| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Illinois - We Won, It's over
Rob Dicker, Photographer
 |
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> All,
I am still waiting for the official joint statement, but the IHSA has just settled with the Illinois Press Association. The settlement is court approved so it is legally enforceable. Thanks for your patience.
Rob Dicker |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 3:17 PM on 04.08.08 |
| ->> Rob does that mean that the Senate will be taking the bill of the table? |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 3:59 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> "IHSA will be responsible for creating "shooting zones" for photographers with credentials, the settlement agreement says, and all will have equal access, but certain IHSA official photographers may have unrestricted access outside the shooting zones in order to create training, promotional, and educational videos and photographs."
????
"certain IHSA official photographers may have unrestricted access outside the shooting zones in order to create training, promotional, and educational videos and photographs."
Well we now know what the compromise is or was. In the end the VIP shooters will still have 'preferred' access. Now everyone will have to see where and how the "shooting zones" are setup. From the looks of things the IHSA gave up on the sales restriction in order to retain control of camera locations.
Not a bad compromise. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 4:23 PM on 04.08.08 |
| ->> I thought the sales where not the issue at least for the newspapers. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 4:41 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> The IHSA media guide already had "established shooting zones". There isn't anything new about this part of the agreement.
I guess the real meat will be in the terms of secondary usage.
I anxiously await. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington | IL | United States | Posted: 4:45 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> Ok, I reread the article that Clark posted the link. It states "secondary use of photographs and video from those events will not be regulated by IHSA"
Anyone know what will happen next? Who's definition of secondary use gets to be used..... |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 4:58 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> and then they will have to define usage versus sales of images. One thing to have them on a slide show for their readers to view quite another to offer the same images for sale as well to their readers.
puts you right back where it all started.. who won what?
the Lawyers won with the legal fee they get for this whole merry go round. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:06 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> While I am happy to see a settlement, the wording is not something to jump up and down about. The phrase specifically used, and more than once, is "newspaper" ... newspaper access, newspaper product, etc There is no mention of electronic media.
Eric...the agreement does not give them preferential access to create images which are then offered to parents for personal licensing (sales). And yes, in the agreement it is noted both the House and Senate bills are being withdrawn. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:25 PM on 04.08.08 |
->> Mark:
According to a statement on the IPA site:
""Throughout our discussions with the IHSA, we were adamant that newspapers have the right to control their products without regard to whether that newspaper product was delivered on newsprint, on a Web site, as streaming video or any other platform,” Bennett said. " |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 12:02 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> This is an absolute coup for the "Newspapers". As a future publisher I'm estatic about this agreement.
Yes, Mark, I agree the word Press or Media would have been a much better choice, so in considering the choice of words I say, it is not over quite yet.... IMHO, the more I read the agreement, the more I believe this is intentional or unintentional collusion on the part of the IHSA and IPA representing the "Newspapers".
These are a just a few musings/rant/keynotes/worthless opin . . .
If you are an independent photojournalist, sport photographer, prep sports website operator or team event photographer it would behove members of the group to get on the phone right now and tell their representative, beg them not to withdraw the legislation.
Under the terms of this agreement only newspapers can produce, distribute or sell products they create - any and all without reservation or restriction. Other forms of media such as websites or freelance/event photographers who license photos via the web are not covered by this agreement.
A freelancer can shoot an event for a paper and under the terms of terms of the agreement could still receive a C&D letter or threat of legal action from the IHSA for attempting to sell images from a state final whereas a newspaper would not if they offered the very same images on their website. Does that seem fair?
Also under the terms of this agreement access for "newspapers" is guaranteed. However, access for the four groups named above, it is not. Essentially the agreement allows the ISHA to continue to control what media other than those in the priviliged class known as "newspaper". The IPA member papers benefit greatly here because the IHSA will filter competition from PWC and team photographers for the "newspapers" and allowing them to enjoy a far less competitive environment.
Under this agreement, newspapers become a special protected class while web site owners and freelancers who are producing an equivelent product are discriminated upon unable to fairly compete because they don't publish with ink and paper (that is if for the purpose of the agreement "newspaper" is defined as a news published on printed paper).
