| 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
Attn. Illinois photographers - it's lobby time
Rob Dicker, Photographer
 |
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 02.07.08 |
->> Illinois photographers
By now it shouldn’t be news to you that the publishers of Illinois are at odds with the Illinois State High School Association. Beginning this past November the IHSA has been doing everything they can to make it impossible for newspapers to cover high school state finals. At the football state finals the IHSA pulled the credentials of photographers from five newspapers. Last week the IHSA instituted a new credentialing policy that requires that any photographer (and rumor has it any reporter) showing up at state finals, sign a form stating that the publication that they represent, would abide by all the IHSA’s rules, regardless of what their employer’s policies state.
This all seems to stem from the IHSA’s “secondary use” policy and the Illinois Press Association’s opposition to it. The IPA sued. The IHSA countersued. The IPA then lobbied for legislation in the Illinois House and Senate and the House Bill 4582 was introduced. The Bill was sponsored in the House by Rep. Joseph M. Lyons, and in the Senate by Sen. James A. DeLeo both of Chicago. This legislation reaffirms that high school sporting events are public events and that the media has the right to cover them as news events. The IHSA is pressuring their members to lobby their local legislators to block the bill. And that’s kind of what I am doing too.
Below, you will find a letter that you can personalize and send to you State Senator and State Representative asking them to support the bill.
If you need to get the name and address of them, click on this link and fill in your address.
http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/AddressSearch.aspx
Please note – this letter is not an IPA or an IPPA letter, it is from you, a photographer who wants your rights protected.
Thanks for your support with this issue.
Rob Dicker
Dear Rep./Sen. XXXXXXXXX
As a working Photojournalist and a constituent, I am asking that you please support HB 4582. This legislation is about media access to public high school competitions and the use of photos taken during those competitions.
I believe that the intent of HB 4582 is to clarify that public high school events are public events, and therefore, the press has a right to cover them without interference. We need this bill because the Illinois High School Association is restricting press photographer’s access to public high school sporting events.
There has been much public debate about newspaper’s rights to sell reprints of photos taken at sporting events. As a photographer, I see this as only one part of the issue. As a photographer, I am very concerned with equal access at sporting events. Over the past few years we have become the second class, runners up to photographers from a Wisconsin event photography company. As professional photojournalists, striving to shoot the best photos at every assignment, we are being saddled with new rules that push us further and further away from the action. These rules are not for our protection or for the safety of the athletes; it is solely to allow preferred access for their contracted event photographers, so they can sell photos for profit.
As you can imagine, the market for the photos taken at these events is relatively small for local newspapers but can be a financial windfall for the contracted event photography company. I believe that letting the IHSA exercise control over news photos via an exclusive contract is both unprecedented and a dangerous breach of the First Amendment.
The IHSA has publically stated that they are entitled to the same status as professional sports associations. The IHSA is not the same as the National Football League of Major League Baseball. The IHSA exists solely to promote athletic and academic competition among Illinois high school students, most of which attend tax-supported public schools. In the end, it is the taxpayers that pay for the stadiums, the uniforms and the sporting equipment. While the IHSA may govern the events, they have no right to claim ownership of all things related to the event.
Please vote in favor of HB 4582 and help preserve the First Amendment in Illinois.
Sincerely, |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:42 PM on 02.07.08 |
| ->> Guessing you won't be invited to be on the media advisory committee when your term is done....LOL. Nice letter. |
|
Rob Dicker, Photographer
|
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 8:03 AM on 02.08.08 |
->> Oh well, as the Greatful Dead sang - "What A Long Strange Trip It's Been"
I will be able to say that I left my mark.I just wonder if Marty Hickman will be there?
