| 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
Proposed SEC Media Policy
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
 |
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090807/news/908079994
According to the Tuscaloosa News, the SEC intends to enact a new media policy prior to the football season. The policy can be viewed in PDF at the site above. Regarding photogs:
1. Bearer of credential must be a full-time, salaried employee of an accredited agency. No more stringers or freelancers.
2. Bearer of credential may not sell photographs taken at an event. Does that mean the AP and Getty (or any other such agency) can't make editorial sales to newspaper, magazines and Internet sites? For that matter, only an AP or a Getty (etc.) staff photog could shoot the event under No. 1, but then they are unable to sell.
3. The SEC will have the right to purchase prints of published photos and will not distribute reproductions. Of course, the photographer has no right to sell the photos, so this clause seems pointless.
I'm reserving some judgement for the moment because the SEC has said it will likely tweak the policy this week (also, some of the information is up for interpretation and I'm far from an expert, no reason to get up in arms just yet). But from the early looks of it, does this policy not appear to have First Amendment violations written all over it, particularly point No. 1? Keep in mind, these points are only the ones relating to photographers. The rest of the policy relates to writers (no more tweets or blogging real time updates) and fans (no real time updates or selling pictures).
What are your thoughts?
What are the remedies if the SEC decides to fully adopt this policy? |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | | Posted: 5:48 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> What "remedies" do you need. I see nothing wrong with this policy. As for the agencies, I would be shocked if they werent part of the discussion already. |
|
Jamie Sabau, Photographer
|
Pickerington | OH | US | Posted: 6:02 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> I guess the SEC no longer wants Sports Illustrated at their games then. I could be wrong, but I thought I had heard that all the SI staffers were now contract photographers and not technically full time employees.
Nor do they want Athlon and other preview magazines shooting their games apparently. They may say that's ok now, but believe me, they rely on their kids being on the covers of all those magazines in the grocery store to help "recruit."
Sounds like they just need to tighten up their schools' trademark and licensing policies and get the SIDs to crack down on the credentials they hand out. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> To answer your question about number 3, ordinarily the owner of images from a game is under no obligation to sell to anyone. By adding the clause, the SEC can require that the owner of the images sell the images. Of course, there might be a fight over price, but that's a separate matter. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 9:40 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> Karl:
Whether the agencies are a part of the discussion is unknown. But based on the language in the proposed policy, I don't see how exceptions can be made for them considering they SELL their images to editorial customers.
Are you sure you have no problem with the policy? You don't mind giving up your ability to sell what you shoot? Have you ever worked as a freelancer?
Jamie:
It will certainly be interesting considering the pull SI has. Hopefully it will be tweaked before it becomes the "rule." |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 9:58 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> Wow! I hadn't heard that Sports Illustrated eliminated all of it's staff photographers. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 10:30 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> I know nothing concerning the status of SI's photog staff. That's not really my concern here. But as a freelance photographer in the SEC, I can't help but take issue with this policy.
The better question would be, will an SEC institution really deny an SI freelancer from covering the game?
Is this not another attempt to control the media? Or is legitimate? |
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Hattiesburg | MS | USA | Posted: 10:34 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> Somebody at the SEC sounds like they got ahold of the NFL media policy. How is this going to work for papers who depend on stringers or part timers for expanded coverage ? Also since I have never meet a full time school paper photographer do they get shut down also ?
In Mississippi this is going to hurt the papers here. We have one full time AP shooter for the state and two SEC schools so without stingers and two home game we will only get shots from one game.
I know at my paper and the Ledger depended on Ryan Moore for our coverage 90% of the time when it comes to Ol Miss and If I am not mistaken Matt I saw your byline a few times in the Herald. If we could not use yall then there is no way we could get When it comes down to it if the fans don't see game shots in the paper they call and complain to us and not the conference.
Nobody forward this to story to the boys at C-USA........ |
|
Karl Stolleis, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Santa Fe | NM | | Posted: 10:37 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> Yes I have. Thank you for asking. Been a photographer much longer than yourself I imagine. As a freelancer I hardly ever shot sports because there is little or no money in it at the college or pro level.
Problem is this is a trend that started years ago and the NFL and NASCAR have really pioneered screwing the freelancer. Doesnt mean its right, just means the way things are. The SEC is just moving on.
