| 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
Arkansas HS Photo Rights
Mark Stallings, Photographer
 |
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 9:00 AM on 09.12.07 |
| ->> The Arkansas Activities Association just announced a new policy grabbing the rights to all still and video photography for all post season sports. While they claim this won't impact news photography the newspapers are up in arms. At the very least it will limit anyone trying to get access to post season games as well as any attempt to sell those images. I guess that high school sports is heading down the same path as pro and college. It's getting tougher to get access. |
|
William Luther, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 09.12.07 |
->> Mark,
Do you have any links to the announcement or other information about the issue? |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
|
William Luther, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 09.12.07 |
->> Here's a link to the AHSAA media guide in pdf format:
http://www.ahsaa.org/docs/media%20guide.pdf
I believe the information about rights starts on page 11 and runs through page 13. |
|
William Luther, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 09.12.07 |
->> Mike,
Thanks for the info.
I imagine it won't be long before the UIL here in Texas starts looking at this -- if they haven't already. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:12 PM on 09.12.07 |
| ->> This is the boldest move yet by a state high school sports organization. The way the bulletin is written the organization won't charge the newspapers a fee to assume ownership rights of the images shot during post-season contest. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 09.12.07 |
| ->> I'm trying to understand how an organization that is not private but a public entity can do this. I totally understand the pros, which are owned by individuals and corporations and such but this is the public school systems right? they play on facilities which are built by taxes which everyone pays. I hope someone will take on these bozos. it's gets so tiring to read this stuff. everyone wants to make money off of the photos but they don't want to pay the people who are actually doing the work. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 5:22 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> From the bulletin linked to: "Tom Ewart/NWA Photography of Fayetteville has the internet photography rights for all AAA regional and state championship games."
Tom is a member here: http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=63
Maybe Tom can shed some light on this.
It *seems* to be similar to what happened in Louisiana earlier this year: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=23943
Lots of differing opinions in that thread...
This particular case in Louisiana seems to be absurd:
"The Arkansas Activities Association is the owner of its rights,events and the copyright holder of AAA events, which includes all still photographs taken of AAA events, all film, videotape and audiotape of AAA post-season events and the live audio and visual broadcasts of AAA regional/state events. Still photography, filming, videotaping and audio recording is prohibited at all AAA regional/state events, except as expressly and specifically authorized by the AAA."
I happen to agree with restricting commercial sales and use of the images by the press, but to take all rights of images created by the press is just plain stupid and unacceptable. |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
|
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 5:43 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> There was a story in the Democrat-Gazette today abut this issue.
here is a link to a part of the story
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2007/sep/12/media-question-rule-governi...
I'm not worrying about it too much but some of the AD's around want their cut including any photos that might be sold by a newspaper, which I think is outlandish. Also, they weren't happy when some of the Internet Photo companies had access to their games then had a boatload of photos on their site without AAA getting any cash from it.
Wadie Moore of the AAA, a former High school writer for the Arkansas Gazette, the said the rule probably needs clarifying that if a news organization has a pass to the game, then they own their stuff or something along those lines. I think the AAA just wants to be the NCAA. In fact, students aren't allowed to wear face paint or body paint in support of their teams anymore!
Also, I'm just glad they haven't regulated using flash at games. |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
|
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 09.12.07 |
| ->> Another thing from this deal is that it sounds like Parents cant come in and take photos of their kids playing. they already need a tag from AAA if they want to video tape during state and regional events. From what I've read, they'll have to pay for it now. |
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:06 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> I suspect that what the AAA really meant to do is to limit the access of commercial photographers and videographers without limiting the media's access but that the AAA is just so ill informed on how to go about it they ended up with a dimwitted policy.
Texas UIL already has restrictions on commercial usage of images from the state championship events, just not to the ridiculous levels spelled out in the AAA policy. UIL policy says "COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS: The UIL prohibits the sale of photographs from UIL State Championship Events, and will not credential any photographers whose photos will be used for any purpose other than media coverage". |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> Boycott!
Girlcott!
If every Arkansas paper refused to cover any games they would cave.
