SportsShooter.com - Papers kept off sidelines for reprint sales

	Crete \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 7:56 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Jeff, It only applies to the state final games at U of I. You can sell throughout the season and the playoffs, just not the final games. Chris

Jeff Barrie, Photographer

	Indianapolis \| IN \| USA \| Posted: 8:06 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Thanks Chris I thought that was the way it was. Maybe like I said the papers can reach an agreement with the IHSA to delay the posting for sales by a couple of weeks.

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:08 PM on 11.25.07

->> To clarify Chris' point - it's for all State finals events, (regardless of location - football was at the U of I) - and regardless of whether the authorized vendor bothers covering the event - and in the future, even after the authorized vendor is no longer offering images from that event.

Jeff, as the father of a defensive/offensive lineman who played in the 2006 3A championship - your point is extremely well taken with me.

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 8:10 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Jim, Having the IHSA attempt to redefine what constitutes editorial use - and thus constitutionally protected - is a first amendment issue.

Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer

Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 8:19 PM on 11.25.07

->> I've read about this stuff for some time now and I don't understand some of the complaints people have against the papers. Now I don't work for a paper but I do have my own website that I run as a private journalist news site. My business model is based on photo sales to cover my cost of covering games. How is that "unethical" to do, but perfectly fine to sell ads to make money? I see no difference. I choose a different way to cover cost that any BUSINESS(Paper) has.

I also remember someone complaining that if papers do this for sales then it might violate the ethics because they might then only cover games that sell photos. Well, the papers in my area do that now and it has nothing to do photo sales. I live by Penn State. They had a scrimmage this past spring like they always do. There was also a big baseball game where the local high school was also doing a charity drive for a local soldier who was injured in Iraq. He went to the high school and was member of the team. I asked one of the local photogs if he was going to be at the game and he said no, we'll be at the Penn State Blue white game. Reason he said is that Penn State sells papers. So the baseball game which was pretty important to the community did have someone from the paper there to take 1/2 pictures and was out of there before the first pitch. The paper just had to have all 3 of its shooters at that Penn State Game that was a meaningless scrimmage.

Now I'm no lawyer but I play one on the internet. I see this as an illegal monopoly created by the IHSAA agency.

Right from the Clayton act:

/Sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor (§ 3 of the Clayton Act)/

/It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce./

To me this says they (IHSAA) cannot enter into an agreement and create a monopoly.

and for all you event shooter with exclusivity in your contracts you actually violate the law under this section (if you give a kick back/free photos/etc)

/(c) Payment or acceptance of commission, brokerage, or other compensation

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or accept, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such intermediary is acting in fact for or in behalf, or is subject to the direct or indirect control, of any party to such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid.//

To me this says you can offer kick backs(donations) only in connection with the sales of such services and good and not based on exclusivity. So you can't say I want to be the only photographer and the only one selling or I wont give you a kick back. That to me violates this section because your kickback then is based on something other than sales.

I see nothing wrong with competition. If your good at your job then you should not need exclusivity. I cover (as much as one person can) the local schools in my county here. So if one of them makes it to a Championship game are they going to tell me I can't shoot and that some smuck who only does it for finals is the only one allowed to shoot and sell. I cry foul to that it I would personally sue for my right. I shot the PIAA AA State Championship this past fall and had no issues but they did just add this similar language to the PIAA laws.

Mike Ullery, Photographer

Troy | OH | USA | Posted: 9:03 PM on 11.25.07

->> Interesting choice of words, Joe...and thank you for bringing this to the surface...KICKBACKS.

Schools, not just the athletic departments, have for years been basing much of their photographer choice decisions not on quality, but how much of a donation...read kickback, that they will receive.

I also agree with Joe that competition is good. If the school photographer and local newspapers are both shooting and both selling prints, so be it. If the school photographer is not skilled enough then he/she should get into another line of work...or vise versa. Typically, the school shooter is going to have more variety anyway as they are not working with deadlines, etc. If the school wants to excercise control, then control access to the half-dozen other photographer wanna-bees who tend to show up at too many games today. Yeah, competition is good but over saturation is what is causing many of these issues in the first place. Sorry, but I don't see any school needing a newspaper, a school photographer, and 3-4 different web-shooters all covering the same kids. This ain't the NFL.

Stop that and you will lessen the state association's idea that "this must be a money-making thing, so many people are doing it".

My two-cents.

Eric Canha, Photographer

	Brockton \| MA \| United States \| Posted: 9:06 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Joe, Stick to photography, you've got a way to go in the law department.

