Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Illinois Press Association sues the IHSA
Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 6:43 PM on 11.01.07
->> http://illinoispress.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&item...

Looks like things have stepped up a notch
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:43 PM on 11.01.07
->> One way or the other I can't wait to see how this turns out.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Howley, Photographer
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 9:11 AM on 11.02.07
->> I'm afraid they're going to find out they wasted their time and money.

How can the papers sue the high school group when they're not sueing the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL or the NCAA?

"Allowing a private party to have unfettered access while limiting the press is another example of prior restraint and also violates the state’s “equal protection” clause of the Illinois Constitution, according to the lawsuit."

So the Bulls appear to be in violation of this as well if they allow only Getty to distribute photos for non-editorial use but is the IPA sueing them?

As someone who makes money selling high school sports photos from the regular season and postseason games (not shot by the state's contracted company) I'm not a fan of limiting use, but I don't see where not allowing a newspaper to sell a photo is restricting the newspaper's mission.

I know it's all about money and the IHSA is trying to maximize revenue to limit the costs to member schools. I know in Ohio, the OHSAA makes enough money off the football and basketball tournaments that member schools don't have to pay any dues. So while the newspapers may argue the IHSA's rules are harming a small part of the public, the IHSA could argue that overturning them harms every taxpayer in the state.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense and I'll be anxious to see what happens.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 11.02.07
->> John, the difference is that the NBA, NFL, NHL, etc. aren't run by tax payers money. They are private entities.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Whitley, Photographer
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 9:44 AM on 11.02.07
->> Yes, those leagues are private, however most of them use facilities subsidized by tax dollars. So how can they be entirely private if they use a subsidized stadium or arena? What obligation do they have to the public that may be unfulfilled if the media can't serve the public?
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walt Middleton, Photographer, Photo Editor
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:53 AM on 11.02.07
->> This might be a dumb question... But does the IPA only represent journalistic media outlets? The reason I'm asking is... (With another question of course.) How is selling images from these events commercially considered journalistic in any way?

I mean am I missing something. From my understanding Illinois has contracted with a photographer or company of photographers to take event photos and sell them commercially, giving this company the sole license to sell them just like every university and pro team out there does with images of their respective sports.

Has the Illinois working media been selling their images commercially this whole time? I can't sell crap without a license and even when I have a license I've got restrictions. I'm jealous if in Illinois you don't need to worry about that.

I am anxious to see where this leads however, I expect I already know the outcome.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:59 AM on 11.02.07
->> Bob any guess on how many publicly funded state universities are in the NCAA Div. 1 ?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:38 AM on 11.02.07
->> Darren, the leagues in question might play in stadiums funded by the States they are located in, but there's a huge difference between that and being able to directly tax you or I. When I pay my taxes one of the checks I write out is to the school district I live in. I've never sent a tax check to the Philadelphia Phillies or Eagles.

Eric, Probably a bunch, but the Universities aren't the NCAA, they are members of the NCAA.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:12 AM on 11.02.07
->> Bob you totally lost me. The NCAA is a sanctioning body just like the IHSA. The NCAA is a private entity as are most of the state sanctioning bodies that deal with high school sports. It's the IHSA that is being sued not an individual school.

I'm really am trying to grasp the logic that by virtue or tax dollars newspapers gain some right that the rest of the public doesn't already have. Access to a sideline is a privilege.

Here in Mass the MIAA Super Bowls will be held at Gillette Stadium so I guess it will come down to who Bob Kraft wants in HIS stadium. Seeing as he is A. Donating the use of the stadium and B. paid for the darn thing himself.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 11.02.07
->> Eric, you asked earlier "how many publicly funded state universities are in the NCAA Div. 1", and I answered "Probably a bunch". What I was trying to say was that the publicly funded schools are not limiting what photographers can do with their photos, it's the NCAA. We agree on this, I think.

I think the misunderstanding is that you believe the IHSA to be private, and I believe that it's public. The IHSA is run by a board of directors, which is made up of Principals from schools in the association.

The IPAF is also asserting that the IHSA is public...“the overwhelming public character of IHSA membership is sufficient to confer state action for the application of constitutional protections of a free press and equal protection".

