the case of police, as part of the normal search and seizure after the subject has been arrested for criminal acts. And here, we also have stiff penalties for such unlawful confiscation of personal property, particularly if done under coercion (such as threatening a lawsuit).

It's as O|||||||O said. The Nike officials had every right to tell them to stop filming, or eject them from the premises. If the people filming were ejected, they'd be trespassing if they entered again, whether or not they were filming. Oddly, some courts in some states have set such a crime as precedent to be used as a tort to convict the same person of photography on a premises that they've been banned from. Really weird.

Anyway, what the Nike officials did was criminal. And in Canada it would be criminal regardless of whether or not the property was given willingly (because the people giving up the property could be considered to be in distress). I'm reasonably sure it works similarly under US law.

Confiscating the property is beyond their rights (and even beyond the rights of a police officer if they weren't doing anything criminal). Ejecting them from the premises for not following the reasonable rules they put in place is not.

What I think is most unfortunate about this situation is that this will set a precedent in many people's minds, particularly people of some authority over a particular premises (say, a store, or restaurant, or what-have-you), that they can freely confiscate cinematographic or photographic media from anyone on their turf. (I'm just thankful I've never had to explain this to anyone. I've been asked to stop taking photos in stores before, or even just asked if I was taking my photos for profit—in which case I just kindly explain what I'm doing, and put away the camera or make nice and keep shooting.)

newrmdmike · Jul 10, 2009

canadan law is ridiculous i think, but i appreciate the knowledge being dropped on it.
mark steyn much? he has never painted a canada i would want to take part in.

as uncultured as it might seem, i can't believe people have gone so soft . . . the photographer gave it up without it coming to physical blows, and i doubt any threat was actually made. the real point is we don't know the details and i think its wrong to jump from "nike is being a bad sport about one of their sponsored players getting wrecked" to "nike broke the law" when all we know is that the photographer was "asked to relinquish his tape.", which he did.

p.s. musicaleCA don't forget to keep ahold of the handrails !

newrmdmike · Jul 10, 2009

haha, here you go,
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/ROCHESTER-NY/WHTK-AM/RYAN%20Miller.wav

some fuel for the fire.

sounds like they asked nicely and he dumbly gave it up.

AduNeButt · Jul 10, 2009

Yemme said:
Like Michael Jordan said... Every endorsement that was given back in the day was earned. Now the corporations are just choosing a player with the hopes they have talent.:meh:

Are you saying Lebron James hasn't earned his sponsor? Err...

And to the point of the story, why is everyone blowing this up? Ever played a pickup game? The guy who plays hard defense is nobody's friend, Lebron probably half jumped or played lax-defense like normal people do in pickup games. A 6'8" Forward who was a runner-up for NBA Defensive Player of the Year can certainly block a 6'4" college guard who will be excited if he has any play time his first year in the NBA.

musicaleCA · Jul 10, 2009

newrmdmike said:
p.s. musicaleCA don't forget to keep ahold of the handrails !

Huh? And what don't you like about Canadian law? (I'm quite fond of some parts of the criminal code and privacy laws in BC; they very clearly allow for my candid photography.)

And Mark Steyn? Just what sort of picture is he painting of Canada?