Rob |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
 |
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 8:10 AM on 02.08.08 |
| ->> Thanks Rob. I agree with Clark - Nice Letter. |
|
Phil Wever, Photographer
 |
Montgomery | IL | USA | Posted: 9:37 AM on 02.08.08 |
->> Just an FYI to this story. I opened up my morning Beacon News from Aurora, and at the top of the Sports page was the Beacons position on the IHSA policy from the Editor/Publisher Rick Nagel. Here is a link to the online story http://tinyurl.com/2cz2lk
I'm not involved with shooting HS sports in IL. However, I do see this as a rights grab and a big freedom of the press issue. I'd be fine with not seeing any HS sports images in my local papers until this issue with the ISHA gets resolved.
Phil |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
 |
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 11:11 AM on 02.08.08 |
->> Does the language in the credential agreement transfer rights to the IHSA, or does it just limit publication rights. I'm really not trying to start a fight. I just thought the "rights grab" terminology was used to describe agreements that concerned the transfer of copyright.
Disclaimer. I do very little editorial work. Mostly event stuff. I am not sure were all this will end up. Do the event shooters understand that if selling prints is deemed a commercial use, we will all need to get releases from participants? Do the editorial users believe they will ever convince Joe Public that selling prints is an editorial use? The courts are the ones you'll have to convince. I just don't think fighting this out in public is going to be good for either side.
Jeff |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
 |
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 11:24 AM on 02.08.08 |
->> Sorry to ask a dumb question, but does anyone quickly know what the original five papers that were denied access were?
Does anyone have a link to any of the image galleries these papers ran that the ISHA seems to be having a problem with?
Kevin |
|
Mike Shepherd, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | USA | Posted: 11:26 AM on 02.08.08 |
| ->> I emailed the link of this thread to a friend of mine who lives in IL. As someone from outside the state, my voice would fall on deaf ears at the IL state capitol. My friend is not a photographer but the letter can be tailored to read from a regular citizen. I would encourage any of you who have friends or family in IL to pass this along to them asking them to participate. It makes sense to me that the success of the legislation can only be helped if legislators get an earful from people outside the news business as well. Not just people for whom the legislation would directly benefit, but from citizens who can also see a larger implication in press rights restrictions if the bill were to fail. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
|
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 02.08.08 |
->> Point of clarification, Where was the rights grab?
I read what Clark posted was the wording on the credential, and it did not assign rights, only had wording to limit sales.
As pointed out above, did I miss a post in regards to wording?
I have seen many WFH agreements, that attempt to assign rights to the credentialing organization, but the information posted by Clark, it appeared to be an attempt to enforce no print sales.
I am following this thread closely btw.
Best regards
Ed Szalajeski |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Wouldn't there be zero issue if the newspapers only used the photos for editorial use and did not also sell them? Then there would be no breach of contract with the contracted event photography company.
I've seen many threads on topics like this and it seems to me the newspapers are trying to wrap their editorial cape around a commercial exercise. It doesn't fit well with me. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
|
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> The article that is linked above by Phil, states
"The waiver requires newspapers to give up the rights to their photos to the IHSA."
Clark or another IPA member posted the wording, unless it has changed, I am under the impression that the above is wrong.
If the above is true, the wording needs to be changed.
I read the article in the Beacon, and fired off an email to the Sports Editor asking for clarification.
Best regards
Ed J Szalajeski |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 12:36 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> The original 5 were The Pantagraph in Bloomington, the Daily Herald in Arlington Heights, the Northwest Herald in Crystal Lake, the Peoria Journal Star and The State Journal-Register in Springfield.
I'm still searching for the rights grabbing statement. I remember seeing it, but don't remember where. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Jeff Martin:
Selling a print is not commercial photography.
Commercial photography has always been defined as photography that markets, promotes, endorsed or advertises a product or service.
Actually, unless you are giving the buyer your copyright, the buyer is only licensing that image with 'private viewing rights'. Generally speaking and unless you convey the fact they can (usually in writing), the buyer has no rights to display the image in public (location outside their home or office) or reproduce or publish the image in any form.
A print of a football player running down the field does not do any one of those things.
