SportsShooter.com - Illinois HS Assoc. denies photographers access

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:

Contests:

Newsletter:

Members:

About Us:

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

Illinois HS Assoc. denies photographers access

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 9:14 PM on 11.23.07
	->> This posted today on the IHSA site: http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2007-08/2007-11-23.htm I had heard rumors along the sidelines that shooters were being turned away but couldn't confirm or deny it. Reporters were still able to cover the games they were assigned.

Alan Look, Photographer

	Bloomington \| IL \| United States \| Posted: 9:51 PM on 11.23.07
	->> It's true Clark, I just spoke with one of the ones that was turned away. http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/doc4747627752bba86771309...

Bob Ford, Photographer

Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:08 PM on 11.23.07

->> This is surprising. I just read an article earlier today on NPPA, http://tinyurl.com/2zyony , that said:

"In an attempt at a compromise and at the suggestion of the judge in this case, IPA has now withdrawn their request for a temporary restraining order, based on a tentative a working agreement with IHSA which will allow IPA members to cover the games without having to promise to not publish online, and without having to promise to not sell reprints."

Then today when the newspapers show up to cover the game they are turned away? Something doesn't add up.

Jean Finley, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Iowa City \| IA \| USA \| Posted: 10:09 PM on 11.23.07
	->> Do newspapers really need to be in the "photo selling" business?

Sam Morris, Photographer

Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 10:27 PM on 11.23.07

->> "Dear Readers,

We regret to inform you that we will no longer be covering high school football or basketball. The Illinois High School Association has decided that because we sell photos from athletic events to parents and friends of athletes, we will not be allowed access to the events.

In the future, if you desire coverage of your son's and daughter's team, please contact the IHSA to find out what business is paying them for the right to market images, and then pay whatever company they have decided to grant a monopoly to for access to your child's team.

Respectfully,

Your Home Town Paper"

That might elicit a response if published in a paper.

Tom Suarez, Photographer

Austin | texas | USA | Posted: 10:28 PM on 11.23.07

->> Sounds like they are just trying to make money just like pro sports such as NASCAR and others. I photograph high school sports for several local newspapers and I also sell those photos on my website to the parents who do not have access to the field or the equipment to get good photos. I am shooting the state championship football games tomorrow in San Antonio. I am glad I do not have this problem and yes I will be putting them on my site for sale to the parents.

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 10:28 PM on 11.23.07
	->> Jean: Do newspapers really need to be in the "documenting" or "storytelling" business? After all, does a photo not tell a story or document a moment for others to see visually? Are you saying the only way to tell a story is with words?

Bob Ford, Photographer

Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:32 PM on 11.23.07

->> Jean, while I don't think they NEED to be in the "photo selling" business, it's something that has been going on for years and years.

The main point is that newspapers should be the ones to decide what they do with their photos, not a high school sports association. Now they are saying that they don't want us selling reprints or posting photo galleries.

What's next? Only publish one photo from each game? Only publish color photos? Don't publish photos that show student athletes making mistakes?

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 10:45 PM on 11.23.07
	->> ->> Clark - Courts were open today were they not? Did the IPA file for injunctive relief today? So much for acting in good faith

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 11:01 PM on 11.23.07
	->> Mark: Not to my knowledge(re: injunctive relief). I did hear that lawyers for both sides had long conversations this afternoon concerning the papers that were not given access.

Dave Prelosky, Photographer

Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 11:06 PM on 11.23.07

->> Jean,
Everything your publisher does relates to generating revenue to pay you, buy newsprint, keep the lights on, make the tax and 401k payments and at the end of the day make a profit for the owners. Of course we need to sell photos - as well as advertising and subsctiptions. Selling work your staff has already generated is perhaps a small but still significant revenue generator. I'll leave the possible loss of a shield claim for another discussion.
What I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is whether the Illinois state association is using what seems to be becoming universal boilerplate language claiming copyright ownership of championship photos, video and descriptions. In my personal opinion, state athletic governing bodies are attempting to maximize their revenue stream by cutting their partners off at the knees. Again this opinion, but there seem to be unanswered questions that involve 1st Amendment rights and restraint of trade. If the Illinois association can claim ownership. what will prevent any quasi-public organization from doing the same?

This is what we're facing in Pennsylvania:

http://piaa.org/assets/web/documents/Handbook%20-%20Section%20II%20-%20Poli...