It's so simple. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 8:28 PM on 09.12.07 |
| ->> Right on the money Jim. Thats all it really takes at this level... think how many upset parents you would get with 'I wanted to see my child in the newspaper.. etc..' |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:23 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> Two points. First Chuck both the Massachusetts and Rhode Island associations are PRIVATE npo's. I'd bet that most of the state prep leagues are private bodies.
From MIAA.net ...The MIAA is a private, non-profit association organized by its member schools...
From the RIIL.org ....The RIIL , established in 1932, is a voluntary, private, incorporated, non-profit association...
Patrick and Jim keep this in mind, if the boycott works the hs association has lost nothing in the process. Maybe a few pissed off parents but in the end 2 1/2 months later a whole new bunch of championships will be happening and all will be forgotten. If the boycott doesn't work you have proven that life can go on without newspaper coverage and once that happens you will fight uphill forever and a day to win that back. Boycotting any sporting event in today's age is a fools bet. The NPPA didn't back a boycott of the NFL for a reason. The rugby boycott came to an end when it was agreed that newspapers would not become faux TV channels. There are always way to work these thing out. The distressing thing is the apparent lack of goodwill on either side of these arguments.
Patrick I can tell you as a parent of 2 hs athletes, upsetting parents is not something that these groups put much weight on. Seriously, if you had to start a top 100 list, "Lets not piss off parents" might rank #97, and only for a few hours. |
|
Tom Ewart, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 9:44 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> Ok, so I probably should chime in now... since I'm named in the PDF. NWA Photography has been named the Official Action Photographer of the Arkansas Activities Association. We have the rights for internet sales of still images from the Arkansas State High School Championships and AAA events. We are bringing what I have delivered to Arkansas Razorbacks for the past 20 years in the editorial market to the High School Market. Just like some networks have the right for TV Broadcast rights we have similar type rights to the Internet sales of still images. This would fall under commercial speech and not part of the editorial market, as I understand it.
If what Chuck Liddy mentions to be true, then most college games should be open to everyone by the same logic, those stadiums are public intuitions in facilities built with public monies.. , but we know that not to be the case.
Like many sport the AAA wants to control those who work at the games, just like the guy who sells the championship t-shirts at the games -- I too am a vendor and my product just happens to be high quality action photography. My agreement just happens to include 130 or so sporting events.
I do invite sports shooters on this list that may have an interest in this opportunity to work with me on this project to drop me e-mail. I think this will be a great opportunity to strengthen action photography as a business and open up opportunities for photographers across the state of Arkansas. The bottom line is that I think I have a quality product and that high school sports are coming into their own. High School sports have come a long way in the past 5 years—we have seen the facility blossom in our area and they wouldn’t be growing if people were not interested and supporting the programs more and more and with that, there is a increasing need for higher quality services to help the high schools reach those goals. |
|
Ronnie Montgomery, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 09.12.07 |
->> Tom,
The AAA just needs to get a better worded policy so that it doesn't give the impression that they are claiming ownership of photos taken by representatives of the media that are used in editorial publications.
The policy can be written in a manner that protects any contractual agreements they have for the commercial end without imposing a rights grab on the media. |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photographer
|
Pittsburg | KS | United States | Posted: 9:29 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> Re a potential boycott, I agree with Eric C. — The only ones that would be hurt by a boycott are, a) the kids who don't get coverage and, b) the media boycotting. I agree the potential of the rights grab is frightening, to say the least. But, if I were to boycott coverage of a sporting event because of some insane rule of the state's athletic association, those parents who's kids aren't in the paper aren't going to blame the athletic association. They're going to blame the newspaper I work for.
There needs to be clarification of this ruling by AAA. I'm hoping the folks who say this is just a poorly-worded policy are correct. But, given the past history of athletic associations up to and including the pros, the conspiracy theorist inside me doesn't think so.
With all due respect to Tom and his business, if this — as stated in an indirect quote from "administrators" in the linked article from the Ark. Democrat — this is only an attempt to monitor and control who is crowding the sidelines at sporting events, why talk about rights and name an "official" photographer in the policy? Why not just say that only photographers/videographers representing an official media outlet with a vested interest in game coverage are allowed to shoot from the sidelines? That would include AP/other news services, the papers and/or any freelancers those papers needed to staff the games. Wouldn't that make more sense? |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | USA | Posted: 9:48 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> "If the boycott doesn't work you have proven that life can go on without newspaper coverage and once that happens you will fight uphill forever and a day to win that back."