Rob Dicker, Photographer

Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 10:14 PM on 11.25.07

->> To take the higher road, while newspapers and the IHSA fight over reprints (or as the IHSA calls it, but doesn't define it, "secondary use", us photographers are more concerned with being treated like lower class citizens. While the photographers who work from the company that has been contracted as the "official photogrpahers of the IHSA" get full access, we have to take a back seat. They are granted permission to strobe, to move around to get the best angles, we have to stand back. They can shoot jube, we have to stand behind ropes and hope that we aren't blocked.

Dave Prelosky, Photographer

	Lower Burrell \| Pa \| US \| Posted: 10:15 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Eric, While Joe may not be admited to the Mass. bar, he's the first person in this whole discusssion to use anything but opinion to further his point. I have no idea if the Clayton Act applies, but I respect his efffort to draw a fact based conclusion even if I find the lawyer quip a bit over the top.

Eric Francis, Photographer

Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 11:04 PM on 11.25.07

->> Rob,

How is the situation you describe and different than any other championship game that ESPN is involved in?
....sounds just like the last several College World Series' since ESPN has bid for the right to the games (kickbacks).

Personally I think this is a very bad choice for the newspapers to take such a stance in this issue. All this just because they won't give up their commercial us of the images.

eric

Eric Francis, Photographer

	Omaha \| NE \| United States \| Posted: 11:08 PM on 11.25.07
	->> Jim, IMHO.... newspapers, and the industry as a whole, lost sight of their primary responsibilities a LONG time again. They use the 1st Amend. as a crutch to generate product to sell in any manner they see fit. e

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:20 PM on 11.25.07

->> I guess I just don't follow this at all, so please help me to understand....

If a given newspaper has the right to sell images, then wouldn't anyone have a right to sell images ?

What about when there are several local community papers in a given area, plus the daily ? Do they all have the right to sell images, or secondary usage, or whatever we want to call it ? Doesn't seem like you could say that only 100,000 daily circulation and above are allowed to have reprint sales could you ?

What about online sites that cover the games ? I guess they too would be able to put up a for sale gallery along with their coverage too right ?

Now I used to be the offical photographer for a few local tournaments. I would sometimes catch people showing up, taking shots and passing out their business cards for their sales sites. I would always have to ask those people to leave and explain that I am the contracted photographer through the league and I'm the only one who's allowed to sell images from the tournament. Tournament officals always helped me enforce this as well. Its why I wanted a contract in the first place. I think anyone who does any youth/prep sales will always tell you to get a contract with the league, school etc

Seems like my contract would be pretty much worthless though wouldn't it if theres several local publications that are all there and selling prints ?

No one can sell those images except me my contract says but then Small Town Weekly, and This Weeks News, and Community Times, and Your Town Daily, et al have the images availible as well and I seemingly can't have them thrown out because they are their for editorial reasons.

Additionally I see talk that papers should effectly "boycott" coverage. Do any papers boycott coveage of NCAA or pro events because they can't sell the images ?
Ever heard a paper refuse to cover the NHL because they can't sell those images online ?

Why would they take a different tact with prep sports then ? Because they think the high school association needs them more than the other way around it seems to me. If the NBA were to say they won't allow coverage unless a paper will agree not to have reprint sales, I'd imagine the paper would gladly comply and not offer any sales, no ?

I'm no expert on journalist integrity but it sure wouldn't seem right to not provide news coverage of an event because you couldn't make some money off it would it ?

I guess the main thing I'm not getting is whats the argument for why exactly a news publication should have the right to sell images.

Someone said before its a "community service" that they make prints availible in addition to their editorial coverage.

That one struck me as rather odd because when I used to sell prep sports images to parents I never though I was providing a community service, I was a business providing a service to make money, big difference in my mind.

So I welcome some additional viewpoints and insights into this matter because I'm just not getting it.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 11.25.07

->> Rob, wouldn't it be a bit of a nightmare if any and everyone who wanted to strobe, move around where they wanted, have access to the field for jube etc ?

You've got to have some sort of policy over who gets to and who doesn't.

Maybe its AP and SI over some smaller publications, or maybe its the contracted tournament photographer at a prep tournament. Regardless some people have to be "second class citizens" as you put it or else we'd have 10 sets of strobes going off etc and it would be a nightmare for everyone.

I shoot cheer tournaments (12 hours straight of that is a nightmare as well come to think of it lol)

Since I'm the tournmanet photographer, I get to sit right at the front of the mat as its the best shooting location.