You'll have to scroll back to page 77 to see the change in policy that was implimented without public notice or discussion. This may be a poorly written effort to control the sale of broadcast right that got out of hand, or could be something more onerous.
If the sale of images is challenged, what will follow?

William Luther, Photographer

San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 12:06 AM on 11.24.07

->> Jean,

We (the newspapers) have been selling photos as long as cameras have been around.

Right now at my paper you can get a photograph for 50 cents. Some papers, like USA Today, sell their pictures every day for 75 cents. Now, if you want to buy a Wall Street Journal picture, that costs a dollar.

I think a lot of papers are running special deals right now. If you buy a picture for 50 cents they'll throw in a hand full of graphics and a bunch of stories for free.

And if you agree to buy a picture every day, seven days a week, most papers will even give you a discount and agree to sell you the picture for half price and they might even bring the picture to your house for you. And what's more, you'll still get the graphics and stories for free.

And to really sweeten the deal, at our newspaper, if you buy the picture -- even at the discounted price -- we'll throw in some information about how to buy other stuff at a discount.

Come to think of it...

For 50 cents we'll throw in the stories, the graphics, the stuff about how to buy other things at a discount AND a bunch of other pictures that we think you might like to see.

But if you want the picture to last more than about a year you'll have to buy the picture on a higher quality paper and that will cost more.

OK, I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now. I hope everyone takes that as the joke I meant it to be.

But I do want to seriously point out that courts have long upheld that it is OK for newspapers to sell prints and reprints of their work. Selling our product is a fundamental aspect of what we do. If we didn't sell our product and make a profit we couldn't put out the next day's newspaper.

Jon L Hendricks, Photographer

Merrillville | IN | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 11.24.07

->> Great point William. The medium on which a photo is sold on seems to be what IHSA is confused about. What's the difference if a photo is sold on newsprint, magazine stock, or printed from a Fuji printer? Does the requirement have to be that the photo has to have text around it? And what about full-page photos? Can we just print photos on newsprint and resell those. I know our HP large format printer at work will print on almost any medium.

Now, will each high school follow suit and say they won't play as long as they don't get profit from the images of their players too!!! If you're a business minded Athletic director you should gang up with other schools to hoard some profit along with the IHSA.

My question is how do the Tribune/Sun Times come out with "books" of the Chicago Bears 2006-07 season and sell them when they can't sell individual prints of players? Or do they end up paying extra for these rights?

This is all very fuzzy stuff and I think the right should remain with the organization that created the picture.

Brad Mangin, Photographer

Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 1:05 AM on 11.24.07

->> Jon- I do not want to deviate from the main topic at hand- but I would like to answer one of your questions here real fast so the folks who are more in the know about this high school mess keep informing us.

You asked this:

"My question is how do the Tribune/Sun Times come out with "books" of the Chicago Bears 2006-07 season and sell them when they can't sell individual prints of players? Or do they end up paying extra for these rights?"

The quick answer is very black and white. A book is an EDITORIAL product and thus allowed. Heck- you or I could come out with a book about the Bears and be within all legalities based on credential language, etc. (we just would not be allowed to use the official Bears logo on the cover because that would involve a license from NFL Properties, etc).

Newspapers cannot sell sell PRINTS of Bears players- or any other pro athletes because this is deemed a COMMERCIAL product. The NFL must protect it's licensees who pay a small fortune for the right to sell officially licensed prints with the hologram on them etc. These companies are Photofile and Steiner Sports, etc.

This is all very complicated- but once you get the hang of the difference between commercial and editorial it all becomes quite clear. Basically editorial is books, magazines and newspapers. Commercial is pretty much everything else including prints, posters, trading cards, calendars, etc.

Again- sorry to hijack this thread. Back to the breaking news at hand...

Eric Francis, Photographer

Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 1:19 AM on 11.24.07

->> Oh how spoiled we have become........
Where is it written in the 1st Amend. that media are entitled to free access & special positioning.
Everyone wants to hang their hat on the 1st Amend. and say it's their right to make a "business" decision to sell reprints.
It doesn't seem they are infringing on the 1st Amend, just simply wanting to maintain the control of their product just like the NCAA, NFL, NBA, NHL etc.

.... just a thought

Eric Francis, Photographer

	Omaha \| NE \| United States \| Posted: 1:22 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Good point Brad..... So everyone, this has been the case for many years...... what's the big difference?

