| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Family sues for exposure of O’Neal pictures
Erik Bishoff, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 03.24.06 |
->> My heart goes out to O'Neal's family and I can only imagine what they must be thinking and feeling.
Lawsuits relating to deaths are often impossible to understand. It is especially tragic for the family in cases such as this one that are complicated by the fact that the victim is an apparently healthy young man with a very promising future.
Here's a thought. Is O'Neil's family planning on suing the University of Missouri-Columbia for wongful death? They may want conrol of the images to use in their case and to prevent the University from having access to them to use in its defence.
Then again... maybe they are acting out of something more raw and emotional. They may simply be disturbed by the idea that images of their son's last minutes of life are out there and in the control of a media organization that may do with them as they please. Photo's, as we know, are powerful things and some believe the capture a lot more than just a two-dimensional image.
Just my $0.02. |
|
Jenna Isaacson Pfueller, Photographer
 |
Columbia | Mo | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 03.24.06 |
| ->> I'll be in court on Monday morning for the judge's decision. |
|
Julian Jenkins, Photographer
 |
Meridian | ID | USA | Posted: 2:08 PM on 03.24.06 |
->> Jenna-
Let us know how things go. Great issue here. |
|
Nathan Pier, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Racine | WI | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 03.24.06 |
->> Erik, the last minutes of a lot of people lifes are in the hands of he media and I don't see media outlets being sued for control. Also, there is nothing saying that both sides can't use the same photos to try to prove their respective arguments. In the recent case that was on every TV station on earth of the lawyer shooting outside a California courtroom, both the prosecution and defense used the video footage to try to prove their sides.
Kudos to the paper for not giving up the photos to the family who clearly have a less than sentimental reason for wanting them and shame on the family who is doing nothing to honor the memory of their son by making this tragic event only about money. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
 |
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:02 PM on 03.24.06 |
->> Nathan,
I agree - it's a tragedy about ONeal. Reminds me of the old joke about why sharks won't eat lawyers - professional courtesey.
Glad the newspaper isn't rolling over on this one. They shouldn't. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
 |
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 03.24.06 |
->> "Kudos to the paper for not giving up the photos to the family who clearly have a less than sentimental reason for wanting them and shame on the family who is doing nothing to honor the memory of their son by making this tragic event only about money."
Nathan et al:
At this point, as the article states, we don't know why the family or lawyers want the other images; so far they've not responded to questions, that I know of. Until they do, I think maybe, just maybe, we should hold off on making assumptions and the like. There's no need to start implying nefarious or less-than genuine intentions on any body's part.
Obviously I stand by my employer's decision -- it's simply our policy to not share "outs" ... period -- but I certainly don't assume the worst when I think about all this, if you get my meaning.
Personally, I just think we'd all be better off if we left assumptions out of this and waited for the facts to come out ... as they will.
Respectfully,
- gerry - |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
 |
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:48 AM on 03.25.06 |
->> Maybe I'm missing something here, but there was no promise of anonymity for the people in the photographs, and the paper had no problem displaying 18 photos.
Respectfully, it strains credibility to suggest that the photographer and paper don't know why the family and its lawyers would want the images. That's like the boot camp officials in Florida saying that they don't understand why the family of a boy who died after a severe beating would want the surveillance video of the beating.
Unless I'm missing something, journalistic independence and First Amendment freedoms don't give journalists carte blanche to decide which causes merit disclosure and which don't. If the paper was willing to publish 18 photos from before the collapse until after the player left the field, it is difficult for them to claim that there could be some sort of chilling effect if they are required to reveal the balance of the images. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 9:27 AM on 03.25.06 |
->> Sam:
I'm weary of getting too into this, so after the following thoughts I'll respectfully "bow out" of this discussion. Since the matter as a whole is far from resolved, the last thing I want people supposing is that I speak for the Tribune; I don't -- I speak for Gerry.
Keep in mind that the Tribune is not making some kind of exception in this particular case -- again, to my knowledge, it is NOT the paper's policy to share unpublished (published meaning print and web) photos with the public. This rule applies to everyone -- some mom wanting that photo of Little Johny's first touchdown; grandma wanting Little Johny winning is first spelling bee; etc. They are only allowed to purchase those images that were published. Period.