Other shooters, press etc has to stay back behind the judges.

Is that fair ? Maybe not, but if we make things fair, then that would mean we could have 10 shooters all blocking the front of the mat, blocking parents view, judges view, creating a potential safety issue and so forth. You just can't treat everyone the same.

I'd like to be able to run the bases with the batter after a homerun just once like tv sometimes does. I'm sure a number of shooters would. Luckily though we can't because it would be absurd to have 5 guys running the bases.

Gavin Werbeloff, Student/Intern, Photographer

Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:34 PM on 11.25.07

->> Key difference here, NCAA has antitrust exemption, and has the right to be the sole entity to turn a profit on college sports, and can license that right as it sees fit (ESPN example above). No such exemption exists for the IHSA. Add that to the "kickbacks" and the whole thing doesn't pass the sniff test. My feeling is that someone from the NPPA should have a meeting with the head of the IHSA. There's an easy way for the IHSA to deal with this and a hard way. The easy way involves ending the game-playing. The hard way involves the U.S. Attorney.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 11:43 PM on 11.25.07

->> Gavin, are you saying then that the IHSA has no right to choose who can and can't sell images ? If so wouldn't anyone who has a sports photo business also have the right to sell ? How could you make a distinction that only certain papers can sell ?

Wouldn't those papers then basically be in same violation of the antitrust law if they were the only ones that could sell ?

If the papers become both the editorial record, as well as the sales outlet for prep sports, everyone who runs a youth sports business, boosters who hire contracted shooters and get a percent of sales and so forth all could be totally put out by this.

The paper could in effect become the monopoly itself no ?

Eric Canha, Photographer

	Brockton \| MA \| United States \| Posted: 12:31 AM on 11.26.07
	->> Dave ..."to use anything but opinion"... *HUH?* He is giving his opinion based on a law that (unless you are a JD, Joe) he isn't even qualified to interpret.

Eric Francis, Photographer

Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 12:40 AM on 11.26.07

->> Actually, the more I think about it, I hope the IHSA sticks to it's guns because the papers need them more than they need the papers. Specially in markets with overlapping circulation areas or more than one in a city. All it will take is one paper to realize they will gain circ. while the other on sticks to their perceived moral high ground and the debate will end right there.

I'm as big a defender of the 1st Amend. as anyone, but, just because a hypocrisy has gone unchallenged, doesn't make it right.
Now the internet has enabled challenges to that hypocrisy and it may be time for newpapers to refocus on their job of informing the public and leave the commercial side to those that are set up to do it.

.02

e

Jon L Hendricks, Photographer

Merrillville | IN | USA | Posted: 12:41 AM on 11.26.07

->> What if an individual high school has it's own photographer that has an agreement to shoot all its sports including championship games already? Would the IHSA and other high school associations deny them reprint sales of the championship game too? How can the IHSA have the right to say what happens outside of the actual athletic event?

And secondly, can't the actual athletes deny the commercial usage of their image by anyone including newspapers and event photographers?? Did LeBron James or any other superstar high school player ever deny the selling of his image in High School? Or do they sign their rights away by playing the sport? I would think more and more athletes wouldn't sign their image away commercially to event photogs contracted by the high schools. I'm sure the coaches would be on their side if they were good enough.

If the IHSA succeeds, I would hope individual athletes would file a lawsuit against them for selling their image to the event photography companies without consent. I don't think by just playing a high school sport you are obligated to give away any rights to your likeness except to the educational institutions.

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:58 AM on 11.26.07

->> "can't the actual athletes deny the commercial usage"

Yes, just like everybody else.

Keep in mind that offering a print or reprint is considered editorial usage. For it to be commercial the photo would need to promote a product or service or used in an advertisement to do promote or market. Commercial usage would require that a model release be signed and an exchange of consideration. Just because a photographer or newspaper offers a print for sale to the athlete or members of a family, it does not make the usage commercial.

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 1:14 AM on 11.26.07
	->> Jon - My understanding is that the "ban" applies to everyone. So yes, a school's "contract" shooter is covered as well. I know of at least one individual who covers a particular school who was contacted by the IHSA regarding offering prints.

Eric Canha, Photographer

Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:16 AM on 11.26.07

->> Jon

The model release is being built into the parental consent forms more and more often. It's even being done at the youth level so that the teams and leagues can sell sponsor posters or calendars.

"Would the IHSA and other high school associations deny them reprint sales of the championship game too?" Most likely yes. Around here (MA & RI) there are waivers for yearbook companies that are there to shoot for the yearbooks but they have to agree to use the photos only in the yearbooks.