Derrick den Hollander, Photographer

	Melbourne \| VIC \| AUSTRALIA \| Posted: 2:02 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Wow, lucky this isn't happening at major international events. Next you know they'll be charging media outlets to cover High School games.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 2:07 AM on 11.24.07

->> I think its intresting to look at this in terms of a micro scale and see how its applies to the macro viewpoint.

Lets say you are the contracted photographer for a given school. You give them a percentage of sales, they help market your stuff, parents buy lots of photos, life is good.

You've naturally got a contract as well that states that no other photographer is going to be allowed to show up and start selling photos as well. Smart move.

You happily shoot along side a number of media photographers for a while. They are shooting for editorial usage, your shooting for commerical sales to the parents. No problems at all.

Suddenly though you find out that one of those guys who shoots for the local paper is going around telling parents he'll sell all his outtakes for cheap. Cuts into your business.

Are you going to be happy about that ? You've got a contract that no one can come shoot the games for commerical sale and they turn away all the "sports photo business" guys with a digital rebel and a smugmub acount but then becase someone says they are from a paper you let them get away with selling to the parents ?

I don't think anyone would be happy about that.

Granted its not exactly the same thing, but you can see the similarities I'm sure.

Additionally I'm really surprised why any press photographer would be upset with this rule.

Do any of you get a percentage of what your publication sells ?

I shoot for a paper that puts the images up for sale online and I could very well be selling $500 per game with the stuff I shoot and I don't see a dime from it.

Additionally since I also do some contracted work with some schools freelance, I'm cutting into my own customer base without any profit. How crazy is that ?

Whats worse is that with the web sales, the number of images I need to upload and the deadline is moved up. I need to work harder and faster because of it now.

If I'm being perfectly honest I really would like to see more HS associates deny all media access until all the papers stop selling images commerically.

As a press photographer we are there to cover the game for editorial reasons. We are supposed to be producing some good story telling images to illustrate and document an event.

When did the job become to document an event, as well as put up 30 images on the web so the paper can hopefully make some extra money off web sales ?

It just really surprises me how many photographers seem to not have an issue with that.

Lastly, think about this. How much do those of you who freelance get per game, I'm guessing about $75 on the average.

If someone came up to you at the game, said they had an online sports photo site and wanted a cd of your images which they then will sell, would you only charge them $75 for them ?

What if they ended up selling $500 worth of prints from your files ? Your gave your files away for $75.

Who would do that ?

I actually used to get calls from boosters, senior parents clubs etc to come shoot games for them. They'd see me out covering the team for the paper one week, and ask about getting photos.

I'd explain I'm already shooting for the paper right now and need to focus on getting game action, but if they are intrested I could come to the next game on my own time and shoot for them.

Anymore with all my editorial work being up for sale, that really doesn't happen anymore.

Why ? Because instead of buying privately from me, they are buying MY PHOTOS from the paper instead.

Paper wins as they not only get editoral coverage but also future sales, parents still win because they don't care who they buy from they just want the photos, only I, the photographer doesn't get any additional benifit.

I for one am not happy about that situation.

Bob Ford, Photographer

Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 3:02 AM on 11.24.07

->> Jeff, I think you're looking at the situation completely backwards.

I think the correct way to look at it is: Image this, you are a newspaper photographer who has been covering a school for 30 years. Your paper not only covers high school sports, and sells some reprints, put also covers school assemblies, student of the month, and the math club loading the bus to go to the state finals. You also go to the school when the SADD club raises money for a local charity, when the National Honor Society inducts their new members and when the Superintendent of Schools retires. Etc...

Then an event photographer signs a contract with the school saying that he is the only one allowed to sell reprints from sporting events. Now you're not allowed to do what you've been doing for 30 years.

Would you be happy about that?

For the record, photographers at our paper do get a percentage of reprint sales, both staffers and freelancers. The rest of the money from reprints is earmarked towards photo equipment.

On top of that in Pennsylvania we now have the PIAA coming out with a new policy that they quietly added to their website claiming that they own the copyright to all photos taken at inter-district playoff games.

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Urbana \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 3:40 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Jeff Mills - Your post is kinda off topic. If you want to discuss your points lets move it here: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27279 It is easy to understand why you are not happy. I wouldn't be happy either if I was in your shoes.

Jim Helsel, Photographer, Photo Editor

Christchurch | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 3:50 AM on 11.24.07

->> Eric my man, you have asked the correct question here....