I would imagine that broadcast radio and television should be furious at this agreement as well and should have the same complaint. Something tells me the IHSA officials didn't fully understand what they were agreeing to here.
A newspaper, based on the language of the document, can record and broadcast via webcast an entire video (live or delayed) of a game sans the three-minute restriction imposed on television affiliates and without paying any licensing fees to the IHSA.
In their haste to settle the IHSA overlooked the long term effects to this agreement. This will overtime greatly reduce the ability to guarantee exclusivity to a television broadcast partner. In trying to avoid affecting their broadcast licensing revenue, the did so anyway.
Likewise, a newspaper could hire broadcasters to call a game for its video or slide show products as well broadcast live over the web without interference form the IHSA. On the other hand a radio affliate would need to pay the per game licensing fee to broadcast a game for their home team. Unfortunately, the IHSA may have inadvertently diluted their own product.
It isn't quite over yet, because the next skirmish line is going to be over what the definition, for the purpose of this agreement, will be considered a "newspaper". Will those who publish online only editions be considered "newspaper" for the purpose of the agreement? This is a question I will ask the IPA tomorrow.
At some point, someone is going to be in court arguing for a legal definition of a newspaper. The Pennsylvania Gazette and Poor Richard's Almanack don't resemble today's modern newspaper products.
Besides, limiting the agreement to "newspapers" didn't really solve the issue the IHSA hoping to keep freelancers and website operators out of the mix for VIP and the IPA by limiting competition from web-based media. Realistically anyone can start a print newspaper as easily as they can buy a digital body and become a photographer. The ticket to complete control seems to be in this case ownership of a paper (regardless of journalistic quality).
I can understand the IHSA being desparate to settle before the bill passed. The potential loss in revenue for broadcast licensing would have crippled the organization. Unfortunately, they made a bad deal and in the end the same result will be reached. IMHO everyone would have been better off if the legislation had passed including the IHSA.
The IHSA would be in a much better position potentially financially in the future if they had not attempted to regulate newspapers and the media in the first first place. What will be interesting will be what happens to the organization from here. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 12:03 AM on 04.09.08 |
| ->> This is a big deal. Congratulations to all those who came together for a common cause. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 1:04 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> I'm 100% with Clark on this one.
I can't help but feel that the IHSA and IPA are in bed on this one, so as to save them both from new media.
I couldn't feel less sold out if my best friend had ran away with my wife. |
|
Rob Dicker, Photographer
|
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 9:08 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> OK.
I see some of the concerns. As the great 20th and 21st century philosopher Jimmy Buffett said "Breathe in, breathe out, move on."
We must consider this nothing short of a huge victory and move on. Don’t forget that some of the wording is just to allow the IHSA to save face so they can continue to do what they do.
Let's go back to business as usual (as life was - before the football lockout). Putting things into perspective, the IPA represents newspapers, traditional print journalism. Web only is something foreign to them. The IHSA considers many of the web-only outlets as a front for event photographers who are just selling their wares. As I saw it, that's actually where the flack started. They felt that the web-only sites were set up just to sell images. Perhaps some were, obviously others weren't. The IHSA said they would look at credential requests from web-only publications on a case-by-case basis. That snowballed into the "hey look at this print newspaper's web site - they sell photos." The rest is history.
I'd say that this is a (nearly) complete victory for the media. Let's see how this plays out. Remember, this is a court enforced settlement, so if you think that they are not playing fairly, there is recourse.
Rob Dicker
IPPA/IHSA Liaison
Member - IHSA News Media Advisory Committee
Staff Photographer, Pioneer Press Newspapers
Email: rob@robdicker.com |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
|
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 9:28 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> But Rob
The whole key to this dispute as I read on the numerous posts on SportsShooter was pushed by website media photographers and not just newspapers.
Though you and I might agree that Newspapers are now free to sell reprints.
Companies such as Clarks and others could still be banned, and now appear to have been triangulated out of this settlement.
Ed Szalajeski |
|
Rob Dicker, Photographer
|
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 9:46 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> Again, let's wait and see. I'll bet that the only ones who will still be dealt difficulty will be the event photographers. Sure there will still be rouge AD who will take it upon themselves to play bat and ball theory, but nothing will stop them.