As far as your deal with one school. The state championship is held by, and sanctioned by the state league. It's their show 100%. For example, At MIAA championships, ONLY MIAA tee shirts can be sold. The schools hosting the event CAN'T sell their own apparel even if it's their team in the championship. If you have a deal with a school then it valid only for events in which THAT school has control. For example if you go to an away game and for some crazy reason the host school doesn't want to grant you access then you are sol. Your team(the visitors) doesn't call the shots on the host's turf.

I've only seen it happen once. It was a hockey game, and the rink management wouldn't let the visiting school's shooter go into the box. Just keep one thing in mind, your contract is valid between you and the person signing it. In the case of the hockey rink no was no.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 2:56 AM on 11.26.07

->> I'm a bit hazy regarding the editorial vs commercial aspect of all this.

I know what typical commerical photography is of course, but surely this can't be pure and simple editorial usage either.

If I go shoot a game and put the images on a website setup for sale with a hope to make a profit that certainly isn't editorial usage.

So when my paper puts game images online with the ability to purchase them (they've even got options to frame the prints and more) and we are giving out flyers mentioning the images are availible online how is that editorial ?

online shopping carts and marketing flyers sure don't seem to have much to do with journalism do they ?

How do we also known then if the paper is pursuing the best news story or shooting the schools that have the best sales potential ?

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 4:09 AM on 11.26.07

->> Jeff Mills wrote:
"I know what typical commerical photography is of course, but surely this can't be pure and simple editorial usage either."

You might know what typical commercial photography is but I don't think you are grasping very well the concept of what commercial and editorial "USE" is ~ the key word to note is "USE".

Brad Mangin, myself and Mark Loundy have explained in the previous thread and I just posted the distinction again for another reader. There is a difference between commercial photography and commercial image usage. Please, please, please re-read mine, Brad's and Mark's posts (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27278) and may be things will make a bit more sense and best of all you will be able to answer your own questions in your last post.

Jeff are too caught up in the dollar and cents part, the transaction or act of paying for the use of image, and not the intent or purpose of the image and that is what defines usage. It doesn't matter whether you make a profit or take a loss on the transaction. It is not the fact someone pays for the image that defines whether it commercial or editorial, it is HOW THE IMAGE IS BEING USED that matters.

Eric: In Illinois you have to have an IHSA 'Approved' vendor print t-shirts and programs. 'Approved' meaning the vendor pays a licensing fee for the privilege of printing either of the two items.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:37 AM on 11.26.07

->> Clark, might I ask you this, since your actually an Illinois press photographer, do you get a percentage of sales when your paper sells images you shot to parents ?

I'm curious as to how it works elsewhere because where I'm at we don't see anything from it and I know a good number of people who aren't very happy about that.

I'd actually be intrested to hear from others SS members in other parts of the country as well.

David Harpe, Photographer

Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:47 AM on 11.26.07

->> I really don't understand why the news organizations are digging in on this. The "we've been doing it for decades" argument does not wash. Previously, newspapers would only sell one-off prints of photos that actually ran in the paper (hence the term "reprint"), and it was a bit of a trick to get those printed (usually had to call someone at the paper or visit a photo archive room in person).

That is a LOT different than having a fully automated setup where an entire gallery of images are available for instant printing in any quantity to anyone in the world at the click of a mouse. That's not a "reprint". It's not "providing a service" in the interest of journalism and public knowledge. It's a commercial venture being conducted under the guise of journalism.

If the papers do not want to pay a licensing fee, a good compromise would be to negotiate terms which would allow sales of photos that run in the print edition (i.e. actual "reprints") and exclude the dozens of other outtakes available in the web galleries. This would preserve the journalistic tradition of public access to reprints while addressing the concerns of the league.

Mark Peters, Photographer

	Highland \| IL \| USA \| Posted: 8:29 AM on 11.26.07
	->> David, Newsprint is not the exclusive medium for publication. Technology changes, so what? So you would be fine then if the papers published thumbnails in their classified sections?....but not an online gallery.

David Harpe, Photographer

Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 9:34 AM on 11.26.07

->> Newsprint is not the exclusive medium for publication. Technology changes, so what?

Exactly. Technology changes. Which is why the organizations have to revise their policies regarding sales of game photos. Ten years ago it wasn't a big issue. Now it is...because of technology.

You can't have it both ways. If the newspaper changes the way it does business, the organization has that same right.

->> So you would be fine then if the papers published thumbnails in their classified sections?....but not an online gallery.