So everyone, this has been the case for many years...... what's the big difference?

The big difference is the internet; the accessibility that people now have to view 100's of images that they otherwise would have never seen from a newspaper.

The newspapers are taking advantage of this new medium. The day used to be when people would call the paper for a copy of a print, that was PUBLISHED in the paper, and yes, the newspaper would re-sale them that print. I think the case was rare when a reader would actually come down to the newspaper's offices to go through 100's of images to choose to their liking. This sort of business rarely cut into the "event" photographer's wallet, as he was usually highly advertised.

Now, the newspapers are utilising this cheaper medium (the internet) to display images to the public, images that would have never seen the light of day in the past, and advertising them for sale. Newspapers can generally print these images for much cheaper than the event photographer, who supposedly has the exclusive rights to do this.

The issue of "claiming copyright" is basically absurd, and in no way do you, as an editorial photographer, owe them your images for the right of photographing the game. I believe the laws state very plainly that the owner of copyright is the creator of the work, unless they are a paid employee or work under a "work for hire" agreement. To me, this means that I and I alone own copyright in all images I create, no matter what the event may be. Are these state associations hiring you, or are you working as an employee of theirs'? If not, they cannot take copyright away from you. They can, believe it or not, control what you do with YOUR images through intellectual property rights laws. Yes, these guys do own intellectual property rights in their games.

For the people who complain about special access, well, that is a fact of life. Just because you are with a newspaper or a major agency, does not give you the "right" to special privileges. I work both sides, editorially and as a team photographer. I am allowed access to our team that is not granted to newspaper photographers, period. I also have the right to turn around and sell these images through special access to newspapers.

I do think these associations need to re-think their wording in their requirements, and I also think they have the right to protect their event photographer's investment. Just because the event photographer may pay for or provide images for their exclusive right to sell prints, does not make them any lesser of a photographer than a photographer working for a newspaper or agency.

So, it is the internet that has brought these issues more into the limelight. It will be a court who decides exactly what medium is considered editorial.

Just my thoughts on the situation....

Jim

David Richard, Photographer

Sheffield Village/Cleve. | OH | USA | Posted: 6:47 AM on 11.24.07

->> And we just had Thanksgiving ... shame, shame, shame.
We get so confused with the almighty dollar that we lose sight.
I AM THE OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER!!
Men and women .... let me announce this ... we are photographing children and young adults.
The athletic associations are expecting a piece of the photography pie, yet they don't give anything back to the schools whose students are forced to "Pay to Play"
Do you think those kids give a darned about who took their picture or who made what percentage?
But if John SportsShooter wants to buy a print of his touchdown from anyone other than the "official" photog he is screwed.
This image might be commercial? His favorite commercial is the Aflac duck. He'll still pay for the print.
But wait, now he can't buy the Page One shot of his celebration from the local paper because a non-profit association with a bunch of well-_____ board members know what's best for him?
John, nice touchdown but don't buy that print if it's not from us - we are the association!! We get no funds if you purchase from those outsiders!! They are stealing from our product. We sell special privileges - although you will never see where that cash goes.
Your levy didn't pass?, don't worry, we'll help you with buying some images from our "partners." Buy from us. Those newspapers are bsd. They don't give anything back. Just because they've invested time and money to write about you since you were a freshman doesn't mean they care. It's all about the big time - thank goodness we are here for you.
But in the mean time, John SportsShooter wishes he had that image of his incredible touchdown. That files sits on a DVD in the newspaper office.
Well, gotta move on. Time for his parents to write another check to the school system just to participate.
It truly was Black Friday.

Derrick den Hollander, Photographer

	Melbourne \| VIC \| AUSTRALIA \| Posted: 7:52 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Good on you David R, I think your viewpoint, albeit may not be popular with the High School photogs, gives a perspective from the athlete's point of view. People tend to lose sight of what sport is all about - the athletes. Anything else is secondary.

Joel Lerner, Photographer

Evanston | IL | USA | Posted: 8:42 AM on 11.24.07

->> Well, I'm getting ready to drive nearly 3 hours to be shunned at the door...

To answer some questions asked on this thread, my paper (Pioneer Press) does split the profits 50-50 with the photographers, who are not required to post their assignments, only required to fill orders of people who request reprints from the paper.

It is my understanding that the IHSA doesn't get any money from the deal with VIP, (The Official Photographers), just free use of the photos for their promotional purposes. This saves them 10s of thousands of dollars each year.