Why should the Tribune make an exception now? Neither the O'Neals nor their lawyers have given satisfactory reasons for said action; in fact, as far as I know, they've given no reason at all. From the article:
For "a judge to order the examination of a reporter's notes or a photographer's photos, lawyers must prove the information is critical to the case, they've exhausted all other avenues and the information is relevant."
And, as Sandra Davidson also states in the article, if the Tribune does give in, the "newsroom would become an open target ... If the attorney comes back with a narrowly honed request, that's one thing. If they want every photo regardless of its relevance, that could be viewed as a fishing expedition."
If they give in now, where does it stop? Suppose I finally get to working on that Meth story ... undoubtedly I may come across a subject or two involved in -- or who has knowledge of -- illegal activities. What's to stop the cops from trying to get that info from the paper? There's a bigger picture here that cannot be overlooked.
The Trib's images -- outtakes and all -- are no different than the contents of a reporter's notebook. The unfortunate thing about this whole issue is that Missouri does not have any kind of shield law; perhaps this case will help make one a reality.
- gerry - |
|
Chris Machian, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 03.25.06 |
->> I have never heard of newspapers giving over their notes or outtakes over to anyone. This was taught in basic journalism classes. I live in Nebraska, they have one of the best shield laws. When you allow people access to outtakes of photos, it leads down the "slippery slope". Eventually people will want to know your confidential sources, and you won't be able to have anyone trust your promise of confidentiality. No one will talk to you, it will make your job harder.
For example, if you wanted to do a story on illegal immigration, and photograph a family in this country illegally. You gain access by promising anonomity.
If you reveal outtakes in the above action when lawyers ask you to, they can argue you have to every time a lawyer asks to. INS will want to know who these people are, will want your notes with their address and photos with their faces.
You can't keep your promise. |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | United States | Posted: 10:58 PM on 03.25.06 |
->> Sam,
I studied the full take of these photos. I went though and counted how many pictures of O'Neal were taken. The paper published 18 images, yes. As we all know when a photographer is taking photos he or she takes many photos of the same scene. Jenna photographed 18 scenes of O'Neal during practice and those 18 sequences yielded 59 photos where O'Neal is distinguishable. The rest of the 622 images are of other players for our files. I for one can't see anything to be gained. The most important images were published with a time stamp. I think the lawyers are waisting their time because they will gain no additional information if they gain access to the images. There was a host of players, a bunch of coaches and a gaggle of journalists who are all eye witnesses who all saw some or all of what happened. If the lawyers do win this will set a very bad precident. The first amendment gauntees a free press. If our files are open for every lawyer and goverment entity to tromp though it's not very free, is it? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
 |
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 1:34 AM on 03.26.06 |
->> Jenna and all of you at the Tribune, I'll be thinking about you Monday. My thoughts and prayers will be with you.
:~)
Jody |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 3:56 AM on 03.26.06 |
->> Good luck to those of you at the Tribune. And a word of advice: when involved in litigation (or when litigation is highly likely), don't talk about your case on message boards. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Our curiosity can wait until something is decided. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:00 AM on 03.26.06 |
->> Gerry,
I respectfully disagree with your comparison of outtakes to a reporter's notebook, particularly in this case. I also disagree that giving in to the lawyers makes the newsroom a target in all cases. Here's why:
The slippery slope that should concern all journalists relates more to trust, access and sources. If a source does not wish to be identified, the source can request anonymity, and provided the reporter has the lawful ability to provide anonymity, the reporter can make notes based upon the conversation. Those notes, we would all likely agree, are protected and not subject to disclosure from government or other sources.
Here, the photographs show before, during and after the collapse, and show the nature of the limited assistance that the university provided. Apparently, the photographer and paper were not concerned with the chilling effect the publication of 18 images might have on the university, particularly as it relates to providing access to practices in the future (indeed, this could very well help set a precedent among universities to preclude photographers from practices so there is no evidence of what was or was not done).
Having already disclosed the more sensitive aspects of the photographs--akin to revealing to the sensitive information in a reporter's notebook--there's really no legitimate basis to withhold the remaining photographs of the player from legal process.