Just because you post or publish (the USCO considers images posted to the web as published) a gallery of images online for sell is not commercial as well. Prior to the e-commerce anyone interested in buying a published could go to their newspapers photo department or to the office of the photographer and look through proofs or contact sheets a practice that has been in place longer than those members here who have grandfathers still living.
The transaction is a commercial transaction, one for goods and services, but the use of the image is not. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
 |
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Ed -
While the IHSA is not grabbing all of the copyright, they certainly are attempting to restrict these entities from the free use of all of their rights. The IHSA is telling them they can use them for x and y but not z. By signing, you are clearly relinquishing certain of your rights. So, while the statement may need some clarification, it is not entirely wrong.
William - this is a case where semantics is quite important. Editorial and Commercial in a legal sense have been defined, as others such as Mark Loundy have noted across the various threads you reference - and the sale of prints is editorial use. While I fully acknowledge that one's ability to enforce their right to do so may result in their loss of future access and/or financial ruin in the face of a full frontal legal assault, nonetheless, there is no need to wrap an editorial cape around this - the law has already done so. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Ed:
It's a no brainer.... You wrote: "it appeared to be an attempt to enforce no print sales. "
If a WFH agreement is not in place, as the creator of any artistic work you own all the rights to the work including the ability license and use it as your please.
Signing the agreement takes that right away and worse still, as worded, binds the paper/photographer to any change in the policy retroactively. As I've said in a past post, I have no problem signing the agreement if they remove section (ii) of the agreement. All of our clients are editorial and we have been in compliance with their policy for the last four years.
As is, I would consider signing the agreement if I was compensated in some way by the IHSA. Access alone simply is not, without the potential income over the lifetime of the image, fair compensation for the right to limit the distribution of the work I would create. Since we don't offer reprints on our website, I'd be happy to sign that right away for $0,000.
No, it is a rights grab, because IHSA is not willing to compensate the media for the right not to engage in secondary editorial use of the work they create. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> William J. wrote: "Wouldn't there be zero issue if the newspapers only used the photos for editorial use and did not also sell them? Then there would be no breach of contract with the contracted event photography company. "
Reprints are an editorial product. As I explained above, it is not a commercial product. I believe the IHSA is defining secondary use as any use that does not appear in the next day's or week's print publication.
One of my clients publishes sports annuals for the community they serve. That means, per their definition and not that of the photography industry, our client would not be able to license images we shot at the state finals at the end of the school year. Nor could we license images to area high schools for their yearbooks. It would mean papers could not use photos from a previous season for in depth athtlete features or previews. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 2:13 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> I went back and found the Pantagraph article that listed the original five papers that were denied field level access to the football finals.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/doc4747627752bba86771309...
On a hunch as to why the ISHA took the actions they did in this matter I then went to each of their web sites and followed their links like I was going to purchase a reprint.
The fact is that none of the five papers were directly selling reprints of their outtakes. What they are doing is supplying images to an independent non-editorial third party that is in the business of selling photographs (Pictopia.com or MyCapture.com).
Since Pictopia.com and MyCapture.com don't have shooters on the sidelines ISHA really doesn't have the ability to deny them access and honor their event photography contract with VIP or whoever. What they can do is clamp down on the source of what they see as a non-editorial use of images from their events, in this case the selected newspapers. From VIP and the ISHA's standpoint I guess you could say that the photographers for the papers in question are, perhaps unwittingly, the shooters for a fractionalized event photography system.
If you approach it from this angle the question now becomes, if a newspaper is providing images to a non-editorial third party so that the images can be sold with a strictly "for profit" motive is the use by the third party still editorial?
I guess if the paper is paying a sub-contractor to print and ship images for them and they collect fees and charge the appropriate sales tax I would have to say their use could still be considered as editorial. However, if the paper is supplying images to an independent third party who's sole intent is to generate a profit through the sales, the third party collects the fees and taxes and then pays the paper a commission the use is probably no longer editorial. Since they relinquish control of the distribution of the images it appears to become strictly a means for the paper to generate non-editorial revenue from their outtakes.