Apples to oranges. In classified advertising, the seller (the person paying to have the photo published in the first place) is motivated to have images as widely distributed as possible. The newspaper has every right to charge extra to have the same photo published on the web...and many do just that.

Mike McGinnis, Photographer

	Milwaukee \| WI \| US \| Posted: 10:29 AM on 11.26.07
	->> Truly, I hope this comes down to the parents of the Athletes. I must say, as a parent and a former high school athlete, I would much rather have my photo or my sons photo on the front page of my local or city paper, rather than VIP website.

Chuck Liddy, Photographer

Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:13 AM on 11.26.07

->> here's an idea. paper "agrees" to silly demands of money hungry athletic association....goes about business as usual...."official" photographer whines to
athletic association, athletic association threatens news organizations...newspapers give them the finger, lawyers wade in....there you go problem solved. let the courts decide. and I think if the public's opinion counts, and if this is the organization for the public school's as I read into it, a taxpayer funded entity, I cannot imagine any parents who would think it was remotely alright to a) ban the newspapers and the chance for their kid to get a photo in the local rag or b) actually spend taxpayers money on fighting the newspapers. but one of the problems I've seen over the past few years is everyone wants to be like the ncaa or the acc, or the sec (pick a major conference). they want to model their tournaments and events like the big boys, even down to the inept security guards who don't know what they're doing. this is just another group trying to grab their piece of the pie.

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 11.26.07

->> I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The paper I work at simply sells photos to people when they ask for them. We don't make a lot of money from print sales and the reader has access to a great photo of their kid. If we sell a couple of prints from a game we're doing well but there is no marketing of images. The paper has not set itself up as an event photo agency. Is that what is happening in Illinois? Are papers specifically setting themselves up as event photo agencies? I don't see why the event photographer and the newpapers can't work together on this. The newspaper photographer is looking for action photos from specific plays. The event photographer needs a photo of every kid on the field no matter what they're doing. It's two seperate things. So what if the paper sells a couple photos from the game. The event guy will sell a lot more and the school still gets their "kickback".

Eric Canha, Photographer

Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:54 AM on 11.26.07

->> Mike,

It does come down to the parents. They let those kids join the teams. That's where it ends. I've had 2 in hs sports I didn't get weekly polls for my opinion on where to buy uniforms or what company would supply equipment, or who's services the school should contract with.

Chuck I agree with you 100%. Somebody needs to let this wind its way through the entire legal process. Until that happens, and until these restrictions are ruled on, one way or another, these treads will just go on forever. You are also correct that these groups are modeling themselves after the --insert major college/pro league here--. But who says that they can't?

Why is it that the two 'other' editorial industries have been able to grasp the concept but not the newspapers? I've shot 15 championships in the last month and at most of those the local TV stations were there to cover the games. At D1 games they shoot the whole event. Yet they won't produce a game tape, or stamp a dvd of the game. When I asked one of the anchors during a break he told me that they were interested in 15/30 seconds. "Todays package" and that they were there to feed the newsroom. Then he points to the Cox broadcast truck and says "besides they've bought the rights".

By the time this is all worked out, this year's freshmen will be graduating.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 11.26.07

->> Rob, thats just the problem, it used to be two seperate things and there was no problem but things have changed.

When I was the event photographer I had no problem at all sharing the sideline with the press photographer because they were shooting to get a few shots that told the story of the game. I was there trying to get the best sellable shots of the kids to sell to parents. Granted those could be action shots but there wasn't much overlap and I never lost any sales to a paper. That was then, this is now.

There never used to be PA announcements that parents could go to the papers website and purchase photos was there ?

There never used to be flyers handed out telling parents they could purchase photos online at the papers website was there ?

There never used to be a dropdown menu for each photo ran in the paper with options for size, cropping, and frame choices.

You used to request a reprint and you'd get basically that, a reprint. Not a $125 framed and matted 16x20 print.

When the event guy has several publications all selling their shots as well, it does in fact make it much harder for him to sell.

Its not like we are talking about some wanna be sports photo business guy with a flickr account showing up with a 70-200 and no experience and trying to sell some photos. What we are talking about some of the best sports photographers in town with nice pool equipment showing up and definatly taking away business.

I know this because I've in fact done it. Buddy of mine is a school photographer and enjoys decent sales. I got assigned a game at his school and while that was nice to get to shoot with a friend, I felt rather bad when he mentioned how the QB's mom was talking about the great photo she purchased from the paper. It was a photo I took. I didn't want to cut into his market but I did.
I ended up shooting that school 2 or 3 more times on the season as well so who knows how many more shots of mine sold. He's not mad at me as he knows it wasn't like I was personally going around telling parents "buy from me instead" but he's not happy about the turn of events.