Gerik,
There's a phrase, perhaps more common among legal circles, that is particularly appropriate to this case: bad facts make bad law. This seems to be such a case. The fact that so much information and so many photographs were published makes it very difficult to argue that the remaining photographs of the player are somehow protected under a first amendment theory or otherwise. The fact that there were other witnesses doesn't alter the reality of the situation: individual perception is often flawed, memories fade, and those who have been accused of negligence have no incentive to testify, much less fully and honestly, about what transpired. The real power of a photograph is that it creates a lasting record, which can often reveal more than what can be gained from a witness' memory.
While I agree with you that the other images--the one that don't show the player--should fall into a separate category, I can see an argument where even those would be relevant. The images might show which athletes and employees were in the vecinity and therefore witnesses.
I also agree that this case could set a bad precedent. That's all the more reason to find a solution that does not involving blind assertion of first amendment rights. Such short-sightedness coupled with the facts that the paper has already stacked up against itself may very well result in a decision that negatively impacts all journalists.
Chris,
I generally agree with you that journalists have a right (in most instances) to promise and protect sources anonymity. There's a vast difference, however, between promising to protect anonymity and the situation where you've published 18 photographs in sequence.
With regard to your INS example, there are already such restrictions on a reporter's ability to promise anonymity. While it may have been another case of bad facts making bad law, the case of the reporters involved with the government leak of a CIA operative's identity demonstrate that there are limitations even to first amendment protections. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 03.26.06 |
->> “Apparently, the photographer and paper were not concerned with the chilling effect the publication of 18 images might have on the university, particularly as it relates to providing access to practices in the future (indeed, this could very well help set a precedent among universities to preclude photographers from practices so there is no evidence of what was or was not done).”
It’s at this point that you lose all credibility with your argument Sam. To assume the paper wasn’t concerned at all with the effects of publishing those photos reeks of ignorance and your lack of understanding in regards to how discussions take place inside a newsroom. We are concerned about EVERYTHING that we publish. We have good discussions, check our facts, and weigh the public’s right to know against the subject’s right to privacy. Sometimes we publish out of concern and sometimes we don’t.
“Having already disclosed the more sensitive aspects of the photographs--akin to revealing to the sensitive information in a reporter's notebook--there's really no legitimate basis to withhold the remaining photographs of the player from legal process.”
Lawyers make their arguments based on precedent. If newspapers started offering up outtakes from every wreck, crime scene or any other event where a lawsuit is pending, then newspapers would have to employ an army of people to meet the requests of lawyers beating down our doors for our unpublished content.
A free press cannot be guaranteed in this country if we lose our ability to disseminate the information without fear of having to answer to the authorities every time someone thinks we may have material to help them out. We are not an extension of the local police department or of the courts. Too often, the information requested by lawyers is a result of them being too lazy to discover it for them selves.
What happens to the media’s credibility if our sources stop giving us information for fear of it landing in the hands of the justice system?
There is no line to be drawn here. Either we give up the goods upon request or we don’t. And to this date, we’d all rather rot in jail than see our journalistic integrity erode away with our publications.
“I also agree that this case could set a bad precedent. That's all the more reason to find a solution that does not involving blind assertion of first amendment rights. Such short-sightedness coupled with the facts that the paper has already stacked up against itself may very well result in a decision that negatively impacts all journalists.”
Again, you’re making a ridiculous assumption Sam. You accuse the paper of being shortsighted and making blind assertions regarding first amendment rights without ever being part of the Tribune’s discussions in regards to this story. Jim Robertson is the managing editor of the Tribune. Before you post again on this topic, why not give him a call on Monday. He loves a good debate. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
 |
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 12:26 PM on 03.26.06 |
->> "I respectfully disagree with your comparison of outtakes to a reporter's notebook"
I'd have to disagree with your disagreement.
Does everything from a reporter's notebook go into the printed story? No. Does every quote get printed? No. Does a story get edited, shaped, cut down? Yes. Are choices made by the reporter and the editor as to what is relevent to the paper's telling of the story? Yes
So how can you not equate the unused information in a reporter's notebook with taken-but-unpublished photos?