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong here it's just a theory but if the IPA and IHSA can't agree on what the use is shouldn't it be the job of the courts make the determination? If the legislation feels that the courts ruling is unconstitutional or not in the best interest of the public then they should be asked to act. After the ruling, not before.
If I had no connection to the industry my perspective, as a member of the general public would be that the IPA is putting the cart before the horse and not allowing the system to work the way it should. Unfortunately, trying to bypass the courts has the smell of sour grapes. They don’t appear to think the court is going to rule in their favor so they are now prematurely applying pressure to the legislature and I personally don't feel that this approach is good for the credibility of the newspaper industry as a whole.
Fire away….
Kevin |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 2:14 PM on 02.08.08 |
| ->> p.s. Thanks to those who posted the info I asked for. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:06 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Kevin: Another no-brainer here. The IHSA's targeted the five papers because they were all co-plaintiffs in a TRO filed along with the IPA prior to the state football championships. The IHSA very well could have denied access to probably at least 10 other publications who covered the games by simply going to the paper's website and looking at their photo galleries. The IHSA then filed a counter suit, which is still pending, in December against the IPA and the five papers.
The solution is quite simple. All this can go away if the IPA and the IHSA would agree to a simple embargo for a period of time on secondary editorial use. Already VIP pulls the current season's championships offline after a year. While that period would be unreasonably long, I feel that 90 days is sufficient. Then everybody can get back to doing what they are supposed be doing, making Illinois High School sports a proud thing to be a part of. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Clark,
I totally agree that there are several ways to work this out but cooler heads are not prevailing. It seems to keep getting more and more public and more and more out of control.
While I feel it is a very important issue for photojournalists and event photographers I just hate to see us be the ones who stir the pot beyond its minimum required boiling point. We should be the cooler heads and let the system work.
my .02 |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Clark, I don't think you understand how non-journalists understand this issue to be (me being one of them). I personally don't see how a print that I purchase from the newspaper hanging in a frame on my living room wall would be editorial use. I'm sure John Q. Public would agree, especially John. Q. Quarterback's father. Frankly, that public perception is more important than legal truth as anyone in the journalistic industry should understand.
Further, if I was the contracted event shooter and I had a contract saying that only my company could sell prints, and then the newspaper did the same thing, I'm not so sure I'd sleep better at night knowing those prints my potential customer buys are editorial and not commercial. They still have a secondary outlet for the product that was supposed to be mine alone as outlined in the contract.
I'm willing to bet a big part of this problem is the school signing a contract with an event photography company using wording that it probably should not have used.
Mark writes "The IHSA is telling them they can use them for x and y but not z. By signing, you are clearly relinquishing certain of your rights." Inherintly there is nothing wrong with this from the newspaper's standpoint as long as it doesn't keep them from using the photographs in the newspaper, the news website, etc. But it has been said here and on other forums that the newspapers are treading across the line between editorial and commercial photography and not admitting it, all along saying "we're the free press and nobody can tell us what we can and can't do".
No rights are completely unrestricted, and that includes the rights of the freedom of the press. Honestly, I don't think the press understands that at times.
That said, Clark has hit the nail squarely on the head. If the newspapers don't like it, then simply don't cover the events at all. If this turns out to hurt the schools they will change their policy. Guaranteed. Lawsuits are fine and dandy and all, but hit them in the pocketbook and they will react quicker than the courts will. :) Economics are stronger than than civil court. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 3:42 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Clark, I understand the commercial/editorial distinction. I was attempting, in my own confusing way, to make the point that if selling prints is NOT editorial, then all event shooters would need model releases from all the participants of the events they shoot. [that sentence is way too long]
I understand your point about the rights grab. Every other time I've heard the term on SS, it was about some agency "grabbing" the rights for their own use. Not just preventing you from exercising your rights. I'm not saying your wrong, just explaining my confusion.
I'm still not sure how this would/is different than papers covering U of I, or OSU in my case. Do the papers run galleries of pictures from the Illinois/Ohio State game and sell prints? [not that I want any from that particular game] Both of these institutions are state run and financed and "actors" if that's the correct term.