David Harpe, Photographer

	Louisville \| KY \| USA \| Posted: 12:03 PM on 11.26.07
	->> this is just another group trying to grab their piece of the pie. ...and newspapers aren't? How is selling prints of dozens of shots from an athletic event anything but a money grab? It's not journalism. Times have changed. Everyone...including newspapers owned by for-profit entities...are in it for the money.

Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer

Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 11.26.07

->> It appears we are talking two different businesses in this thread.

Media and Event Photography companies.

An Event Photography company, contracted by the IHSA, from what I understand this Event Company MUST provide this services to all events the IHSA sanctions, IE all sports Male and Female, even the sports or events with little or no demand or attention in the sports page.

This would assure equal access to quality photographs for kids at these events, so that their parents could purchase the same level of professional photographs of events that may not get the full attention of the press, with slide shows, online galleries and other wares.

The IHSA designated this Event Photography Company the official event photography vendor, with what appears to be exclusive rights to sell photographs to the parents for IHSA events.

The papers (media) are challenging this Right granted, stating that they should be able to post galleries of photographs for sale to the parents and pushed it into court.

Media often have restrictions at venues, and it appears this event company, like the cheering event company example posted above, has better access due to the market and packages that the IHSA and the Event Company agreed to. Perhaps there were some concerns for the athletes as well as proof on insurance and other requirements.

The argument is about other outlets selling photographs at an event where there is a contract event photographer can be argued, there are pros and cons to each side.

I believe what started as a simple clause in a contact, such as, Event Company XYZ will cover every event the IHSA Hosts and will be granted exclusive rights to market pictures to the parents of the athletes (or those at the event).

I wonder if there will be any give and take, Give Papers the right to sell published photographs, but there appears to be a greater arguments in this case,

What is a published, that has appeared to cross into ‘outtakes’ and extended galleries.

Let’s say I am watching this very closely.

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:25 PM on 11.26.07

->> David -

My point on the thumbnails wasn't to suggest that someone was taking out a classified, it was to merely put the thought out there that if the definition of "published" is an image only printed on newsprint, then it seems to me that all the paper would have to do is somewhere (I chose classifieds because they are generally at the back and "out of the way", but I could have (and should have) chosen any other page) print every image, and then somehow magically all is well.

Doesn't make sense to me.

The definition of what constitutes "published" I believe is quite important here.

Finally, I still don't think this gets resolved in the courts. The stakes are too high for both sides to risk losing.

The actions this weekend were a strong salvo towards forcing negotiations.

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 12:56 PM on 11.26.07

->> If the papers in Illinois are announcing that the photos could be purchased online then yes I guess that does cross a line into marketing their photos in competition with the event photographers. My question is why are event photographers so scared of a little competition to go as far as wanting exclusive rights? Make better photos than the paper and you have nothing to worry about. Competition makes everyone better.

Mark Peters, Photographer

Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 11.26.07

->> Ed wrote: "This would assure equal access to quality photographs for kids at these events, so that their parents could purchase the same level of professional photographs of events that may not get the full attention of the press, with slide shows, online galleries and other wares."

Theoretically, maybe, but not close in reality. Sort of ensures that a photographer of widely varying skill level, will be there for some portion of at the least the championship contest (though all contests are included in the "ban") and certainly no guarantee of any kind that each participant is covered, nor that each contest is covered. So if your kid only wrestles first round for example, your screwed.

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

	Newport News \| VA \| USA \| Posted: 1:01 PM on 11.26.07
	->> Jeff, Thanks for "...sharing the sideline with the press photographer...". We all appreciate it.;)

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:20 PM on 11.26.07

->> Rob, why would anyone who's in business to make money want extra competition ? Its a tough enough market as is and I can't imagine anyone would want it to get even tougher.

In any business you try to secure exclusive rights when you can get them.

When I'm the offical event photographer and another guy shows up who also runs a sports photo business (I'm going to keep papers out of this example) of course I'm going to request he leave if I have that right.

I'm not "scared" of competition but why would I want to give up some potential sales to him just because he put a flyer in a parents hand first ?

If I run a restuarant I'm not going to want or allow someone to set up a hotdog stand in my lobby am I ?
Maybe the hotdog is an inferior product to my steak but "scared" or not, I'm not going to want it to be there.