I feel that's a risk worth taking.
"if I were to boycott coverage of a sporting event because of some insane rule of the state's athletic association, those parents who's kids aren't in the paper aren't going to blame the athletic association."
If you do it properly they will. Along with every report of a game run a photo-sized box with an explanation that the AAA will not allow your newspaper to cover the game properly. You explain what you're doing and keep explaining. People aren't stupid. |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> "The AAA just needs to get a better worded policy so that it doesn't give the impression that they are claiming ownership of photos taken by representatives of the media that are used in editorial publications."
This is the solution, but doesn't address the issue of newspapers selling prints on/offline. Newspapers want their cake (unfettered access under the guise of "media/press") and eat it too (sell prints outside the context of editorial content). |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:27 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> Well Jim assuming that you own a newspaper or are the managing editor of one I would suggest that you be the one to try it out. The funny thing about a market driven economy is that the minute you stop providing a service for which there is a demand others will jump at the opportunity.
I think that what the AAA is trying to do is the same thing that many other state associations are trying to do. They are entering into contracts with vendors and have to limit the potentials for those contracts to either be breached or financially harmed. A big part of the problem is that newspapers are now trying to become CNN's with 24/7 web casts huge image galleries etc. I think that ultimately a standard agreement will have to be ironed out that will cover and protect both sides. This is what has happened at all of the other 'news events' that the public pays to attend. Concerts NCAA NFL MLB etc etc etc
The problem will not go away as long as the newspapers are seen as adversaries and potential spoilers to those leagues that have a financial interest at stake. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 09.13.07 |
| ->> So if I shoot a HS playoff game and turn in 20 game pictures, most of which only appeared online in a slideshow, you event shooters think my paper shouldn't be able to sell prints of the web-only images? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:11 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> Jeff,
Would your paper do it for a concert, NCAA or pro sporting event? Why should high school events be treated any differently? Would your paper put up 20 images from the US Open as a slide show and offer them for sale.
↓ *** not directed at any one member *** ↓
I'm trying understand why you would agree to one set of rules for something like the NCAA and feel entitled to do as you please at a AAA MIAA RIIL XYZ event. Don't those bodies have the same RIGHTS to limit access, and use, as any other entity? |
|
AJ Mast, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 09.13.07 |
->> Correct or not many, many papers sell NCAA or concert photos taken by staffers. It has been a common and largely unchallenged practice for years.
I think the question is one of copyright. If the newspaper owns the copyright, any use they may wish to purpose the image for, assuming it does not infringe on other laws, should not be restricted.
That said I disagree with the more recent "more is better" state of photo galleries. There is a difference between using the gallery as an extension of the story, putting in news worthy images and dumping every picture into a gallery. When editors are giving photographers quotas of photos because they are doing a gallery, that is just wrong. That smacks of just trying to sell prints. Editors, the word EDIT is right there, do it!
There is also a certain expectation that parents have. If they see a picture of their kid in the paper or on the web they like, they expect to be able to get a copy of it. A certain amount of pride can come from being recognized in such a public way for having accomplished something. So why shouldn't you be able to buy a print of that moment that will last longer then a news or web page. I am not sure newspapers shouldn't give them away as a thank you for letting us and our readers share in their moment.
And speaking of parents, not letting them shot their own kids? Give me a break. I am not saying credential them, but if they buy a ticket who cares. If your primary competition is average Joe in the stands with a camera find a new line of work, you are not bringing much to the party.
If I shot something for an editorial outlet, at an event with an official photographer, I let that outlet decided if they want to sell prints, and let them do it. By in large the effort to sell a few prints is not worth it to me.
That said there have been times when parents have begged me to sell them a print of a play or something the event photographer did not have. I don't do it and tell them the event guy paid to be there and they have to see him. They don't understand. I also doubt I would get the same courtesy if an editorial outlet called up the event guy wanting to buy photos.