Beats me. |
|
Ernie Rice, Photographer
 |
Paragould | AR | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 03.26.06 |
->> Maybe I'm just weird, or maybe I've been in the academic environment for too long. But I really don't care why the family wants the photos. Why I don't feel that they should have them has nothing to do with them.
We can't allow ourselves to become the eyes of the "authorities", aren't journalists supposed to be the eyes of the public, to inform them of what is happening in our world.
I want to know why we aren't talking about getting adequate shield laws in Missouri. |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | United States | Posted: 3:51 PM on 03.26.06 |
->> Jody,
Thanks. And send up a prayer for the O'Neal family while you are at it. They lost a loved one and all they are doing is trying to make the university set things right. So even though I disagree with the lawyers on this one I still feel for the family and their loss. It's a terrible thing all around.
Chuck,
You are right. And yes from what I understand the lawyers have submitted copies of about every article, interview and message board posting related to this. But there's no more to say then what has already been said prior to the lawsuit against the trib.
Stanfield,
Thanks buddy.
Sam,
The paper didn't stack anything against itself, it reported a complete and full factual account of what happened as part of its news coverage. That's our responsibility. The lawyers already have those photos. I believe that they are enough to bring back clear memories of that day from any witness.
Perhaps I'm wrong but If I read what you are saying Sam, I think what you are going after is making a decision on a case by case scenario. This time it's okay to let them have the files. But when they ask for out-takes from the riot or the meth bust, then no. Unfortunately that would be impossible to defend. We can't have it both ways. One will lead to another and when the newspaper photographer is seen as a agent of law enforcement and litigation we endanger ourselves to no end. |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:24 PM on 03.28.06 |
->> It is obvious to me that outtakes should be protected and inviolate but to be truthful I have always been troubled by the argument comparing a photographer's take to a reporter's notebook. The problem with that is a notebook can contain not only direct quotes but also opinions and personal observations made by the reporter.
A photographer's take might include photographs which were made for personal reasons, but only the photographer would really know that. It would be difficult to point to a photograph and call it an opinion which provides evidence of predisposition or bias. Provided that the photographer is an ethical photojournalist, the photo is what it is - a documentary moment captured in the same spirit as how an exact quote is recorded.
I believe the more effective argument is ensuring that the press reinforces it's status as the "Fourth Estate". It is imperative that we remain independent of government and that means resisting government's attempts at co-opting our work.
It's bad enough that working for a media outlet puts us in the same light of "The Establishment" also occupied by government and big corporations. In many people's minds they think we are working hand-in-hand with government and sadly it's true to a degree for some networks and newspapers. Look at Fox News and the NYT's Judith Miller White House "leaks". One can make the argument that such arrangements have actually made it more dangerous, or at least more difficult, to be a photojournalist.
The role of the press is to watch government. It's hard for readers to believe that and trust the press when it is seen to be freely cooperating with government.
Keep the faith, Jenna, and good luck.
-Ron- |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 7:14 PM on 03.29.06 |
->> Keep your chin up Jenna! We're here for you.
:~)
Jody |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 10:11 PM on 03.29.06 |
->> "A photographer's take might include photographs which were made for personal reasons, but only the photographer would really know that. It would be difficult to point to a photograph and call it an opinion which provides evidence of predisposition or bias."
What if you take a picture that compresses things so that it "looks" as though something bad is going on? You didn't take it for the story but did it for the simple fact that it looked cool. No intention of ever publishing it. Still... |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
 |
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 5:09 PM on 03.30.06 |
->> My condolences to the family and best wishes a return to normalcy for you, Jenna.
There is a terrific teaching opportunity here to write about it in a column for us here on SS if you desire.
You might want to do that someday if not now.
Jim |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 5:11 PM on 03.30.06 |
->> correction :
should read "best wishes for a return to normalcy" |
|
Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Iowa City | IA | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 03.30.06 |
| ->> Best of luck on Monday Jenna... |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 9:41 PM on 03.30.06 |
->> What if you take a picture that compresses things so that it "looks" as though something bad is going on? You didn't take it for the story but did it for the simple fact that it looked cool. No intention of ever publishing it. Still...