But then again, it was the Illinois Press Association that chose to challenge the IHSA. The IPA represents the newspaper publishers. Need I say more?
If the a group of Illinois website media outlets or Illinois event photographers want to challenge the IHSA, they can.
What does surprise me is that TV stations didn't jump on board with the IPA's battle. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 10:17 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> Clark I totally agree that part of this will be defining "Newspaper". Lets face it the definition offered by the bill was warped beyond belief. We knew that there would be a last minute deal that would break in such a way as to ONLY protect and cover the two interested parties. In the end that is what has happened.
The IPA had zero interest in protecting the 1st Amendment for journalists or the public in general. The proof is staring everyone in the face. "The Bill" was allegedly poised to sweep through the legislature and become the law of the state. From a purely journalistic, 1st Amendment, stand it was and is superior (if not somewhat un-workable) to this settlement. The reality is that the IPA could have left the bill on the table to "protect" all of the "other" journalists. But wait that would have also benefited the very groups that are now giving the papers a run for their money.
Finally if nothing else this was a great example of how a lobby uses the legislature for it's private gain and perversion. Lets face it the bill was used only as a weapon. The bill wasn't about protecting the public in Illinois, it was about protecting newspapers, that while not owned by a company in Wisconsin, are vastly owned by a company in NY. A fine example of a pig wearing lipstick.
BTW Rob this was a victory for 'Event Photographers' too. By killing a bill that would have spelled doom to the 'contracts' the IPA has given event photographers the ability to tune their contracts to at least protect themselves from 'other' ventures. The group that this agreement is protecting was and is a VERY small part of what hurts event photographers. Yearbook companies, by virtue of their positioning, give event companies a bigger challenge. The bill would have protected their interests too. Seeing as they 'publish' on a regular basis. Now they're out too. The ability to hedge purely event based businesses is a victory in itself. And finally the fact that while certain restrictions are off the table for the purpose of credentialing. Others are not.
This is hardly over. |
|
Nic Summers, Photographer
|
Mount Prospect | IL | USA | Posted: 10:25 AM on 04.09.08 |
| ->> So Rob, I guess it just comes down to you and your cohorts(IPA and IHSA) getting money put in your pockets? So screw the little guy event photographers, to make room for Pioneer Press, that have to pay for lawyers out of their own pockets to challenge this stuff on their own? I doubt you paid a dime for any of this and yet you stand to reap the benefits. Please tell me I'm wrong. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 10:46 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> Eric, The IPA represents newspapers in the state of Illinois. Who would you expect them to protect in their negotiations with the IHSA?
If event photographers, tv stations, etc. want to challange the IHSA now they know how to do it.
To be bitter because an organization that represents newspapers bargained a deal that was good for newspapers doesn't make sense to me. |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 11:01 AM on 04.09.08 |
->> "Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this agreement shall limit the IHSA's right or ability to control, protect or regulate its trademarks and copyrights."
So what happens when the IHSA strategically positions its various logos and items that are trademarked or copyrighted so there is no way to keep them from being visible in the background of every shot taken from the approved shooting zones?
It is also good to see that the fine folks at the IPA who were working so hard to protect the concept of free speech decided to sign a deal that only protects their interests and limits others they view as competition.
Tell me again how this is about protecting rights and not about money? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Not Listed | MA | United States | Posted: 11:30 AM on 04.09.08 |
| ->> Bob I'm not bitter in the least. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:54 AM on 04.09.08 |
| ->> I must have read more into your post than you were saying. Sorry. |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 12:15 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> I just want to clarify something Bob Ford said.
"The IPA represents newspapers in the state of Illinois"
Not that he meant it this way, but it might be read as such, to the best of my knowledge and directly from the IPA web site, it is a members association. Meaning not all Illinois newspapers are members. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:54 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> Rob -
The pre-football status quo was one of C&D letters and "non-traditional" media outlets facing a revolving door of interpretations - being subject to the whim and whimsey of the IHSA.
This is a huge victory - for newspapers. It remains to see if it is in fact an even worse result for everyone else. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:56 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> Vincent, My point was that the IPA represents newspapers, NOT event shooters or television stations, that's why they pushed for a deal for newspapers.