The lack of respect the organizing bodies show the media is just ridiculous. In many cases they beg for coverage of the sport, then they try and restrict it. If kids aren't able to see and learn about a sport, they are not going to want to play it. All the work and effort that the non-money athletes put in should be covered, and the organizing bodies should do every thing they can to make that as easy as possible. |
|
Tom Ewart, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 12:06 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Jeffery, how do you justify just throwing up some extra shots online for the intent to sell them as a journalistic effort?
Do you caption up the images with meaningful captions? or is it just a vehicle to put the images out there to sell them--by the way do you personally get any extra benefit if you if they sell. How are the images presented? With your paper's story of the event or are they in a separate gallery not tied to the written editorial content?
I guess you kind of have to drill down to the real purpose of the online gallery, is it to sell a product or actully report the news. It's just a question I would have to ask...
I don't know how you paper presents the material, I'd be interested to know.
Tom Ewart |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 12:12 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> I'm not turning in event-style pictures- We are talking about images that tell the story of a game, but were not able to run in the paper due to space limitations. This is hardly "little johnny in his uniform at the big game" photography. I don't turn in 96 pictures, making sure to get a clean image of every single player. Very few newspapers do that.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I feel that 95% of the work I see from event sports photographers isn't very good. But their niche is dependent on the lack of competition, say at freshman games, or by throwing a kickback to a school to be the only one able to sell prints.
I really think that sports associations will think twice about losing their coverage and publicity over a measly few thousand dollars in kickbacks. |
|
Mark Buffalo, Photographer
|
Lonoke | AR | USA | Posted: 12:22 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> So, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette puts an online gallery for every event they shoot and have for the state championship games. And if they sell them, is that a problem? From what was said in the paper yesterday, that isn't a problem because the paper is credentialed.
I just think the Arkansas Activities Association has more to worry about than this. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> The images I'm talking about are all fully captioned- they were submitted for use in the paper, and didn't get in because of space. There are no extra "online only" images. Any of them could have been used in the paper.
I get a whopping $5 cut of prints we sell. |
|
Tom Story, Photographer
|
Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:41 PM on 09.13.07 |
| ->> The papers want lots of photos in the gallery to help drive traffic to their website, so there are lots of hits, thus cranking up the numbers to impress the advertisers. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:55 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> ... "but I feel that 95% of the work I see from event sports photographers isn't very good..."
Funny thing is that I think the same thing about the 'extra' images that I'm seeing on newspaper websites. Then again I could say that about 95% of ALL the photos that I see on any given day ANYWHERE. Face it 99% of the photos that run anywhere aren't what you would put in your folio if you were out looking for work. They're passable, they get the job done, but are you telling me that every shot you put out is 'portfolio' quality?? If you are, you either need to A. raise your standards or B. Call VII and see of they're hiring. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 09.13.07 |
| ->> I'm not a lawyer, but I must confess that after reading the AAA verbiage I didn't interpret it as them attempting to assert copyright ownership of every image taken at their events in the traditional "rights grab" sense. The statement doesn't seem materially different than the "rights" statements asserted by organizations like the NFL or MLB. The AAA merely seems to be asserting that they "own" the events and, as such, have the "rights" to control who commercially exploits video, stills, etc. taken at the events. |
|
William Luther, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 2:51 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Tom,
Thanks for chiming in on the issue.
I think so far this debate has been handled pretty well by everybody and has managed to not get personal. Let's all hope it stays that way.
I think some of the issues you brought up about internet-only content are very relevant. But I don't think they are black and white.
Just because the internet allows tradional newspapers to expand thier coverage online shouldn't mean that everything extra posted by newspapers on the internet should be suspect.
Newspapers put up enitre indictments now. They put up entire presidential speeches. They put up audio slides shows. They put up extra pictures. The internet allows newspapers the ability to expand their coverage in many areas.
I'm not saying there aren't newspapers putting up 60-picture slide shows showing every player on the team, but I don't think that's the main goal at most places.
Although putting up slideshows from every sporting event I cover has not always been my favorite thing to do, it has at least allowed me to shot AND PUBLISH pictures that there has not been room for in the print product in the past. |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Tom
"I think this will be a great opportunity to strengthen action photography as a business and open up opportunities for photographers across the state of Arkansas."