Jeff |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Clark,
Not important, but just a clarification, the galleries at VIP stay up far short of one year, closer to four months if I'm not mistaken. |
|
William Jurasz, Photographer, Assistant
|
Cedar Park | TX | USA | Posted: 3:52 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> Jeff Martin writes "Clark, I understand the commercial/editorial distinction. I was attempting, in my own confusing way, to make the point that if selling prints is NOT editorial, then all event shooters would need model releases from all the participants of the events they shoot. [that sentence is way too long]" Now that makes sense to me, and what you are saying is the event shooter is editorial as well. And if that is the case, then the school is basically saying one party can have editorial uses that another party cannot. Which does not sound right to me.
Am I understanding the issue better now? |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 4:09 PM on 02.08.08 |
->> 90 days is about 70 or 80 too long. Sales from events have a half life of just a few days. The bulk of any sales would be over a week to 2 weeks after the event. It's even shorter if the buyer isn't familiar with the seller.
Keep in mind also that VIP sells a lot more than just your average 5x7 print - and they get all the advertising the IHSA can muster. If there (VIP's) sales are suffering, it's not believable to me that it's from a few sales by some newspapers. |
|
David Guralnick, Photographer
 |
Detroit | MI | USA | Posted: 2:47 AM on 02.09.08 |
| ->> Editorial or commercial, it doesn't matter. To put into perspective how ridiculous this is, imagine trying to limit access and re-sales of a parade down Main St., or a city council meeting. There is no part of this event that isn't paid for by tax dollars or out of the public domain. Limiting the re-sales benefits no one (not the players or their parents or the schools) except the one company who wants to control the images for their own profit. This is not an appropriate role for a public high school sporting association. The only question in my mind is how much is the cut for the IHSA? |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 02.09.08 |
->> Alan,
People I have worked with say that, in their experience, prime sales time is 10-30 days after event.
David,
If the ISHA is similar to our MHSAA the majority of their funding comes from gate receipts not tax dollars. I thought in one of the previous threads on this issue someone showed where the courts had ruled that the ISHA (like te MHSAA) is a private, not public organization. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 11:20 AM on 02.09.08 |
->> Alan, we routinely have $500 a month in sales of events that are over 8 months old.
Jeff |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 11:36 AM on 02.09.08 |
->> Jeff, your page has no links.
Please define we, events, and sales... |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:48 PM on 02.09.08 |
| ->> Remember newspapers aren't offering reprints as a profit center. It is incidental to the publishing mission. A 60 or 90 day buffer would be fine. If parents or athletes like the shot they'll still order a reprint of the photo they saw in the paper or online. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:55 PM on 02.09.08 |
->> William J. -
If you can't understand the rights the First Amendment guarantees, that a print from an event is editorial nature, and that selling a print is commercial transaction and not commercial use, you and others will never get I'm afraid. That I can't help with.
An event photographer is an editorial photographer not a commercial photographer by the traditional use of the terminology. Commercial photographers are those engage in creating image for advertising and promotions.
Unless I'm wrong event photographers are there to capture someone doing something at an event. EPs are documenting the actions of a subject at a point in time and therefore their work is as much as editorial as the newspaper photographer's work. |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 02.09.08 |
->> Clark,
Hypothecial questions. I'm not asking to be argumentative, I am hoping to learn something here.
So if I have a friend who has a house on the fairway of a golf course where Tiger Woods is playing, if I take a picture of him from that house, offer it for sale to the general public is that use editorial?
I didn't give up any rights to do so since I did not have a PGA credential, it was a public event (or at least its an event where the participants probably don't reasonably expect privacy), and since I am not using it for commercial purposes am I legally able to sell it?
How about if I take the picture then give someone else a license to sell it to the general public? Is their use of it still considered editorial?
Kevin |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 11:21 PM on 02.09.08 |
->> Kevin,
From my limited, lay understanding of the issue, the answer to your question is yes, it is editorial.