The newspaper I work for doesn't just cover high school sports. In yesterday's paper, for example, we ran 3 high school sports photos, and 6 school photos that had nothing to do with sports. We also run multiple stories including lists of honor roll students each semester, monthly board meetings, school plays, fund raisers...the list goes on and on.

So while newspapers might not have a "right" to be on the sidelines, I don't think it's unacceptable to expect to be given access after all of the other publicity they get from the paper.

The IPAF takes it a step further in stating, “After a century of supporting and promoting local school sports, newspapers have helped develop a market that the IHSA now wants for itself. We believe what they’re doing is unlawful.”

This entire conversation my not seem like it's of any interest to me, but Pennsylvania (PIAA) just put a similar, (maybe identical) wording in their policies.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:43 PM on 11.02.07
->> John wrote:
"As someone who makes money selling high school sports photos from the regular season and postseason games (not shot by the state's contracted company) I'm not a fan of limiting use, but I don't see where not allowing a newspaper to sell a photo is restricting the newspaper's mission. "


John,
If I buy a print from your online site can I give it to the local paper to use? Can I scan it and make it enlargements and Christmas cards? Can I give it to ESPN to use and charge them for it, but compensate other than the price of the print(s)?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 11.02.07
->> The IHSA post initial response to the lawsuit:

http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2007-11-2.htm
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:16 PM on 11.02.07
->> Looks like a few so far is missing the point why the IPA initiated the suit. The suit says the IHSA is attempting to limit freedom speech by regulating how newspapers deliver content to their readers, specifically speaking content available via the internet.

More and more papers are using the web to deliver content to their communities via slideshows, video clips, or photo galleries.

Making available reprints from published material, has always been a practice in the newspaper industry, long before the internet was conceived. What few people, especially those in the event photo business or focus solely on the sale of prints (are your really selling prints? Probably not.) understand, is that once an image or story is made available to the general public it is considered published. There is no distinction made in terms of format or medium, print or electronic or voice. The IPA in this case seeks to remove the limits the IHSA is attempting to impose.

The second issue is access whereas VIP, the vendor, is allowed free movement in the event area and the print media is restricted to certain locations that do not allow photographers to capture a unique/important moment or view. This is an important point to the photojournalists covering the events.

"I know it's all about money and the IHSA is trying to maximize revenue to limit the costs to member schools. I know in Ohio, the OHSAA makes enough money off the football and basketball tournaments that member schools don't have to pay any dues."

John -
Illinois' organization operates differently than Ohio's. For the IHSA, the relationship with their photo vendor is about having access to images for their internal use and publications according to the media director. The vendor, VIP, does not pay a licensing fee, vendor fee or "kick backs" according to the CEO of the company in a meeting I was in back in February. What the IHSA enjoys from the relationship is the ability to have images they need for their publications, press releases, website, and event programs without paying licensing fees for images they want to be able use.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer
Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 1:23 PM on 11.02.07
->> Here we allow high school websites to use our photos for free as long as they credit the paper. It's a community service.

This is worth paying close attention to. I'm sure other state high school sports leagues will be very interested in how this comes out. If IHSA wins this thing it could lead to this happening across the country.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 11.02.07
->> I'll venture a guess here - this never sees a jury. Settles out of court.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Howley, Photographer
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 11.02.07
->> Clark, in response to the questions a couple posts up: yes, you "can" do that but not legally.

Even though the IHSA isn't getting a cash payment, it is averting all the licensing costs thereby maximizing its bottom line. (I believe Ohio's agreement with VIP operates the same way.)

If photos/video are being used in legitimate editorial situations, then I don't believe any restrictions should be in place. The resale of images should be a separate issue.

And, yeah, I really am selling prints. I'm not getting rich off of it but it helps me pick up a new lense every now and then so I can do my freelancing jobs better.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Prelosky, Photographer
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 1:57 PM on 11.02.07
->> Mark,
I'll take the contrary point of view. With reports of state associations installing restrictive media access and resale poicies. I'll wager that one will wind up in US District court as a test case. State asscociations seem to be presuming rights unto themselves that are already elaborated by the Constitution. Here in Pennsylvania the PIAA seems to be claiming copyright ownership of material created by media outlets at district and championship events using language that seems similar to what we've seen from other states. No matter the results, watching the process play out will be interesting.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 11.02.07
->> Dave,

Understand your point.