I totally understand the IHSA's point on the State Final game. They have a contract.

It's just that this weekend's actions smack of taking my ball and going home.

They sent a letter, not to the papers they are singling out at the press gate, but to a publisher's association,(Illinois Publishers Association) asking that newspapers stop selling photos from State Final events while they were in negotiations to hammer out a deal following the IPA withdrawing it request for a temporary restraining order.

Since they seem to know which paper's are being aggressive with print sales, why not send these letters to the papers directly. I'm not a lawyer, (or I'd have better equipment), so I don't know the legalities.

This seems in bad faith.

Pioneer Press is part of a larger chain. Some papers sell photos, some don't. It will be interesting to see who gets in and who doesn't. I'm supposed to be shooting for one that doesn't really market their photos very much. So I guess they get aced out too.

I've heard that today they will let newspaper photographers in without long glass to sit in the stands.

Here is my question. If I get there early, buy a ticket get a good seat and sit there with my 400 with a converter, what legal rights to they have to deny me access? What if I was a parent with the same equipment? Would they also not let me in? I know my photos won't be as good as if I had field access, but we are sending more that one photographer, so we could sit in different places.

The IHSA football championships don't sellout, so getting a seat low in the stadium isn't that hard.

At the very least, I know of a good restaurant in Champaign...

Jeff Martin, Photographer

	wellington \| OH \| usa \| Posted: 8:57 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Brad,....."Newspapers cannot sell sell PRINTS of Bears players- or any other pro athletes because this is deemed a COMMERCIAL product. The NFL must protect it's licensees who pay a small fortune for the right to sell officially licensed prints with the hologram on them etc. These companies are Photofile and Steiner Sports, etc" Isn't this exactly what the IHSA is doing? JEFF

Joel Lerner, Photographer

Evanston | IL | USA | Posted: 9:18 AM on 11.24.07

->> Jeff,
Does the IHSA have a contract with these high school students' parents saying each of them give up their rights to their image, as all recent pro athletes (except Michael Jordan) have written into their contracts?

What they have is a contract giving exclusive rights to a commercial photography studio. They are just enforcing language that has been in their rules for a while. They are just doing it at a time that will hurt the papers most.

The people this hurts most are the athletes who won't have their photos in the paper to show their grandkids them scoring the winning touchdown.
Any specifically the losing teams, who the big dailies won't put in the paper, because they will concentrate on the winning team.

So now they will have to spend 25-200 dollars for what they could get for 50 cent s to a dollar, plus some lamination. And no headline.

Walt Middleton, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:24 AM on 11.24.07

->> When I was in High School I played many different sports. I was really good at Diving. I went to state 4 years and was always in the top 5. My junior year I discovered that I was being photographed for the community paper from my home town. Not a problem. I was also told that I could purchase images of the state meet from them if I so wanted. I thought it was interesting. I went to the paper and after meeting their very shady photog who took what I thought was only that meet. I got to take a look at their archive of images of me. It scared the S**T out of me. This paper had a few thousand images of me in my Speedo. NOT ALWAYS IN GOOD LIGHT OR TAST. After speaking with the photog a while I discovered that these images were for sale... TO THE PUBLIC! I questioned this because I had not given their paper the right to sell my likeness commercially.
Long story short, I retrieved & destroyed the negatives (they weren’t digital yet) in the lawsuit because they were selling compromising images of me commercially without my permission. The only negatives they were allowed to keep were the ones that they had actually used editorially. 3 images for all 4 years of me in high school.

I don’t work High School events that often. And when I do it is always for editorial use. But, from an athletes position… These companies making money off of me commercially, without my permission and not always with images that I approve of. If I went out and tried to sell an image of a model for a poster sale, without a model release, the model would have a claim against me.

My 2 Cents

Chris Stanley, Photographer

Lansdale | PA | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 11.24.07

->> Walt, with all due respects, I find it sort of scary that an athlete or anybody can go through the archives of a newspaper and selectively take and destroy negatives. If the photos were illegal in any way, that would be different. But if they're just unflattering, what is the point of law that protects you then? I always thought "commercial" use was about using a likeness for advertising, or other similar non-editorial use. I never thought that meant selling legally taken photos one print at at time.