The big caveat though is whether your personal finances would be able to sustain a full frontal assault from Tigers legal team. Even if you are completely in the right, the cost of defending your right to license such an image may eliminate the viability of attempting to do so. Also, I would be curious to know whether a home on a golf course may not have a series of restrictive covenants which hinder your ability to do this. |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
 |
Rockford | IL | United States | Posted: 1:03 AM on 02.10.08 |
->> Our paper ran into this today. They wanted our photographer to sign the papers at State Bowling. Looks like the IHSA is enforcing this at all state final events.
http://www.rrstar.com/sports/x1048106361 |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
 |
Belvidere | IL | USA | Posted: 8:05 AM on 02.10.08 |
->> Scott I wasn't aware of the drama at Cherry Bowl yesterday morning... I arrived, I signed the waiver and was given full access to the pit and the lanes during warmup, and I could even use flash if I wanted. The woman (I believe it was the same one that Amy dealt with) was actually pleasant.
At the time I left (about 9:15, after the warmup rounds), I was the only media person who had signed the media check-in sheet. There was one other photographer there who was taking flash pictures of the bolwers warming up from halfway down the lanes... I'm guessing he was with VIP.
I didn't to hesitate the sign the form because I'm a freelancer and the newspaper doesn't have the rights to resell my prints anyway. I'm curious though... what are the rights and obligations of freelancers in these uncertain times? |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:25 AM on 02.10.08 |
->> Curtis,
I would like to explore this a bit more with you, as I also am a freelancer in Illinois.
It is because I am a freelancer that I really don't think that it is my best interest to sign. The agreement (it's a contract not a waiver, they grant you access in return for your agreement that neither you nor your employing entity will violate their policy - current or future) binds not only you but your employing entity. It is far from abundantly clear to me what this really means. As a freelancer, I am not "employed" by either the wire service I contribute to nor the client. However, I doubt that the IHSA acknowledges that distinction. If you provide content to a publication and they use it in a secondary manner the IHSA doesn't care for, it would seem that all of your future access is threatened and if they follow through on their veiled threats of legal action, it is your financial stability that is threatened.
It is not clear to me that the IHSA does not view their policy as more restrictive than a simple ban on reprint sales - that it doesn't also consider things such as preseason sports guides featuring images of the prior year, year end year books and similar to also be banned secondary use. So while you state that newspaper doesn't have the rights to resell your prints anyway, how about these other secondary usages? THe IHSA says your photos can only be used for "news" reporting....but they are the ones that seem to want to define what "news" is.
Also, what are your feelings on signing something which not only said that you agreed to the current policy, for the immediate event, but also that you agreed to adhere to all future policies? There is a debate among some of us discussing this issue outside of the forum whether it is actually possible for the IHSA to amend their policy in the future in a way tha would actually require you to relinquish your copyright to them, ala NASCAR - even for past events.
It is for those two reasons - uncertainty about the ramifications of signing something which makes me responsible for the actions of an entity I have no control over, and the incredibly vague language around future policy changes, that leads me to a decision that I can't sign this - which is very difficult, as I would prefer to shoot wrestling over anything else, and this was an event I was looking forward to covering next week.
I will also interject one other thought here. Did you consider the possibility that being seen as the only one that would sign this as being viewed negatively by all of the IPA members which may be future clients (and thus less likely to secure your services?) This has also crossed my mind. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 8:26 AM on 02.10.08 |
->> Alan..
We=my partner and I.
Events= sporting events such as Hot Stove baseball tournaments.