In the end, it is still a documentary photograph, not an opinion indicating bias. A person reads whatever they want to in a photograph, one person might think it looks like something bad is happening, another won't see anything at all. My point is that photographs are more subjective in regards to interpretation than a written note which states a literal concept or thought.
Good Luck, Jenna.
-Ron- |
|
Ron Erdrich, Photographer
|
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 04.18.06 |
->> Forgive my ignorance here, but I have a question that relates, in some way anyhow, to the earlier discussion of notes and their relation to a photographer's entire take.
My question is why does Jenna have to appear at all in court? Yes, she took the photographs but there isn't anything there than what you can see. There is no parsing of words like with notes, these are documentary images, very straightforward.
Why doesn't the publisher of the Columbia Daily Tribune appear in court? After all, isn't it the newspaper which owns the photographs and has total control over their usage? I can see how she could be called as a witness, but her testimony to what she saw is different than providing photographs.
My point is that those photographs aren't her's to provide, unless there is some arrangement Trib photographers have with their paper, so why does she have to take point on this?
Thanks,
-Ron- |
|
Jenna Isaacson Pfueller, Photographer
|
Columbia | Mo | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 04.19.06 |
->> Long answer short-- a paper can't claim reporter priviledge, only a single person.
~Jenna |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | United States | Posted: 11:32 AM on 04.27.06 |
->> Judge orders Tribune to release unpublished photos.
http://www.digmo.com/news/story.php?ID=19648
As you can imagine we're very disappointed and unsure of what will happen next. |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
 |
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 12:24 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> "Oxenhandler ruled that although there is no shield law in Missouri, the attorneys’ request for the photos met three conditions typical of a shield law: the photos are relevant to their case, information from the photos is necessary or critical to their cases and all alternative sources for the information have been exhausted."
I'm not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but how on Earth could the attorneys assert, and the judge believe the assertion, that the unpublished photos are relevant to the case. All that could be known is that the photos MIGHT be relevant. "Might be" makes for a slippery slope in court rulings. As others have stated, this is a fishing expedition and it sets a chilling precedent.
Kudos to Jenna, Gerik and the rest of the Trib staff for fighting the good fight. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
St Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 1:05 PM on 04.27.06 |
| ->> Food for thought: without shield laws, do we delete our outtakes from sensitive situations? |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | United States | Posted: 1:20 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Mike,
That's a discussion that is happening here. I'm not sure if a policy like that has to be an all or nothing deal. How does one decide which is sensitive and which is not? |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
St Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 2:31 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Here's the full text. It's also nice how the court determines reprint costs.
After due consideration the Court finds as follows: As acknowledged by counsel for photographer Jenna Isaacson ("Movant,") Missouri has no shield law codifying a reporter's right to a qualified privilege in newsgathering. Therefore, the Court looks to the application of case law. In the instant case, Movant was the only media photographer that fortuitously accepted an invitation to cover a football workout at the University of Missouri. Notwithstanding Movant's post deposition, post event assertions that there were limitations on the photos that she might take, the record is absolutely clear that no promise of confidentiality existed; no hint of promise of confidentiality existed. The best that Movant can argue (and does argue) is that there existed a "perception of confidentiality," something "akin to a promise of confidentiality" and such impressions do not arise the level of a promise of confidentiality. Movant argues that the burden is on the Plaintiffs and Defendants to show the information sought is relevant; that it is necessary or critical to a claim or defense; and that all alternative sources for the information have been exhausted. The Court finds that the following facts are pertinent to the disposition of Movant's contentions regarding relevancy, criticality and exhaustion: "
No one can doubt the uniqueness of the photos . . . they provide the only known photographic history of the very subject matter of the case at bar."