Honestly I have worked for several sports action companies and the only people I feel that are going to benefit are the companies.
I've seen some of the hacks that get hired when you're stretched across 130 different events like you say you are.
So if you want to chime in, chime in on what you'll be paying your sport shooters an hour or per event, maybe then I'll believe you when you say this copyright land grab state assc. are doing is good for the business.
My guess, it's not enough to get a senior SS member or decent freelancer, unless they're a friend of yours. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 7:29 PM on 09.13.07 |
| ->> Inappropriate ?? Someone care to tell me what part of that was rude, racist or blatantly disrespectful? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:43 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> I'm quite surprised at the number of staff photographers arguing the side of their publication should have the rights to sell images.
I have done prep sports coverage freelance for many years and the group of papers I shoot for has recently really started making a strong marketing push in regards to selling images.
We are now asked to provide additional images as well as drop off PA annoucements to the pressbox that the images are availible online and so forth.
I have to say that I for one am not a fan of this because its more work for me with no additional compensation and I don't see a dime for any of those images that sell. I get a great shot of little Bobby and his folks buy a few hundred dollars worth of prints off the papers website and I don't see a dime for it. My deadline has been moved up for the marketing push to get the images online and I'm required to shoot longer to get more images to submit than the previous years requirments.
I really think that the papers should be strictly editorial. Give us access to the events of course, but with the understanding we only will shoot for editorial purposes, which may or may not include online gallery, slideshow etc. Images will not be marketed or in anyway sold though.
Leave selling the images up to the contracted tournament photographers or booster etc.
I simply see things like this as a slippery slope. I fear that one day instead of trying to provide quality story telling images from a game, we'll be encouraged to instead get good isolated player shots, in other words, the type of images that sell.
Additionally, when there is a contracted photographer, company etc, say VIP sports which is big in the midwest where I live, they have the sole rights to sell images for the big state tournaments. Theres not issues though with all the various local papers getting access to provide coverage for their given schools. Whats going to happen with a publication that is really pushing their images sales wants to cover the tournament as well ?
You can't very well disregard the contracted photo companys right to exclusive coverage by allowing anyone in that you know will try to sell. Its its Rival Sports Photography who wants to shoot the event and put images for sale online they'd certainly be asked to leave. So what do you do when its some other publication that will sell the images, but at the same time the editorial coverage they offer is needed because parents do want to read about how their schools/kids did at state. By keeping the two things totally seperate theres no issues and everything goes just fine.
I'm happy to work as a hired event shooter and I'm happy to work as an editorial shooter. I'll give you 110% effort to provide the best work I can in either situation but I really wish I could just wear one hat or the other at a given time. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:17 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Tom,
I'm interested in hearing the details of how you envision how you will "strengthen action photography as a business and open up opportunities for photographers across the state of Arkansas."
It sound more like a matter of exclusivity going to the lowest bidder with profitability depending upon the lowest possible production costs.
--Mark |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:21 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> According to the AAA policy, news organizations are limited to sending only "salaried employees." This specifically excludes freelancers.
--Mark |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Jeffrey Haderthauer said the following:
"I'm going out on a limb here, but I feel that 95% of the work I see from event sports photographers isn't very good,"
"I'm not turning in event-style pictures- We are talking about images that tell the story of a game"
"I get a whopping $5 cut of prints we sell"
Jeffrey, I feel compelled to respond to your statements because I shoot a fair amount of "event photography" as you describe it, and although I am a Sports Shooter member and I do shoot for newspapers sometimes (among other publications) I approach "little Johnny's" ice hockey game with every bit as much professionalism as I would if I were covering Big Ten Football. If that includes my work in the 95% that you describe as "not very good," then I'm ok with that as long as others are still willing to buy it. When I'm shooting youth hockey tournaments, I light the place up like the Stanley Cup finals, even if it is a consolation game in the loser's bracket for teams comprised of six year olds. If it's a big game to THEM, then it's a big game to ME.
AS for your "I'm not talking about event-style pictures" statement, I might get my first ever "inappropriate" mark if I respond properly to that little tidbit of wisdom. Again, I approach the kid game like The Big Game, the photos tell the story. I'll admit that I don't CAPTION the photos made for this purpose, but I have never seen a bad photo become a great photo with the addition of a caption. I'm not sure how a caption makes a photo a "good" photo.