Sales=customers ordering prints of the web site. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:28 AM on 02.10.08 |
->> Curtis,
Also - I find the reference to you being allowed to use flash interesting as the media guidelines clearly prohibited its use, by not only the spectators, but the media. I add this because one of my concerns with "shooting from the stands" is that the IHSA guidelines for spectators is more restrictive at other events on issues such as electronic lighting that for the media. I've openly wondered if those that choose this route will be told they can't use flash, while those on the floor can. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:35 AM on 02.10.08 |
| ->> Really need to wait until I'm fully awake to post.....I failed to recognize Curtis that you were only shooting the warmups, where flash was permitted. sorry about cluttering up the thread. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:17 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Kevin: You can go to Corbis' site and order a photo of Tiger Woods for display license up to 16x20 for around $250.
HTH |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:47 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Curtis Clegg wrote: "I didn't to hesitate the sign the form because I'm a freelancer...and the newspaper doesn't have the rights to resell my prints anyway."
Now, neither do you. Furthermore, while the paper doesn't have the right, if they post it and generate a sale from it, you'll have to fight two fights...one with the ISHA for you supposedly allowing secondary sales (no, they won't care if it wasn't your direct fault) and a second with the client for selling the image. Is your agreement not allowing reprints sales in writing with the client?
Worse still, while this is not a legal opinion but based on my limited knowledge of contracts, unless you redacted this language from the agreement "and my employing organization" you may have unwittingly binded your client to the IHSA's current and future usage terms since you were their representing their paper.
Curtis Clegg wrote: "I'm curious though... what are the rights and obligations of freelancers in these uncertain times?"
Hmm... a little late now. You probably should have asked that question, BEFORE you signed the contract.
You realize, by signing the document you can now never license those images again for any use? You can give them away according to the IHSA at this time, but you can neither exchange them for goods, services, or cash. Of course the agreement you signed gives them the right to tell you that you can't do that. But then again you could sell reprints and license them for secondary editorial use until you get caught :)
Hopefully, you charged the client more than your normal fee to make up for the potential loss revenue that those images could generate. If you are use to generating xx amount for licensing/assignment and about yy on average in additional licensing or reprint sales then hopefully you charged your client xx+yy on the final bill.
Please note I'm not against anyone signing the IHSA agreement. You gotta do what you gotta do. If the IHSA removed 1/2 sentence I'd sign it this weekend to cover state wrestling. However just be sure you know what you are signing and the future implications.
Below is the last version I have of the document that the IHSA is asking photographers (and may be writers) to sign. It may have changed since the state cheer finals. If any one at state bowling has an image of the agreement different than the one below, please contact me through my member page. Thanks.
--------------------------
As a condition of receiving my credential for the above-captioned Event, I, on behalf of myself and my employing organization, hereby unconditionally acknowledge and agree to the following:
· That I will fully abide by the terms and conditions contained on or within (i) the credential issued, and (ii) the IHSA's media/photography credentialing policies and procedures as may be issued and/or amended from time to time.
· Photography credentials are issued for news reporting purposes only, and resulting photographs and images may only be utilized for news reporting.
· Any non-news or secondary exploitation of any photos or images (including, without limitation, for sales, advertising or promotion) is strictly prohibited without prior written approval of the IHSA.
Without limiting the foregoing in any way, at no time may photos or images be made available for sale to any third-parties.
· Unauthorized use or exploitation of any photos or images may lead to forfeiture of the IHSA privileges and formal legal proceedings against violators. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:06 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Kevin wrote:"Hypothecial questions. I'm not asking to be argumentative, I am hoping to learn something here.
So if I have a friend who has a house on the fairway of a golf course where Tiger Woods is playing, if I take a picture of him from that house, offer it for sale to the general public is that use editorial?"
Sure why not? He created the image. US copyright laws says the owns the image and he can sell it if chooses. No different than having a car, a camera or any other tangible piece of property.
"I didn't give up any rights to do so since I did not have a PGA credential, it was a public event (or at least its an event where the participants probably don't reasonably expect privacy), and since I am not using it for commercial purposes am I legally able to sell it?"
See above reply.
"How about if I take the picture then give someone else a license to sell it to the general public? Is their use of it still considered editorial?"