My view is based on the belief that the stakes are too high for either side to lose. A loss by the IPA would embolden all state commissions to try the same, and for the IHSA to tighten down further. A loss by the IHSA would likely result in a rush to the court house in other states with restrictions, and a hesitancy to proceed in those that don't.

Since in my personal view the result is so binary - there would be no grey left for interpretation - the risk of proceeding by both parties greatly diminishes the expected value of the outcome.

By bringing suit, the IHSA must now weigh the perceived value of their contract with VIP, with the consequences of losing. Other state associations and press associations will have a vested interest in the outcome and will attempt to influence their Illinois' counterparties as best fits their individual perceptions of the risks involved.

By not acting, the IPA would have been fighting an endless struggle against ever tightening restrictions. They do not need a win in court to return to the status quo. They simply need the IHSA to return to their previous position. The threat of a loss in court on this issue may well prove to be sufficient to get them to do so.

Finally, neither entity has endlessly deep pockets. Note how quickly the IHSA caved on the multiplier issue a few years back when threatened with legal action. They ultimately ended up with one, but it was a more protracted process. How willing will the member schools be to pony up funding for such a legal defense on an issue that they likely don't have a strong opinion of to begin with. They aren't getting a kick back - what's in it for them.

Both sides have everything to lose and not much more than the status quo to win. If the IHSA wins will VIP suddenly double the value of what they provide the IHSA for exclusive access? If the IPA wins, they basically just get to keep doing what they're doing today.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Scott Strazzante, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 2:36 PM on 11.02.07
->> I am concerned with Clark's second point above about the media access not being equal to VIP's access.
I have been following a volleyball team from the start of the season and I guarantee if they make it to the state finals, the IHSA will attempt to limit my arena access to the team even though the team wants me to be with them.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Alan Stewart, Photographer
Corydon | IN | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 11.02.07
->> The Hoosier State Press Association is in discussions with the Indiana High School Athletic Association about the very same thing. Visual Sports Inc. wants to clamp down on newspapers' use of photos from state tournament games.

My biggest issue is that VSI doesn't cover all state tournament games ... only the state final.

If the IHSAA wanted to handcuff newspapers at the state final, I could deal with that. But they are wanting to lock us down at all levels of the state tournament ... which to me is pointless if VSI isn't going to be there to do what they've signed on to do.

For example, in boys and girls basketball, the result is of the 800 teams that take part in the state tournament, 16 (two percent) would get tourney photo coverage if the IHSAA/VSI have their way.

That's pretty bush league IMO.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:50 PM on 11.02.07
->> Mark,

I'm guessing that there are some pretty high level phone calls going on. I'm also going to bet that if this gets to the point of Monday's hearing, that the IHSA will find the NCAA as well as maybe a few pro leagues making contributions to the fight. Restrictions on secondary uses are a normal part of many credentials and if found to be a violation of IL law the ramifications go miles deeper than a high school basketball game.

Bob, thanks that clears things up for me. Yes you and I are at odds over whether the IHSA is a private or public body. I don't know about the IHSA but up here I know that the MIAA and RIIL are privately incorporated bodies. It would be a tough sell to ask a court to find that the state and IRS has been recognizing them as something that they are not for the last 70 years.

Clark media restrictions are a way of life at events. Media shooters are limited to the pit for 3 songs while someone shooting for the label might have access to every square inch of the venue and be allowed to shoot from start to finish. At the presidential debates and events the same is true. 'Press Areas' are established and photographers who are working with or for the various candidates will have extended or special access to areas that the press will never get to see.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:55 PM on 11.02.07
->> John wrote:
"Clark, in response to the questions a couple posts up: yes, you "can" do that but not legally."

What is legal or not is dependent on if you allow any of the actions I posted above. My question was when you "sell" a print do you allow people to use the image as they wish after it is purchased?