The competition lies in getting the contract in the first place as theres tons of event photo guys who all would love to have rights to the tournament.

Luckily for me I don't really even do any tournaments or anything like that anymore because it really sounds like what used to be a sort of bad situation as is now is looking to get much worse.

Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor

Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 11.26.07

->> One other question I haven't seen anyone answer yet, is are any other press photographer who's papers are selling online photo's happy about it ?

If your getting a percent of the sales then maybe its a nice bonus on your check sure, but how many people are seeing a cut of the sales ?

For exactly the same money I got paid in previous years I now have to shoot more images per game, and have a much earlier deadline to accomodate the online sales potential all so someone else can make more money.

I just can't see how any photographer would be in favor of that.

Its like if I'm hired to shoot images for a school to produce a media guide, I give them a price for the images based upon the usage as I understand it. If I then learn that the school is not only using them in the guide but also has them all for sale, I'd have to say "hey wait a minute, I didn't know I was selling you those images for sales as well, the price would be different"

Pretty standard practice right ? Want to use the images for more things, pay more. But in this situation the images are used for more things but I don't see anymore money.

In the 90 or so post this thread has gone on for, we kept hearing about papers rights, changing business model, commerical vs editorial but I've not seen anyone share their opinion as a working photographer about how you feel about it personally.

So if your now asked to double the number of images you submit per game and upload them earlier for no additional compensation or cut of sales, how would you feel about it ?

Lets discuss that as photographers. Not as newspaper publishers, not as event photography company owners, not as athletic association board members, but simply as working photographers who want to get fair compensation for our efforts.

Eric Francis, Photographer

Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 1:40 PM on 11.26.07

->> Rob,
"My question is why are event photographers so scared of a little competition to go as far as wanting exclusive rights? Make better photos than the paper and you have nothing to worry about. Competition makes everyone better."

That is perhaps the weakest argument yet.

Why do media outlets of all kinds do their best to secure "Exclusive" stories? Are they afraid someone else might report the story better?

See how silly that sounds.
The newspapers should focus on their job. Reporting the news. If they really want to attempt to use the 1st. Amend. to defend their sale of prints from outtakes, I bet they will loose in court.

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 1:43 PM on 11.26.07

->> Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is from a newspaper perspective we don't set out to undercut anyone who has a contract. That's not the business we're in. We sell so few photos that I can't possibly see how it could make a difference to an event photographer who is shooting for a very specific market.

Why can't "event guy" have his sales which will number in the hundreds and the paper sell its 10 or so prints of key plays to parents.

Can't we just all get along?

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

Newport News | VA | USA | Posted: 2:00 PM on 11.26.07

->> Eric,

Competition is a weak argument?

Business wise, having a monoploy makes sense because your the only one making money form the product. Editorially, competition makes everyone work a little harder to have a better story, photo, layout than the paper across town.

Competition drives our whole economy! It's the drive to make a better computer, radio, car, photo whatever that expands boundries into new territory. Competition has given you a better camera. You have some great football action photos. You're telling me that it dosen't matter to you that you get a better photo than the guy standing next to you at the game? He can be you're friend but you still want that killer photo that no one else has!

Papers try to get exclusive stories so they can beat the competition.

Without competition innovation slows or stops.

Kevin Smith, Photographer

Lockport | IL | US | Posted: 2:06 PM on 11.26.07

->> To clarify Rob's statement further: "While the photographers who work from the company that has been contracted as the "official photographers of the IHSA" get full access, we have to take a back seat. They are granted permission to strobe, to move around to get the best angles, we have to stand back. They can shoot jube, we have to stand behind ropes and hope that we aren't blocked."

For football the IHSA's preferred photography company is allowed access to freely move in and shoot in the "team box" or anything between the 25 yard line on either side, which includes using the space behind the bench to move from one sideline to the other.

Non preferred photographers must go from 25 to 25 by walking around the bench by via the stand area and walking around in front of the seats. Don't think about stopping to shoot the team while you're back there though, that is forbidden territory during the game. You can only shoot the team benches from the 25 on. Last year another photographer that was there was reprimanded for shooting in the team area after the game while trying to get a water dumping on the coach shot.

While I was on the field Saturday, I was asked by another photographer if I had to sign a waiver agreeing to the IHSA’s terms when I picked up my credential. I was not asked, but I was told that it happened on Friday. Not sure if this was targeting certain media outlets from the IPA lawsuit or in general. I also did not hear about anyone being denied access, or kicked out on Saturday, and I was there all day.