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 11.24.07

->> Looked at the sites of five of the papers that the Pantagraph names as being "banned" from the sidelines this morning. Interesting (at least to me) mix of what I found

Two have very limited photo coverage. One appears to have some images taken from Memorial Stadium's Horseshhoe stands (where the trophy podium is) the other looks like long glass fromt the front row of seats maybe. They also have articles on the game and the IHSA action.

One has game articles only, another a link to a county ports web page with game stories.

The other has nothing. No articles, no photos. Interestingly enough, the do have photos from an NCAA event, and a link to purchase reprints.
s

I would also like to respond to Eric's point that the press has become spoiled and the first amendment does not guarantee the press preferential access. I would assert that all businesses, charities, community organizations, educational institutions and even state high school athletic associations have become spoiled as well. They all freely submit press releases to various media outlets, with the expectation that they will be run - thus gaining free access to the media outlet's readers/viewers.

The freedom of speech cuts two ways - and includes the right not speak. Perhaps media outlets should begin charging these associations for advertising space if they want their carefully crafted words disseminated to the public.

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 10:14 AM on 11.24.07

->> Joel -

Your statement that they now have to pay more for an image is based on an assumption that there is another image, taken by the event company, even available for purchase.

Speaking from personal experience that's a poor assumption - my son competed in three IHSA State Championship events, Class A Team Dual Wrestling in 2005 and 2006 and Class 3A Football in 2006. In 2005, they lost first round - the event shooters didn't cover first round. I wasn't covering the event, so the best I have is a shot well off the mat from the stands. 2006 wrestling, he wrestled three times, team lost in the semi's, extremely limited coverage as other matches were occurring at the same time and there was only one shooter for the company there that I could see - (I was credentialed for the event as well).

In football, he started on defense - played every down but the last two and came in on offense in the middle of the first quarter and played every down the rest of the game. After looking through well over 1,000 images put up of the game by the event company I found ZERO where he was the subject and in focus. I have a few, because I was credentialed and covering the event.

I've also covered Individual State Wrestling. If you lose in the early rounds, you're out of luck.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the next step in this game be the banning of camera gear by parents in the stands and the giving away of images - by anyone.

Joel Lerner, Photographer

	Evanston \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 10:42 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Mark, Your viewing of the 5 papers is skewed by the fact that yesterday was the small schools. The papers around chicago only had Driscoll in a game yesterday. Today there are teams from the Chicagoland area in every game. The paper that had no coverage may have no team to cover. Now, time to leave on my drive of futility.

Joel Lerner, Photographer

	Evanston \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 10:42 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Mark, I also was referring to the photos in the paper, not offered for sale.

Jeff Martin, Photographer

wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 10:44 AM on 11.24.07

->> Joel,...."So now they will have to spend 25-200 dollars for what they could get for 50 cent s to a dollar, plus some lamination. And no headline."....

I don't think this is about the images that are published. ie, available for .50.

"The people this hurts most are the athletes who won't have their photos in the paper to show their grandkids them scoring the winning touchdown.
Any specifically the losing teams, who the big dailies won't put in the paper, because they will concentrate on the winning team."

This assumes the event co. won't get the shot, which I'm sure happens. The second sentence could be applied to the paper and the event co. I know in Ohio, VIP does not cover early rounds in many (all?) of the playoffs.
However, if VIP can't make money, the majority of these kids (at least in the finals) will have less of a chance to buy a picture of themselves as a memory. I seen photojournalist on this site speak condescendingly of non action shots. ie players standing before a play or in the huddle. The event shooters goal (at least mine) is to get something of every kid. Even the ones who don't leave the bench. I hate turning away from the action to shoot these types of shots; however, it's not as bad as listening to a mom ask why there was not one shot of her son in over 300 pics on the web site.

I don't pretend to have the answer to this problem. I don't think it lies in a rights grabbing credential agreement for the media. I also think there is some merit to the IHSA's objection to the posting of web galleries to sell prints. If merely publishing a web gallery, then all those guys with cameras should have sideline access also.
I guess I just don't see this as black and white on either side. Unfortunately some judge will eventually get to decide this and his opinion will become law.

Jeff Martin, Photographer

	wellington \| OH \| usa \| Posted: 10:51 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Should read.... If merely publishing a web gallery brings print sales under a 1st amendment umbrella, then all those.... sorry.