The last bit about the $5 per photo is just bad business. You would criticize the business practices of people building a successful carreer in a highly competitive industry while you openly admit that someone else owns your work and when they sell it you only get $5? There's some irony there, if you look closely enough.
My biggest problem is that I am having a very hard time understanding what appears to be the widespread "logic" that working as a staffer for whatever the company will pay a shooter while surrendering your copyright is fine, but setting your own rates, choosing your own assignments, and owning your copyright is somehow bad for The Industry. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 11:59 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> Lets see, I also get stability, insurance, paid vacations, 401k, etc., and make a fairly comfortable living. Oh, and the equipment I use on a daily basis.
And as for 'event style pictures', I'm referring to those iso shots of people doing nothing in particular, like just standing on second base or in the outfield. You know the ones I'm talking about. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:59 PM on 09.13.07 |
->> ...I might get my first ever "inappropriate" ....
Join the club I just got mine. Thank you for saying what I wanted to, but better. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:17 AM on 09.14.07 |
->> Jeff you got me.
I have all those things too. But you've probably got one thing that I don't.... A boss. One who decides your pay rate, when you can go on vacation, and all of those other things. |
|
Brad Mangin, Photographer
 |
Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 12:19 AM on 09.14.07 |
->> Good evening Jeff.
You said this above:
"I have to say that I for one am not a fan of this because its more work for me with no additional compensation and I don't see a dime for any of those images that sell. I get a great shot of little Bobby and his folks buy a few hundred dollars worth of prints off the papers website and I don't see a dime for it. My deadline has been moved up for the marketing push to get the images online and I'm required to shoot longer to get more images to submit than the previous years requirments. "
I am really sorry to hear about this. All I can say to you and other freelancers for newspapers in this situation is to just say "NO" and walk away from this very bad freelance agreement. If you and all the other freelancers for this publication walked away from this awful increase in work, etc. for no extra pay the paper would have to buckle and pay you guys better. I am sure you will say that if you said NO then someone else will take your gigs. That is unfortunate but we have all had to walk at various times during our days in the business and we are able to sleep better knowing that we are not being taken advantage of. I know I do.
Once again Jeff- I am sorry you are in this situation but by accepting these terms you are being taken advantage of- and as a fellow photographer it makes me very upset because I care about you and other younger folks out there who are continually taken advantage of. I wish you the best of luck. |
|
Doug McSchooler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Avon | IN | USA | Posted: 12:27 AM on 09.14.07 |
->> Unfortunately, so much of this thread has talked about the business of making a buck from an image of some high school kid that in the majority of cases has, at best, four years of his life in the limelight in the sports section of the local newspaper. These kids aren't going pro. They're not by any definition celebrities. The local paper will be their 15 minutes of fame.
I find it sad, as a journalist, that few comments have been made about the differences between the goal of an event photographer versus the goal of a photojournalist working for a newspaper.
It is MY opinion that the schools have been sold a deal by salesmen peddling wares they claim to be their own — that being the images of these high school kids. Historically, the local newspaper has been the elite stage for these athletes and the newspaper had no reason, or interest, in wanting to monopolize the coverage of their circulation. Newspapers don't assume having exclusive coverage of these events, simply, they strive to have the best coverage of these events.
Sadly, journalistic integrity is being ignored because of greed by school administrators, athletic associations, and our colleagues selling it to them.
As far as newspaper galleries are concerned, I dare say that more photographers enjoy looking at them than the fans. As a parent, I'd much prefer seeing that three-column vertical shot in the sports section of my kid rather than a 250px-wide shot in the middle of 20 others on the internet.
The picture that runs in the paper, that's special. It was the best (presumably). There was something about that moment that the photojournalist felt was important to the game. It was the photojournalist's coverage of the match, his or hers best effort at telling the readers about that moment of a game. Isn't that what the readers want? Reportage.
The public goes to the newspaper because they can trust them. There's integrity and ethics involved. Do they know they can trust the ethics of the photographers that bought their way onto the sidelines to have exclusivity of the images they'll get to see from that event?