If the answer is "yes" then you are indeed "selling" an image. If your answer is "no" then you are licensing the image for a specific use. In this case the person has no benefits of ownership and legally in actuality is licensing "viewing rights" from you. People only 'buy' images and photographers only 'sell' images if at the time of purchase for the agreed upon price the full rights of ownership are transfered or shared.

If you license the image to more than one person for scrapbooks or for display in their home, then you are conveying "non-exclusive viewing rights". If you after licensing the image to a single user and do not make the image available for reproduction any further they will have "exclusive viewing rights".

There is a big difference between selling a print and licensing a print.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Bernacchi, Photographer
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 3:06 PM on 11.02.07
->> I have known Tom Hayes, President of VIP, for many many years. He is a great guy !

This is just the world we are in...

More good info at...

www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/03/athletics.html
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 11.02.07
->> Clark, it's my understanding that you can "sell" a print, without giving away the rights. The print is the actual product.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 11.02.07
->> Eric wrote:
"Restrictions on secondary uses are a normal part of many credentials"

Also at issue is what is secondary usage. Yes, restriction of secondary usage exist are generally focused on commercial usage not editorial. Limiting editorial usage whether published in print or electronically in my view encroaches on both freedom of speech and expression as well on the freedom of the press.

If this goes to court this will decision may set the standard in defining this term. The IHSA is defining secondary usage as anything that is not printed in the paper's daily or weekly edition. That is not the publishing industry standard. That would mean pre-season tabs, season year in reviews, use in high school yearbooks, sports books by companies like Human Kinetics, and any other form of editorial use would be verboten. This narrow definition restricts the rights of the newspaper/content providers from exercising both free speech and freedom to disseminate news/information.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Martin, Photographer
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 3:13 PM on 11.02.07
->> " I know in Ohio, the OHSAA makes enough money off the football and basketball tournaments that member schools don't have to pay any dues."

Every school in OH that belongs to OHSAA pays for their membership.

I'd be curious to see the outcome of one of these cases when one of the state assn.s comes up with reasonable language. ie. no copyright grab, or access restrictions. Just not allowing papers to sell prints. That seems to be the major concern with regards to making $ off of the event photo contract.

jeff
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:21 PM on 11.02.07
->> David B.-
Yes, Tom does seem like a great guy.

Bob F. -
I agree you can 'sell' a print, but then the buyer really doesn't 'own' the image and then in effect is leasing it or enjoying 'viewing rights'. Any lay person buying a print is not going to know the technical differences nor their limitations unless presented in writing at the time of purchase. In their mind they will believe they have bought the image.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:34 PM on 11.02.07
->> Eric,

All the more reason they can't afford to let this go to jury. Hearings, yes, but a jury trial no. With so much at stake, its not worth the risk of letting an Illinois jury, in Springfield, IL., settle a case, where the primary beneficiary may be seen to be a Wisconsin company.

I'd be more inclined to believe that those that currently enjoy the benefits of restricted secondary usage don't want that boat rocked - and would be more likely to pressure the IHSA to settle this out of court than they would be to fund the legal battle. In the first case, they win and doesn't cost them much. In the second case, they cough up the legal fees and worse, risk losing the case which would have much more severe financial consequences.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Stanton, Photographer
Tucson | Az | USA | Posted: 4:08 PM on 11.02.07
->> If the IHSA is like that of most state high school athletic organizations, they do not have the advertising revenue to promote its events. The daily newspapers and television stations have done that job for them for years.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Luther, Photographer
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 6:58 PM on 11.02.07
->> Some of these same issues were discussed in the Arkansas high school athletic association threads.

They are here:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26410

And here:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=26465

One of the things that keeps coming up in these threads is the difference between commerical and editorial use of images.

The following (albeit a little out of context if you haven't read the other threads) is somethng I wrote in the Arkansas thread:

-------

Selling the image for use in an ad for Chevy trucks or putting it on a Coke can makes it commerical use.

Selling the image itself is not commerical use. Newspapers have been selling the image printed on newsprint for as long as there has been technology to get pictures into the newspaper.

News outlets have been for-profit businesses since the founding of the country. The courts have long recognized that making a profit allows those organizations to contiue their news gathering efforts the next day.