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 11:03 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Joel - Point taken with the smaller schools, however, the Pantagraph indicated these five were denied access yesterday. I presumed that if they bothered to send someone they intended to run something. One of those I mentioned that ran articles but no images, has a team in the playoffs today but not yesterday. Missed your point on the $0.50 image being the one in the paper.

Jon L Hendricks, Photographer

Merrillville | IN | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 11.24.07

->> Brad,
I still don't see how a book of photos is editorial but one print of someone is all of a sudden commercial useage? You probably make more money off a book than a single photo.

So, if a newspaper puts two photos together and binds them (which is pretty easy now) it constitutes an editorial use and therefore can be sold according to the NFL, IHSA, etc...

And what about selling reprints of your newspaper's printed page on good photo paper for a lot more than the price of a regular newspaper? This would be the easiest way around any single reprint restriction. And you'd get your newspaper's name and articles along with the photo.

This is what will have to be decided. What is editorial and what is commercial for a newspaper? Everything else is secondary.

There are going to be so many ways around any restrictions the IHSA may impose that it may not be worth it for all this litigation. If you allow editorial content you're allowing the organization to spread words and images in all sorts of fashions that you'll never be able to control and should not be able to control.

Mike McGinnis, Photographer

Milwaukee | WI | US | Posted: 11:48 AM on 11.24.07

->> I have been watching these IHSA threads for a while now. Man it makes me quiver just thinking about VIP, I used to shoot for them. Worst experience of my life for about 3 years. I can only imagine this was stirred up about the time I left, 3 years ago. Could see their wheels turning. They were not making any money off the action, and I think had IHSA put the clamp down!!!!!! Most of their action shooters only peak out at shooting the high school level, and stop there. Not sure why? At least the Wisconsin Photographer I now. I now most of them would brag and boast about how they would have the royal treatment in front of all media, TV, etc... I think the School Pictures and Sports Team/Individual revenue must have got even worse after I left. Action was the only thing that was going up profit.

Mike McGinnis, Photographer

	Milwaukee \| WI \| US \| Posted: 11:52 AM on 11.24.07
	->> Also, right before I left, 4 of they lead management left to open there own company. I am sure this made VIP very sour. I am sure they thought they would loose the IHSA account too, and put ever more restraints on the IHSA.

Jon L Hendricks, Photographer

Merrillville | IN | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 11.24.07

->> Imagine this....You cannot sell prints of a student you took a picture of in a classroom during an assignment since the High School portrait/yearbook shooter has an agreement with the school that no other pictures of the students in school can be sold but the portrait company's pictures.

This is the same as giving the rights for athletic events just to the event photography company.

I think this really should come down to the individual rights of the subjects in the photos. IHSA shouldn't own rights to the image of the high school players! And if the players are in public space, the players should be able to be photographed.

And another point....what about videos? If you sell videos of the event, isn't that editorial? Will they stop the selling of videos posted online too?

Mike McGinnis, Photographer

	Milwaukee \| WI \| US \| Posted: 12:19 PM on 11.24.07
	->> I am sure that if the parents of the athletes were asked their opinion, they would want as much exposure for there child as possible. This only benefits VIP and no one else. I know if I was a High School Athlete I would much rather be on the front of a paper rather than some photography company website out of Cedarburg, WI. I can't see this lasting too long. At least I hope not.

Alicia Wagner Calzada, Photographer

San Antonio | TX | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 11.24.07

->> Jeff M.

There are several differences between state sports organizations and NBA/ NFL

1) coverage of NBA games is coverage of a private business, although often subsidized by public funds (which has given media leverage on similar issues). Coverage of high school tournaments is coverage of public schools.

The lawsuit against IHSA alleges (and rightly so I think) that IHSA is a "state actor." Meaning the member schools are so overwhelmingly public, that constitutional free press and equal protection laws should apply.

2) NFL/ NBA are not only private businesses, but the athletes are paid adults. They have consented to have their commercial likeness exploited. The students in the high school game have probably signed a release, but probably don't realize the money being made off of them.

3) the pro sports organizations have not attempted to claim copyright of the photographs taken (well a couple have but then they relented). Several state organizations have tried to claim copyright ownership of all images taken at games.

In actuality the game is not copyrighted, only the broadcasts.