The photos provide a time-sequenced record of a critical portion of the events describe in the lawsuit including the identification of unidentified witnesses and equipment of all kinds and descriptions. " The photos provide a literal photographic point of view that cannot be duplicated from any other source, known or unknown. " Though Movant has openly acknowledged her anticipated obligation to testify about what she saw at the time she was taking the photos and, further, her willingness to do so, such does not rise to full scale replacement for the photographs (any more than Movant hypothetically describing what she saw at a recent art gallery visit . . .a picture is worth a thousand words). "
Movant has voluntarily published a portion of the photographs and has generally and openly discussed the photos, including discussing what is depicted in the photos for various news publications. If waiver were an issue in the Court's analysis, such disclosure would likely amount to the same. "
In response to prior discovery, Movant failed to produce all previously published photographs. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the photographs relevant. Unique to this case is the fact that both Plaintiffs and Defendants assert that the photos are necessary and critical to their respective claims and defenses. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concurs. Though the Movant suggests that alternative sources of the information contained in the photos are, first, available, and, second, have yet to be exhausted, the Court finds that said contention is without merit. Though the Court finds no obligation on the part of the Movant to produce alternative sources for exhaustion, the Court notes that Movant has not suggested any such sources. Notwithstanding such fact, the photos are unique and not subject to duplication. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that exhaustion is complete and no alternative sources exist.
From the evidence adduced, the Court finds that 18 photos were previously produced to Plaintiffs and Defendants at a cost of $581.25, each, a total of $1,162.50; that the remaining 604 photographs currently sought exist on electronic media and are readily available; that utilizing the same rate of approximately $32.00 per image, the anticipated cost of producing the 604 photos is approximately $19,000.00 per party, a total of $38,000.00; that said charge is not reasonable; that a reasonable charge for said production is $2.50 per image, $1,510.00 per party, a total of $3,020.00. Missouri Rule 57.09(b)(2). Motion for protective order denied. Motion to compel granted. State ex rel. Classic III, Inc. v. Ely, 954 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each forthwith tender to Movant $1,510.00. Upon tender, Movant shall within 10 business days thereafter produce directly to the parties the 604 photographs. The same shall be produced in recognizable digital media form (or in such other form as shall be agreed by the parties). The photos so-produced shall only be used by the parties in direct conjunction with the case at bar; the same shall not be otherwise disclosed or published except upon specific order of this Court. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:48 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> How does the judge rule that the published rate of $32/image is somehow "not reasonable"? That's obviously the going rate.
It looks like the judge started with a $3k "target" and reverse engineered the $2.50/photo charge.
The order also fails to address what rights are granted with this release/payment.
Beyond the issue of shield laws and "media privelege" I think there's a case to be made regarding how remuneration, costs, and implied rights. Jenna and her employer are being trampled here in more ways than one. |
|
Matt Barton, Photographer
 |
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 2:51 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Well that is very disappointing. Not only do they have to turn over the photos, the judge LOWERS the price to $2.50 a pic? That's garbage. $38k is not a lot of money considering the situation. The family will sue for millions no doubt.
Will the judge make the lawyers lower their fees next? Not bloody likely. |
|
Mike Shepherd, Photographer
 |
Wichita | KS | USA | Posted: 3:15 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> mike, gerik and others ... deciding to keep only published pictures of sensitive situations in your archive might very well be the only solution. it won't help you in this case, but it was help you in the future. at the time i interned in muskegon, that is what the photo staff did. with little or no shield law, a pair of ambulance chasing lawyers would subpeona the paper's negatives from every wreck covered. it went to court, long before my internship, and what resulted is that the photographers only keep the single frame published. they attorneys still subpeona the photos, but the only thing they get a reprint of the published image and they pay, i believe, a higher reprint price than the general public does. other files (or negatives at the time) were trashed. so just know that if that is what you decided to do, you wouldn't be the only one doing that.
keep your heads up and keep fighting the good fight.
-shep |
|
Parker Eshelman, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Columbia | MO | | Posted: 3:34 PM on 04.27.06 |
| ->> $2.50 is the amount the local Walgreens 1hr photo guy said it would cost to make a print. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
 |
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 4:30 PM on 04.27.06 |
| ->> $2.50 wouldn't buy the judge a 4x6 of his kid fumbling the winning touchdown from any of us.... but that's not the real issue here. |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> " ... deciding to keep only published pictures of sensitive situations in your archive might very well be the only solution."
Man, I'd hate it if it came to that. We get a LOT of mileage out of our file art here, especially with our annual, massive advertorial special section "Our Town" ... not to be confused with the photocolumn of the same name, which is a lot more fun to work on.