Hypo-theoretically, yes. What you can and can't do however goes to the person with the deepest pockets and willing to go the distance in a court. Mark Peters' reply would be my answer as well. Economics of the situation prevails. Do you want to spend $6000 or more in legal fees to have the right to generate $50 in revenue? If the image would generate more income than the cost of the legal fees then I'd say go for it, but that is not going to happen to an image that can only be used editorially. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Scott -
In the Rockford article, it indicates your shooter was tossed for kneeling on the floor in front of the lanes for a shot. Could you ask her if there were any parents that also came out of the stands for the award shots - and if so were they tossed as well? |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 5:37 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Clark...
Without limiting the foregoing in any way, at no time may photos or images be made available for sale to any third-parties.
Does this mean a newspaper with a covered photo in it can't be sold?
The language is too sloppy to comply with.
"· Photography credentials are issued for news reporting purposes only, and resulting photographs and images may only be utilized for news reporting. "
This would seem to allow reprint sales. Except of course to third parties. So I guess only the publisher can receive the paper.
We seem to be getting farther away, rather than closer to an agreement.
Jeff |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
 |
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 6:11 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> "This would seem to allow reprint sales."
Jeff, the language is intended to mean that photos can only be printed along with the companion article. By that standard, then yes, what used to be traditional reprints would be covered - a "reprint" of the entire page(s) with text and photos.
However, newspapers have redefined "reprints" to include "outtakes" and other stand-alone photography - the exact product that the event shooter is selling, and has paid dearly for the exclusivity to do so.
Clark, if you really think selling these "reprints" is not a profit center and is instead "incidental", please think again. It's ALWAYS a case of "follow the money", and selling high quality prints of outtakes and reprints has indeed become a very valuable revenue stream for these newspapers. Why on earth do you think they are fighting this so hard? And isn't it convenient that the language and lobbying of the bill introduced says absolutely nothing about the reason this whole brouhaha got started in the first place? When all else fails, raise the First Amendment banner. I'm sorry, but that's just pure bullshit. This is not about reporting the news, it's about them thumbing their noses at the school associations, the event shooters, and the legal contracts they negotiate.
If the IPA wants to go to war in the halls of Congress so be it; the least they could do is have the testicular fortitude to write and lobby the bill around the real issue, not some holier-than-thou First Amendment crap. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> "and the legal contracts they negotiate."........
That's one of the points of contention isn't it? That the IHSA has entered into a contract that that appears to convey a right to a third party that they don't have the authority to do. |
|
Scott Morgan, Photographer
|
Rockford | IL | United States | Posted: 7:20 PM on 02.10.08 |
->> Mark,
My understanding is that when our photographer got the boot, she was taking photos next to fans who came down from the stands for the awards. She was doing exactly the same thing as the fans, and was singled out. |
|
Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
 |
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 7:34 PM on 02.10.08 |
| ->> If they want to make these exclusive contracts they need to do it a better way. The small news organizations selling photos are not taking 100's of extra photos. They are trying to capture the moment in time (history- news history). A photo doesn't require an full page article to tell a story. To say it must be printed in a paper is crap. The event shooter is taking 12 fps shots of johnny swigging the bat and and offering up every frame for sale. The photo journalist may have a shot of johnny at bat but I doubt you'll find 20 pictures of his swinging the bat or pitching all up for sale on as outtakes. IF they want to make these deals tell the event guys they has exclusive rights to sell on site. Let the news people sell reprints later. Why should Johnny's parents be denied the right to buy a photo of their son getting the big hit or big 3 pointer that the news shooter gets while the event shooter is busy shooting the cheerleader. Sure no body is perfect and people are gonna miss the shot but why do you want to limit the choices of the consumers. The same people complaining about newspapers selling are probably the same people complaining about not having more choices for their cable company or internet company or etc.... |
|
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
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM Autofocus
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $1999.95 |
Notes:
Incorporating Canon's second generation Image Stabilization technology, this telephoto zoom responds in as little at 0.5 seconds, while providing up to three stops of correction for camera shake. Its AF system has been refined for better response time and tracking speed.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|