Does the reader even care, or know? Well, that's our job to tell them that too. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:07 AM on 09.14.07 |
->> ...Do they know they can trust the ethics of the photographers that bought their way onto the sidelines to have exclusivity of the images they'll get to see from that event? ...
Can you clarify that for me? Doesn't Getty pay 6+ figures for the NFL contract that they have? Are you implying that Getty's NFL images may be suspect because they 'bought' their access?
I also agree what a good chunk of your post. As a parent I got a kick when my son would make the Sunday paper. What always seems to get missed is that the papers aren't being barred, banned or otherwise blocked from covering any event. EVER. In every case that I have ever heard or seen posted all that any of these associations have asked is that the papers not post huge galleries and sell images from them. How does that impede the ability to report a story? Take 3000 images if you want print / post a REASONABLE number of images to go with you reporting.
I'll go on a limb as say that you would most likely have no problem getting any state association to let a 20 image slideshow fly and to sell that show. What they what to curb is the 100-300 image gallery meant to drive clicks and kill their contract.
The problem as I have seen it is that 99% of the time the papers want 100% access and 100% freedom to do anything that they wish. They aren't willing to deal with restrictions of any kind or when they do it's after a long and protracted posturing period. The rugby farce is a good example. It all boiled down to not competing with the video contracts. In the end the papers/wires agreed.
Like I said before, at some point, one of the big players will put up some REAL money. Maybe MaxPreps will offer a few million to Cali for a deal. That's when we'll see where this goes. Once a company with CBS's resources decides that they want in, the real lines in the sane will get drawn.
What's ironic is that the same people who worry about a citizen journalist killing their job think nothing of killing someone else's job. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:11 AM on 09.14.07 |
->> The four things I find interesting in AAA policy is one paper will not longer have the ability (dare say right) to assign a freelancer to cover a post-season contest.
Second, in almost every case the state associations don't solicit RFPs from possible vendors and don't have a provision for another vendor to bid competitively for that contract.
Three, it appears newspapers aren't up in arms by the fact, as stated in paragraph 2 of the AAA's document, the association states they are owners of any photograph shot by any still photographer.
Four, in paragraph six, based on the way I interpret the clause, if a newspaper wants to republish a photo in say a separate end of the year review or fall preview, they are required to seek permission from the association and pay a licensing fee to do so. |
|
Michael Proebsting, Photographer
|
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 10:05 AM on 09.14.07 |
| ->> You can only be taken advantage of when you ALLOW yourself to be taken advantage of. Threads like these remind me why I worship my freelance status. As far as this whole Arkansas HS deal, the only person benefitting from this arrangement will be Mr. Ewart, who has obviously learned through the Getty model, "Control the market and you will be king" |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 2:43 PM on 09.14.07 |
->> Dear Jeffrey Haderthauer, Am I in the 95%? I hope not. Happy shooting, Sam
Once again, does ss.com need two sections? One for editorial and one for us evil, money grabbing "Event Photographers'?
Does Jeff's paper let other shooters post images on the paper's site for free? Can I get free ads in his paper because it is printed for the general public? Can I submit images to the paper to compete with Jeff to take money out of his paycheck, 401k, and lessen his mediacal coverage?
Just a few questions from the evil side of the fence. |
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
|
North Little Rock | AR | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 09.15.07 |
->> There is something that is mentioned by Clark and in the Arkansas Democrat article that is just not true. The Arkansas Razorbacks have the same line in their new credential form. The AAA in paragraph two is stating that they own the
copyright to their EVENT. NOT the Copyright to the photographs taken at the event. The NFL owns the copyright to the Super Bowl, the Pro Bowl, etc. |
|
William Luther, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 09.15.07 |
->> Sam said: "Does Jeff's paper let other shooters post images on the paper's site for free?"
Yes, they are called Citizen Journalists!
Sorry, I just couldn't help a little tounge-in-cheek humor. |
|
Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer
|
San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 8:12 PM on 09.15.07 |
->> Here is my take on the matter:
First and foremost, we as journalists should separate the right to take pictures for publication, from the right to sell reprints. By confusing the issue, we get commercial interests mixed up in free press arguments. I am not saying that newspapers shouldn't fight to sell reprints, only that it shouldn't get mixed up in the free press debate. It is not a free press issue.