I'm glad Lent is finally over ... I think we all need a beer ... or two ... or five ... around here right now.
- g - |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
 |
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Man that stinks. Not just about the turning over of the images but for the judge to say that the fee was unreasonable and to lower it to 2.50 an image is an extra slap in the face. Don't you love when someone tells you that you or product is not worth the amount you sell it for and the turn around and charge an outrageous fee for there services, IE a lawyer's fee.
Paul |
|
Jeff Frings, Photographer
 |
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 7:46 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Question for any lawyers out there. Do different rules apply for civil and criminal cases.
I can kind of understand if a prosecuter needed pictures to put away a mass murderer and all the other tests were met, as the judge claims happened in this case, but to basically give away all those photos so the attorneys can win millions, is crazy. If someone wanted to buy the photos to use to make millions they would have to pay big $$$$.
I sure hope the paper appeals this decision.
The scariest part is the judges assertion that,
"Movant has voluntarily published a portion of the photographs and has generally and openly discussed the photos, including discussing what is depicted in the photos for various news publications. If waiver were an issue in the Court's analysis, such disclosure would likely amount to the same. "
So because the paper published some photos, they waive the right to not publish others???
Good luck and keep us posted. |
|
Gerik Parmele, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | United States | Posted: 8:02 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Jeff,
Appellate courts typically create precedent. I'm guessing if the paper appeals and looses it will be much, much worse for future cases.
Here's our story from this afternoon's edition - http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Apr/20060427News004.asp |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> Gerik,
All courts create precedent. The only difference is that the higher the court (e.g., intermediate appellate courts are higher than trial courts, state supreme courts are generally higher than intermediate appellate courts, the U.S. Supreme Court is higher than all other courts), the more lower courts must/will (depending upon whether the precedent is binding or persuasive) follow the decision. The next time a similar issue arises, you can bet that the party seeking to compel production will present Judge Oxenhandler's opinion to that court for consideration and as an example of how the issue should be decided. With each successive decision, changing the course or direction of those decisions becomes that much more difficult.
While a trial court in another state might not be willing to follow Judge Oxenhandler's opinion, the same court might be persuaded to follow the intermediate appellate court's decision (assuming there's no similar precedent in that other state). The higher the issue goes, the greater the stakes and greater the likelihood that the precedent will be adopted by other states' courts.
I've already said that bad facts make bad law. Personally, I'd rather see the meth lab bust case where the newspaper publishes one photograph as the test case, rather than this caes where so many images were published. In light of Oxenhandler's comment that a "picture is worth a thousand words," the last thing we need is an appellate court examining the issue, looking at the kind of data that the images have on a de novo review, and finding that digital images are worth more than a thousand words. |
|
Tommy Metthe, Photographer
 |
Abilene | TX | | Posted: 11:55 PM on 04.27.06 |
->> This whole situation is unbelieveable, it's bad enough that he's allowing the pictures in the first place, but then he decides how much a photo is worth? Unbelieveable!!
I wonder if we can get this judge to lower gas prices as well? |
|
Mark Smith, Photographer
|
Elk City | OK | USA | Posted: 3:36 AM on 04.28.06 |
->> When I squeeze the button, I make an image. Depending upon whether or not I, myself, have made a contractual agreement with another entity, that image belongs to either me or that particular entity. It might be once, or it might be 622 times...regardless, the simple fact remains. I made it, and I made a contractual arrangement for someone else to own it, or, I do.
What we are talking about is intellectual property, either Jenna's or the Trib's. What the judge has done is take that property, against the 4th amendment of the Constitution.
Perhaps, I'm just an idealist. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
|| Sponsor Special Deals
We BUY & TRADE you OLD Gear
|
Available from:
Adorama Camera
|
Price: $0.00 |
Notes:
We all have some cameras & lenses sitting around collecting dust right?...Or you work at a Newspaper that has downsized?...What to do with your excess photographic equipment? Adorama's Used Dept is looking for your used gear to purchase or take in trade. Contact me directly jsnyder@adorama.com or 1-800-223-2500 X2435 and I can fill you in on the details. Cash in your pocket is better than sitting on the shelf, right?
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|