The fact that they might not represent every newspaper in Illinois has nothing to do with my point. |
|
Rob Dicker, Photographer
|
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> All,
I did ask the NPPA for assistance on this long ago, but they chose not to pursue legal action on the behalf of their membership. That is one reason that I brough this to the attention of Don Craven, the IPA's attorney. |
|
Vincent Johnson, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 2:00 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> Bob, I just wanted people reading this thread to be aware that the IPA is not an all encompassing body for all Illinois papers (if I'm right the state 2 largest papers are not members). In my last post, I wasn't disagreeing with any points you were making, just helping give a little more definition on something you said. I agree with what you said up till the part about not being bitter.
I, along with others stood along with the IPA and felt that they were representing all media. If I had know that they would pull the carpet out from under non-print media's feet at the very end do you really think we would have stood beside them and lobbied our congressmen? Hell no!
Here's my response to this whole BS agreement.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=28990
But the cliff notes are, newspaper need to stop thinking they're in the paper business and remember they're in the news business. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 3:33 PM on 04.09.08 |
->> "I did ask the NPPA for assistance on this long ago, but they chose not to pursue legal action on the behalf of their membership."
Some things never change I see. |
|
Nic Summers, Photographer
|
Mount Prospect | IL | USA | Posted: 4:48 PM on 04.10.08 |
->> Like some have said before, this is about money going into the newspapers pockets and nothing more.
To hide behind the Freedom of the Press excuse is pure undiluted crap.
As I see it now, the IPA, NPPA or whomever, is no different than VIP trying to make money.
Call me bitter or call me whatever you want because I don't really give 2 hoots....
How do you spell $$$$Ka-Ching$$$$ |
|
Nic Summers, Photographer
|
Mount Prospect | IL | USA | Posted: 5:17 PM on 04.10.08 |
| ->> Sorry, I left out "bunch of HYPOCRITES" from my previous post. |
|
Jeffrey Haderthauer, Photographer
|
Wichita Falls | TX | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 04.10.08 |
| ->> Nic, let me guess, you're an event shooter... |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:51 PM on 04.10.08 |
->> Nic,
Really it is not that big a deal. Just start a newspaper and you are good to go. If you don't have any advertising to offset your production cost, figure that you'll spend about the equivelent of 1Ds with a 300mm f2.8 a year to produce your own weekly community paper.
This route would also be far cheaper than pursuing a remedy through the legal system at this point and has the potential to produce a residual income stream.
Then you can join the party! |
|
Rob Dicker, Photographer
|
Lake Villa | IL | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 04.10.08 |
->> Nic and some others,
This entire dispute started when some of us, me included, began complaining to the IHSA about unfair access and treatment by IHSA officials. Our biggest complaint was that the official IHSA photographers were being given special privileges and getting better shooting access than the credentialed, legitimate news media photographers.
If you still don't believe me, check this posting dated 7/2/06
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=20960
You will notice that there is no mention of reprints in the above posting. As a matter of fact, reprints were not an issue at that point. It just so happens that after I started working with the IHSA Media Advisory Committee the issue of reprints came up. Actually, it came up about one year after this posting.
Since the NPPA passed on assisting the IPPA with this issue, the IPA took up our cause. Since the IPA has an interest in helping their members protect their copyright and their "bottom line" and since the issue of "secondary use" came up, it was elementary that they would seize the opportunity to fight for all three issues.
I regret that there are so many people on the message board who seem to be offended that we were not able to protect everybody's interests, but there really is no way to achieve a perfect balance with the IHSA. As I see it, the interests of event photographers and some of the web-only media sites cannot be balanced with the interests of traditional print media companies.
As I see it, it has been the concern of the IHSA that some of the web-only sports sites are more of a “front” for event photographers wanting to sell prints of athletes to the public. The recommendation of the Media Advisory Committee was to take each web-only credential request on a case-by-case basis. They consider that event photographers covering state finals is direct commercial competition of VIP.
As for the perception that the IPA sold out when they changed from the use of the word “media” to “newspapers”, well all I can say is perhaps it might have been a concession made while negotiating a settlement, or it might have been an intentional strategy move. Something to ponder. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|