Using the content we create to make a profit for the furtherance of our news gathering efforts and to promote our news organizations has been a long-standing, court-recognized right. That is why, for example, despite resitrictions on selling pictures taken at NBA games, newspapers can put thier front page on a t-shirt and sell that. That product relates to and promotes the newsgathering efforts of the publication.

That's why newspapers can take a picture they make at that same game and put it on a billboard or on a coffee mug that promotes the newspaper's sports coverage. But take that picture and sell it to a trading card company for use on their cards and you have crossed the line. Sell the picture to the trading card company president to put on his wall and you are back to acceptable use.

------

While the case law around these high school athletic associations may be somewhat sparse, the case law surrounding commerical and editorial use is quite robust and something that I wish more people on the boards would educate themselves about. Because the difference between editorial and commerical use is something that is fundamental to all our jobs...no matter which side of the fence we sit.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:51 PM on 11.02.07
->> what is sad and a little ironic is I guess if the IHSA board (according to an earlier post) is made up of principals and athletic directors from member schools) then they're paid with taxpayer money. are the lawyer's that are representing the rights grab going to be paid with that same taxpayer's money? if I was an Illinois taxpayer and found out about that I would be livid. and david, the fellow you mention might be a great guy but the IHSA didn't just snatch the idea of limiting the media's right to access out of thin air. I would think the wording was in said contract with the VIP organization, and if so....maybe the taxpayers shouldn't be bankrolling this legal battle....put the court costs on the business that wants NO competition. and I surely hope you were being facetious in saying "this is the world we are in" . we don't HAVE to be in that world unless we roll over and give up.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Vincent Johnson, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 10:22 PM on 11.02.07
->> As some one who use to run a high school sports web site and was one of the first companies banned by the IHSA from shooting a state finals event and as a former VIP freelancer, I kind of need to chime in on this.

First, on John Howley's comment on not suing the majors. The majors actually sued the papers. The NBA sued the New York Times in 1999 or 2000. They settled out of court and now have a mutual licensing agreement. I believe similar contracts regarding resales have happened between other leagues.

Second, the fact that the IHSA is trying to stop secondary use, including advertising. Meaning you can't promote your coverage of the state finals by using images from the state finals. To say the least. I also, wonder how that pertains to resale to other editorial outlets.

Third, And this is number one in my book, be very careful about companies that work as sports event photographers, soon they are going to start working a press wire service. Some already do. Imagine what happens when this gets pushed to the next level & the event photos are the only ones on the sidelines and each paper has to pay them to run photos.

Fourth, My biggest problem with the IHSA and other state Assc. doing this is;
A. They're implying that the papers cover games for the purpose of selling photos, not that the photos they sell are basically left over content that 80% of the time is of better quality than those from event photographers.
and
B. That they've basically signed away the rights to the students, without permission.

There are numerous other issues with this whole ordeal that I prefer not to announce publicly as they are more personal about the IHSA, VIP, the IPA and how I believe we as photographers will get screwed because quite frankly the only parties represented are the big boys, but a court decession will effect the working photographer more.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Vincent Johnson, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 10:25 PM on 11.02.07
->> If I was going to put my money on any one party though, I'd say it's the random parent that sues, either; the event company, the State Assc. or the news papers.

Because none of them have a signed model release, or consent in anyway to sell their image or likeness.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

William Luther, Photographer
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 11.02.07
->> Vincent,

Again, going back to my previous post...

Newspapers don't need model releases, becasue the uses they are using the pictures for aren't commercial.

I obviously can't speak for every newspaper out there, but the uses that have been mentioned on this thread all fall under editorial use.

So a parent might sue the newspaper, but there's a lot of case law that supports the newspapers.

If the newspapers start selling the pictures to Coke to use in an ad campaign, then there's a problem.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:59 PM on 11.02.07
->> Chuck, Right from the IHSA's website at http://www.ihsa.org/org/ihsa.htm :
"The IHSA is governed by a eleven-member Board of Directors, who are principals of member schools."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Plassenthal, Photographer
Vandalia | OH | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 11.02.07
->> Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, seek professional advice:

A lawyer once told me that a print of a photograph is considered editorial use under the law and in the interpretations of the courts. Meaning that selling a print of a photograph in and of itself is not commercial usage. The legal definition of commercial usage is when the image is used in conjunction with a product. An image on a mug or shirt for example is no longer editorial since the photo is meant to assist in the sale of the shirt as a product. Thus, any photographer or newspaper can sell prints of it's photos and that is still legally editorial usage.