Second, it is clear to me that the drive to deny newspapers the right to sell reprints is driven by the event sport photographers. I don't think that the Arkansas athletic association came up with this idea. It is a business move, and the purpose is to eliminate competition and to create a monopoly in regards to pictures of high school sporting events. The newspapers produce great dynamic images while covering the game. I wouldn't want to have to compete against that either.
Ultimately the event organizers will have to decide which relationship they value more and probably this will end in some kind of compromise. It is anybody's guess what they will decide. A boycott did work in Louisiana. And boycotts have worked with pro sports on other issues. The internet has evened some of the playing field but the newspapers still buy ink by the barrel.
Also, prep sports is entirely different than pro sports. Pro sports are private businesses. Prep sports are run in most cases by the public school system. And the kids are not paid to play. And the people with the greatest influence in prep sports are the parents. Who love to see their kids picture in the newspaper and buy a copy. And these parents are being told that they can't take pictures or videos of their kids at the championship game.
Finally, everyone needs to look closely at these arrangements in their own states. It is coming to a theater near you. This one is egregious, it claims to own the copyright to all images taken, bans the posting of video of the game, and other things that are non-starters for me. Since photographers do more than just shoot nowadays, there are many ways that this can screw you up. So don't just be ready for this, be expecting it. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:37 PM on 09.15.07 |
->> Wesley:
The clause reads as follows:
2. The Arkansas Activities Association is the owner of its rights, events and the copyright holder of AAA events, which includes all still photographs taken of AAA events, all film, videotape and audio tape of AAA post-season events and the live audio and visual broadcasts of AAA regional/state events.
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Unless I'm mistaken, and I am willing to be corrected on this point, a sporting event can not be granted a copyright ~ unless a sporting event is considered a performance then I understand how it could be under current statutes. It could be registered and patented ~ but not likely since there is tons or prior art. Creative content derived from such events can be registered with the US copyright office.
2. It is fairly clear where it says "...includes all still photographs taken of AAA events..." that as written, and its purpose, is to claim ownership rights of the images shot by any and all photographers at AAA events. Technically speaking if the school is a member of the AAA, hosting an AAA sanction event. This policy would extend to all regular season games as well. Note there is no language that specifically says item two does not apply to newspapers and media covering AAA events.
3. If the Razorbacks included such language on their newest cred agreement I'd be willing to bet the local paper(s) and national magazines are not subject to that clause and have an agreement other than the one you were given - otherwise I would not think they would not be covering the games. If I owned a newspaper and sent a photographer to cover it and then did not have ownership to the art created, you can bet I wouldn't be staffing their games with my labor for free and giving up the ownership right in the process. Duh! Credential policies are not on a level playing field at the college level any more than prep sports. What you may have receive as a freelancer may be different than the one given to the local newspaper. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 9:59 PM on 09.15.07 |
->> This issue is driven by cold cash. The AAS is doing this because Tom Ewart can offer more $$$ for the rights if he is the EXCLUSIVE source of photos to the parents. I fail to see how not allowing the paper to sell prints is a free press issue. disclaimer me = event shooter.
I agree about all the copy right issues; however these state assn.s are private orgs. They make some serious bling. Big stink in OH a few years ago when the annual Ohio Athletic Assn. conference was held in .....MAUI. 150 attendees+ wives (husbands) all paid for with the profits (oops..NPOs) err resouces of the assn.
Ahyhow, please tell me how keeping a paper from selling prints, just prints mind you, messes with freedom of the press. I was under the impression that the "freedom" was freedom to publish. Not freedom to do what ever. I mean could the Chicago paper sell MJ posters. Can the Plain Dealer sell Lebraun posters. How about Lebraun T-shirts. Does the medium matter???
I think Alica has a good point about getting the free press issue confused by insisting on the rights to sell reprints.
You guys had the principal on here in this case. Unfortunaltely,Tom was driven off by the combative nature of the posts. I understand this is a highly charged issue. Try not to let it get in the way of a constructive discussion. |
|
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
|