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 11.26.07

->> Eric wrote: "The newspapers should focus on their job. Reporting the news. If they really want to attempt to use the 1st. Amend. to defend their sale of prints from outtakes, I bet they will loose in court."

IMHO, it is no longer an outtake once it is published to the web for the general population or any one with access to that URL to view. An outtake would be inferior image with a technical flaw not made available for use and that image would not made available to the general public.

Jeff wrote: "So if your now asked to double the number of images you submit per game and upload them earlier for no additional compensation or cut of sales, how would you feel about it ? "

With my photographer's hat on, it is a job. I'm paid to show and perform it. If I don't like it I can move on.

Jeff: "Lets discuss that as photographers. Not as newspaper publishers, not as event photography company owners, not as athletic association board members, but simply as working photographers who want to get fair compensation for our efforts."

How about creating a new thread rather than hijack this one, eh?

Kevin Johnston, Photographer

Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 11.26.07

->> Below are the addresses to some of the galleries of images that my local paper offers for sale. The boat race and basketball photos were shot by a staffer but I don't know if the concert images where taken by a stringer or reader.

http://petoskeynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=344275

http://petoskeynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=246184

http://petoskeynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=321221

http://petoskeynews.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=331957

I'm sure the galleries above are prime examples of what the ISHA is trying to prevent. No matter how you try to argue it offering these types of galleries is event photography.

Even if the papers are only posting and offering 10 images from one game the cumulative effect of 10 images from 10 media outlets on the event photographers income can be significant they have as much right to try to protect it as newspapers have the right to try to refuse to be limited on how they use their photos. Event photographers do so in their contracts.

The sale of outtakes or "additional photos" is not a journalistic undertaking and not essential to reporting on the event. It is strictly a cash producing opportunity publishers are trying to take advantage of.

It seems silly to me that some seem to be offended when they are asked to be polite guests at someones event and respect their hosts request to honor their agreements with other guests. Like it or not, even as a member of the media, you are an invited guest at the event.

Rob Ostermaier, Photographer

	Newport News \| VA \| USA \| Posted: 2:51 PM on 11.26.07
	->> Kevin, That does feel like event photography to me. I'm not sure how they get away with selling the band photos. Every concert I've ever covered specified that the photos were for editiorial use only.

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer

Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:52 PM on 11.26.07

->> Eric:

Personally I think any media outlet crosses the line when they dumb a large number of uncaptioned, untoned photographs into shopping program. In my mind is event photography and those who engage in this practice should be playing by the same rules enforced upon event photo companies. Do newspapers have the right to do this with the content the produce? But I don't think by any stretch of the imagination this journalism.

However, if photos posted/published to any website with the intent of informing the viewer, those posted to pages that contain captions with three or four of the 5-Ws, is editorial. This does not deviate from the mission of newspaper or magazine or online publisher from disseminating information to a mass audience. A link that allows a view to purchase a copy of that image for their private viewing is just an added service to the reader/subscriber/viewer.

Unfortunately, nearly every who has posted here has focused on the sale of a photo for personal use and the reprints issue and not at the two more important issues of equal access and prior restraint, the ability for papers to publish their image content as they see fit to inform their readers within their area of coverage and circulation.

Actually, I feel sorry for VIP (http:www.vipis), the vendor for the IHSA. While it is the association's responsibility to enforce the contractual exclusivity, they have told media outlets that they are free to give the photos away.

From their official statement: "In a letter to the Illinois Press Association, the IHSA’s Executive Director indicated that newspapers could give photos to anyone in their communities, provided the photos were used for personal rather than commercial use."

Since most of the posters to this thread are event photographers, if you were in VIP's position, how would you feel if the organizer told your competition they could give photos away from the same event you are trying to derive and income from.

I've created a new thread here: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27310 for this discussion.

Alan Stewart, Photographer

Corydon | IN | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 11.26.07

->> In Indiana, the IHSAA and I'm assuming Visual Sports (official event photographers) offered the Hoosier State Press Association a settlement of sorts by allowing 30 individual tournament photos to be sold online by each newspaper. Thankfully, this was shot down.

Again, my biggest beef with this proposal was that VSI doesn't shoot all levels of the tournament -- only the state finals. Because the IHSAA owns the state tournament (and VS owns the rights), family of student-athletes wanting photos from sectionals, regionals and semi-states are S.O.L. when it comes to photos.

If the IHSAA/VS wants to lock down the state final and open up the rest of the tournament, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, it's looking like we're headed down the same road as our neighbors to the west, where everybody loses.

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