Allan Campbell, Photographer, Assistant

Salem | OR | USA | Posted: 1:27 PM on 11.24.07

->> This is only going to continue as Individuals and companies continue to discover that their event is worth something financially. It will not matter if it is high school event or an international event. As we all know large companies have been paying for the rights to Audio and Video for years. Why is it a surprise that it would finally come to the still photo industry. People have complained for years that agencies that have formed financial agreements with leagues to provide photos for editorial and commercial usage would destroy what we have done for decades. Well.... it is here now. These small time leagues are just following the example shown by the larger leagues. With Web 2.0, convergence, multimedia... whatever you want to call it. They are going to put a price on what we provide to our customers (the readers). With the agencies providing a service and educating the leagues that still photos are worth money to them (both the agency and league) it will continue to grow and be a problem.

The next step is a large paper chain paying a license to be the paper of choice to the league or leagues. Similar to the TV networks. Or worse yet, something like the TV networks that one big chain providing sub=feeds to other papers based on game packages... You can buy feeds of these 6 games and playoffs will be an additional charge. I am not a lawyer but I am going to guess that selling prints (a commercial endeavor) is going to be limited by the courts to the leagues and their contracted vendors.

Brad Mangin, Photographer

Pleasanton | CA | USA | Posted: 1:43 PM on 11.24.07

->> Hello everyone. I am sorry to come in here and disrupt the very important discussion going on about the prep sports mess in Illinois- but Jon asked me to clarify what I said last night about pro sports licensing so I will.

Jon- what I said above has NOTHING to do with prep coverage and everything to do with pro sports coverage. What I am telling you about selling editorial and commercial images is dead on true. I have been doing this for 20 years and have been dealing with Major League Baseball Properties VERY closely as a shooter with them for the last 13 years. Trust me when I tell you the differences based on the rules laid down from the properties divisions and players associations in all sports AND the credential use language.

Jon- you say this:
"I still don't see how a book of photos is editorial but one print of someone is all of a sudden commercial useage? You probably make more money off a book than a single photo."

It does not matter how much money you make. A book is an editorial product - PERIOD.

The leagues deem a print of Kobe Bryant or Terrell Owens or Jimmy Rollins as a commercial product. They have exclusive licenses with commercial licensees like I mentioned above that are allowed to sell prints to fans. These prints contain holograms on them from both the players associations and properties divisions. I own all my images and have 17,000 of them for sale editorially in the PhotoShelter- powered searchable archive on my site. I CANNOT sell prints of these images to fans. If I did and I got caught I would be done and lose my privileges to be credentialed.

Jon- you bring up a loophole that DOES allow newspapers to sell images of pro athletes when you said this above:

"And what about selling reprints of your newspaper's printed page on good photo paper for a lot more than the price of a regular newspaper? This would be the easiest way around any single reprint restriction. And you'd get your newspaper's name and articles along with the photo."

MANY papers currently do this with pro sports. The New York Times sells reproduction front pages depicting recent great Yankee moments, etc. This is perfectly legal because it is in newspaper form. Sports Illustrated markets and sells enlargements of EVERY cover the magazine has ever produced at a website (www.sicovercollection.com). This is perfectly legal because the prints are in magazine form.

Many years ago out here in the Bay Area Joe Montana sued the San Jose Mercury News after the Mercury published a poster of their front page with a picture of Montana on it after the Niners won one of their many Super Bowls (I think it was from XXIV when they beat the Broncos in 1990). Anyway- Joe saw it and was very protective of seeing his likeness sold without him seeing any profits. He lost the case because the posters merely replicated the newspaper's front page.

All of the above examples I have stated are true. I am not saying I agree with everything- I am just stating that this is the way it is in PRO SPORTS. What I have said has nothing to do with high school sports.

I am not an expert in high school sports stuff. What I can tell you is that there is no players union or players association on the prep level and there is no properties division. It is completely different- and unfortunately it is a HUGE mess.

Best of luck to all of you out there dealing with these people.

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 11.24.07

->> Brad,

The concept of a book being editorial but a print being commercial is not so clear. I say they are both editorial.

Commercial use applies when an image is used in conjunction with a seperate commercial product such as a point-of-purchase display, print advertisement, product packaging or imagery used in a video commercial.

Defining a single print as an inherently commerical product limits authors who might create single-page editorial works.

For the purpose of narrow legal definition, it is critically important that editorial and artistic works of any sort not be defined as commercial works.

--Mark

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor

	San Jose \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 2:46 PM on 11.24.07
	->> By the way, the professional sports orgaizations are able to control the use of their images through TRADEMARK law. Public schools do not have that option. --Mark