What I find more disturbing is the rights grab that is going on at all levels to control images and information. I find this to be in conflict with the founding principles of our country. As a freelance photographer, I view such actions as restraint of trade and an effort to create a monopoly and squeeze out all but the chosen few. Monopolies are never in the public's best interest and rarely provide better quality than competition. Unfortunately, unless the public stops accepting the lower quality results it's likely to continue till the point where we will all be sitting around with nothing to do but watch.

David Hume said, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Piccard said, "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

I think there are greater principles worth fighting for here than the measly $ from a few prints that might be sold. I applaud anyone willing to take a stand and shed light on any restriction to the flow of information.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Vincent Johnson, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 11:43 PM on 11.02.07
->> William,
I've spoken at length with Jean Maneke, a lawyer who was or is council to the Missouri Press Assc. before I was on a round table on this very subject in Illinois. As well as speaking with a very good friend here in Chicago who is a lawyer for a large firm that represents trademark & copyright issues.

I'd be happy to let both of them explain to you that selling images in mass on coffee mugs, mouse pads or just good old 8x10's, is by no mean editorial. Besides that I do know that for editorial use you do not need a model release.

This is why I'm saying, that companies such as VPI & VIP along with papers that do such would most likely lose such a case.

That being said, most parents see the sale of action photos by professional as a godsend and not an infringement, but it will only take one self-righteous parent trying to prove a point to bring it all crashing down.

Say like a parent who happens to be a photographer that got banned from the state finals?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:15 AM on 11.03.07
->> Vincent if that's the case then the 'deep pockets' in the business would be MaxPreps/CBS. Somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that the lawyers at CBS may have cracked a law book or two on the subject, and lets not ignore PSO either.

On the subject of wire service you are 100% correct. We started doing this 3 years ago. In Massachusetts it wasn't always cost effective to send someone from the Berkshires to the Cape to cover a game or tournament. I've had up to 6 papers as clients for one event. In '04 another event company was awarded the contract for a championship, we simply went in as a wire service. I had contracts from 3 papers for images in advance. With all the buyouts many of the papers around here have better coverages and better ability to pool their resources. So now a paper in the Berkshires may be owned by the same company that has a paper on the Cape and they are simply sharing images and employees. I still have a list of editors that HAVE ASKED for us to call if we're covering a big game that involves a school in their market. So the wire thing kinda works.

Also one of the things that I'm seeing more of (and it started in the youth sports) is a modeling release incorporated into the parental consent form. I will not be one bit surprised if it becomes a standard requirement for all state associations and all youth sports if the threat of legal action becomes real. If it isn't part of the the consent form already.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 11.03.07
->> eric makes some sense there that I hadn't considered. when we go into any of the schools in ANY of the school systems in our state on asignment (and there are over 100 different systems) any kid we take a photo of has to have a signed release (permission) form from their parents for them to be in a photo. these are not sports related photos, but I can see the application could be implemented to include sporting events by an overzealous school system. I side with John above. I'm not an event photog but to some extent I understand that point of view, To me limiting access to a public facility, paid for and supported by public funds, kids playing sports using equipment supplied by public funds under coaches being paid by public funds shouldn't be subject of tactics put in place only to give a market advantage to one group. I surely don't want to see every tom, dick and harriet on the sidelines with a camera trying to get pictures of their kids (I mean, hell, then it's going to be like covering college games) but they should have the right if they want. after all they did pay for most of the facilities. Part of business for all of us is competition, if someone's afraid they're going to lose a lot of sales from mom, pop and the local newspaper shooter, may THEY should rethink what they've chosen to do for a job than trying to put a stranglehold on the market. what's next? hospitals telling parents they can't shoot photos of their newborn babies? "I'm sorry Mr. Jones but we have an exclusive rights agreement with "We Shoot Babies" and you'll have to buy the photos from them."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:27 AM on 11.03.07
->> Chuck I know of a hospital allows video of a birthing ONLY if you can demonstrate that there is no audio being recorded. I know of a second hospital that doesn't allow cameras in the nursery to insure that photos of the other babies aren't taken. In the district court here in Brockton cell phones are only permitted in the court house building if the DON'T have a camera built into them, otherwise you have to leave the phone in your car or with the deputies at the front door.

