| 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
MLB new credential application. It sucks but who cares.
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 02.28.08 |
->> The MLB 2008 credential application photographers and news organizations is not surprising.
I'm wondering how many photographers and news organization are going to sign this document. I bet they won't bat an eye in doing so.
In all honesty I don't really care. I abandon MLB long time ago.. |
|
Ron Scheffler, Photographer
 |
Hamilton (Toronto area) | Ontario | Canada | Posted: 2:05 AM on 02.29.08 |
->> http://pressbox.mlb.com/pressbox/downloads/y2008/credential_terms_condition...
The seven photo limit for online display is not new, though in the past I don't recall it being as vague as seven photos from any game in total. You can still transmit a gazillion photos back to your paper/wire service if you want to, they just can't be publicly displayed.
I think paragraph 4, point (iii) is particularly where there's issue being taken by the NPPA: "such still pictures or photographs of any Game cannot be used as part of a photo gallery, the definition of which shall be determined by the Baseball Office of the Commissioner in its sole discretion.
What's that supposed to mean? Does it also ban SS members from showing their MLB images in member galleries? Online portfolios? |
|
Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
 |
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 8:09 AM on 02.29.08 |
->> I'll most likely never shoot pro sports so this doesn't have an impact on me as far as being a photographer goes but it will have that trickle down affect as seen in Illinois HS sports (Kind of). BUT as a consumer who the heck do they think they are? Do they think this is Iran where they control what can be reported and they alone are allowed to report the news?
from article:
A statement from Sports Illustrated says, "The new terms and conditions outlined in the 2008 Major League Baseball press credential application form dramatically restrict the use of content and imagery compromising our ability to cover baseball. To uphold the responsibility of serving the public in a manner consistent with our rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment, we have informed Major League Baseball that we cannot accept these new policies."
Finally someone other than a poor local Newspaper is putting their foot down. I think they need a class action suit filed against them for violating the 1st amendment.Slap them with a few billion in fines and that will send a message to all these Pro leagues that just because they put on event they can't control the news. |
|
John Pavoncello, Photographer
 |
York | PA | USA | Posted: 10:07 AM on 03.02.08 |
->> There is a simple solution to all these rights-grabbing/restricting issues with MLB, NFL etc. Stop covering their sports. Even if we just skipped one week of MLB, they'd be singing a different tune. They need news coverage a lot more then we need steroids and overpriced athletes.
We just need to have the balls to just say no. Maybe SI will lead the way, if we could just get AP, Reuters and the other biggies to follow along. |
|
Pouya Dianat, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:57 AM on 03.02.08 |
->> Quite a few people are batting their eyes before they sign this document it seems. The last thread bringing this up has nearly reached the maximum number of entries.
John is right, if these restrictions stay after the NPPA and other media representatives voice their concern. Then we should refuse coverage as a community.
Other big players should be following suit with SI. A lot of people care. |
|
Bill Ross, Photographer
 |
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 12:07 PM on 03.02.08 |
| ->> Maybe I'm way off base (no pun intended) but would MLB's Anti-Trust Exemption have anything to do with this? I dunno... Possible? |
|
Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 2:22 PM on 03.06.08 |
->> Bill,
Given the fact that leagues have been given anti-trust exemptions, my big question related to anti-trust is this:
Are the leagues trying to expand their monopoly on their respective pro sport to include a monopoly on the coverage of that sport?
I think they are. The whole point of these various restrictions and cable fights is to drive fans to the websites of the leagues and the tv stations that are controlled by the leagues (either through ownership or broadcast partnerships). It is also coming at a time when they no longer feel they need print media as much as they used to.
Am I the only one who feels this way? Perhaps I am the crazy paranoid one, but I feel like it is clear as day. We must look beyond the problem of the day to see the big long term picture. Hard for daily shooters to do, but we have to. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
 |
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 3:00 PM on 03.06.08 |
->> Am I the only one who feels this way?
Hell No! I've been saying that for over a year. You are absolutely 100% spot on. The question is whether this is an expansion or simply within the scope of owning the whole package. |
|
Tom Ervin, Photographer, Assistant
|
Palm Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 03.06.08 |
| ->> Alicia I fully agree with you. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 03.06.08 |
->> I also agree.
The question is will publishers band together to create their own professional sports leagues in the future? |
|
Alex Menendez, Photographer
 |
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 4:08 PM on 03.06.08 |
->> Michael,
Pretty good read if you ask me!
Thanks for the link.
Alex |
|
Gil Batzri, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 7:22 PM on 03.09.08 |
->> Joseph,
The 1st amendment covers the government not private entities. MLB's actions are more akin to rules you make in your house, not anything the constitution says. (more or less)
We as photographers don't have any rights that I am aware of as far as covering Major League sports, the credential is a contract between you (the photog/paper etc) and the entity producing the event. Whatever they want to put in the contract is more or less their right.
It is our right not to accept that contract.
Please someone help me out if I have misstated anything. or better yet if I am flat wrong.
And I would love a media blackout, but I don't think that sort of thing is feasible.
gil |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
 |
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:53 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> I can understand if someone marks this "off topic" or "huh" but watch the original "Rollerball" movie from 1975. very chilling how things are moving in the direcyion of the film where corporations and all their tentacles completely control the world of sports. countries? ha! countries are nothing it's the corporations and media moguls who control the world in "Rollerball". Thirty-three years ago it was science fiction and we laughed....now MLB, Little League, IHSA, ETDH (every tom, dick and harry) think it's okay to grab what we do and call it their property....arggggggghhhhhhh! |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
 |
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 9:47 PM on 03.09.08 |
| ->> JON_A_THAN! |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 03.12.08 |
->> -------
Talks between news agencies and Major League Baseball appear to be moving toward a compromise about new credentialing guidelines, according to people on both sides of negotiations.**MLB has backed down from a ban on all online galleries of baseball game photos. Under a proposed revision to the rules, news agencies that regularly cover a team will be able to post photo galleries of up to 15 photos a day. Exceptions would be made in some cases, such as photo galleries connected directly to a story and galleries covering special events or historic milestones.**John Cherwa, an Orlando Sentinel editor and sports coordinator for the Tribune newspaper chain, called the change "a big and gracious concession on their part."
--------
Terrible. To call MLB "gracious" means that we've conceded the notion that the freedom of the press should have the ability to cover the news without influence. Period. I'm not sure this stance will help us in future negotiations with other professional sports leagues - or anyone else for that matter. Any lawyer worth his weight will pick up on this and view it as a crack in our armor. I would.
If we truly believe that is is our choice to cover the news then how and when we present it should be up to us as well. Some people will tout this as a victory - but I fear this will be the beginning of something much worse. We cannot cover musical preformances any more (past the first or second song) because years ago, we never raised a flag when organizers tolds us what we could photograph and for how long we could do it. |
|
lori shepler, Photographer
|
los angeles | ca | | Posted: 2:27 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> That is good to hear it is resolved today. I was assigned (for the LA Times) to shoot the Angels last night and they handed me the old contract to sign before I picked up my season credential. My editor told me to not sign it since rule number 4 had the limit of 7 photos.
I got a day pass and the website posted 9 photos in the gallery. |
|
|| Sponsor Special Deals
Nikon D3 (refurbished demo!)
|
Available from:
Samy's Camera
|
Price: $3799.00 |
Notes:
We have 15 refurbished demo Nikon D3 cameras available. First come, first served! Comes with a 3 month manufacturer warranty, and extended warranties are available. Send an email to samys@sportsshooter.com, or call 866-726-9463 and identify yourself as a person from SportsShooter.
|
|
-- More Info -- |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