I don't know what or how things are done around the country but I know that in RI for example the baseball finals are held at McCoy Stadium, a private facility, in Mass this year football will be in "Kraft Country". I believe that many other events are also held at either private stadiums or universities.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 11:12 AM on 11.03.07
->> VIncent,

Even if the event is held at a "private" facility, the participants in such an event cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy - they're playing in front of a crowd. Thus if the photographer has been allowed into the facility and allowed to take pictures, why wouldn't this fall into the same category as street photography from a need to have a release perspective?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Vincent Johnson, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 10:18 AM on 11.05.07
->> Mark,
To the privacy concern, there is none. Just as a fan in the stands can't balk at his image ending up in print or on the web, neither can players.

But as soon as you cross the editorial line and start making a profit directly off of someone's image, who is clearly recognizable in the photo, the need to have that release will come more into play.

I've got a an image of a group of players celebrating after a big win. It's sold to a lot of fans of a little small die-hard football town. Most of whom had no relationship to the players in the photo.

Chance of being sued; hopefully none.

Now say in that same shot there's a player who will later be in the NFL. If I start selling 8x10 or 5x7 glossies to the Sports collectible crowd and his lawyer gets wind of it, how long will it take before for I get the Cease-and-dicist?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:43 PM on 11.05.07
->> http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2007-11-05.htm

IPA's motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:47 PM on 11.05.07
->> http://illinoispress.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=173&item...

From the IPA site.

Guess it depends on which side you're on if the motion was denied - or the ruling delayed.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Martin, Photographer
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 8:44 PM on 11.05.07
->> The director of the IHSA says they receive no payment of any kind from VIP Photos. Interesting. I wonder why they give them exclusivity.
Jeff
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:33 PM on 11.05.07
->> VIP lets them use images without paying licensing for all of their State Final programs (for two day events there is a different program each day, there are 35 different IHSA activities), grin and grips, education materials, etc.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Dicker, Photographer
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 9:58 PM on 11.05.07
->> I believe that to be true. I have been told that the deal is a quid pro quo. In exchange for the exclusive rights to be the "offical photogrpahers for the IHSA" VIP agreed to give the IHSA all the free photographic coverage that they want.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:22 PM on 11.05.07
->> Any word on when the next court date is?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Vincent Johnson, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 11.06.07
->> Does anybody know about the arrangements that the media in Illinois have with ISA & the Big Ten?

I'd be more than pissed off to find out they caved in on something similar in the past, only to decide that now would be a good time to hold out as the roof is falling in on toothpick walls.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jock Fistick, Photographer
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 8:01 AM on 11.07.07
->> "...In exchange for the exclusive rights to be the "official photographers for the IHSA" VIP agreed to give the IHSA all the free photographic coverage that they want."

OK - so maybe no money is changing hands - but this is compensation - since a monetary value can be placed on the images that IHSA uses - this should be regarded no differently than VIP paying a set fee or giving a percentage kickback to IHSA based on their earnings - for a certain level of exclusivity.

But limiting access for journalists and limiting what they can do with the content they generate seems only to serve the interests of two parties IHSA and VIP - everyone else is hurt.

I am not an event photographer - I don't even live in the U.S. anymore - but in my newspaper days I did cover a lot of high school sports and even followed a state championship team throughout their season - this "trend" is very troubling as any in depth and intimate coverage could easily be threatened if the courts side with IHSA / VIP.

The whole thing just isn't kosher on so many levels - public schools / public funding - the 1st amendment / free speech - restraint of trade etc...

And the fact that this is going on in other states - and for the most part - under most people's radar - is very disturbing.

I only hope that the IPA will prevail in the end.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Do you live on the Internet? Check out this site!!! ::..