Sometimes you just play by the rules and adjust your business model. Sometimes you fight the rules but you do that by calling the SEC media relations folks and talking with them. They will probably be able to explain their thinking. |
|
Mark Almond, Photographer
|
Birmingham | AL | USA | Posted: 11:14 PM on 08.10.09 |
->> It appears the SEC is being overwhelmed with complaints about this policy. This blog entry from the Birmingham News details this:
http://blog.al.com/solomon/2009/08/sec_will_tweak_new_media_polic.html
The SEC associate commissioner did say the "full-time employee" clause will be changed to allow stringers and student photographers.
The major complaints about the policy appear to be about the use of video on websites. Practice and press conference video would only be available on the SEC and member schools' websites. TV stations could only show game highlights for 72 hours after a game. |
|
Armando Solares, Photographer
|
Englewood | FL | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 08.10.09 |
| ->> I find it funny and ridiculous that a newspaper writer, blogger or a fan isn't allowed to tweet in real time. Who are these people kidding. There will be at least 10,000 people at their games tweeting, updating facebook, blogging right from their seats at home, or at the stadium. What the hell is the point for a writer to go to the game, - just sit at home watch it from the comfort of your home and tweet away. After the game the players will update their tweeter accounts and facebook pages and then you can have quotes. Lance Armstrong was quoted several times from what he tweet from the Tour de France. This shooting or writing sports is becoming a joke. Do these people making these rules know that newspapers are cutting staff jobs? Of course they do, they don't care about pictures or stories. They care about TV rights - that's all. But in less than 5 years that model will be out the window because some fan will be broadcasting the game live from his phone in HD. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:48 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> I seriously thought this was about the Securities and Exchange Commission when I saw the header.
--Mark |
|
Mark Almond, Photographer
|
Birmingham | AL | USA | Posted: 1:35 AM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> In the football country of the South there is only one SEC. It is a religion around here. |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 6:37 AM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> On one thread we complain about "non professionals" on the sidelines of college games and on this one we're upset about one conference that seems like they're trying to do something about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the intent here is to give SIDs a reason to turn down the sort of thing we saw in the other thread, not to lock out legit working pros, and it just needs some tweaking. The SEC is without a doubt, one of the most media-savvy conferences in the country. I seriously doubt they're going to exclude SI, local newspapers, student newspapers or wire agencies. |
|
David Stephenson, Photographer
|
Lexington | Ky | USA | Posted: 7:26 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> http://www.sportssystems.com/clients/Kentucky/
Here is what the media has to agree to for Kentucky football this year. I copied a few paragraphs I find interesting below. I don't know if they are new or have been in place for a while.
"All ownership, copyright and property rights in the Event (including, without limitation, the statistics thereof) and in any telecast, photograph, broadcast, transmission or recording thereof shall remain the sole property of the University of Kentucky and/or Southeastern Conference, unless otherwise conveyed via separate agreement between the University of Kentucky and/or Southeastern Conference and broadcast partner," (so does that mean ESPN owns the images, too?)
"All media outlets (television, radio, print, internet) or their designees are prohibited from making available still photographs or video of an Event to any other organization, person or entity outside their parent company without advance written permission from the University of Kentucky, even though the planned use may be editorial in nature. These items shall be used by the Bearer's media outlet only and not for the personal use of the Bearer."
"Bearer may not sell photos taken at the Events without advance written permission from the University of Kentucky."
"In exchange for the access granted by the Credential, the University of Kentucky shall have the right to purchase prints of any published photographs of the Event taken by Bearer at the most favorable financial terms offered to third parties for pictures of similar Events (for which no prohibition on sale of photographs is in force), and Bearer hereby grants the University of Kentucky a license at no additional charge to use the photographs for news coverage purposes and for display on their official websites and in their official publications. The University of Kentucky may not distribute reproductions of the photographs to others or license others to reproduce the photographs." |
|
Brian Westerholt, Photographer
|
Kannapolis | NC | USA | Posted: 7:41 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> "In exchange for the access granted by the Credential, the University of Kentucky shall have the right to purchase prints of any published photographs of the Event taken by Bearer at the most favorable financial terms offered to third parties for pictures of similar Events (for which no prohibition on sale of photographs is in force), and Bearer hereby grants the University of Kentucky a license at no additional charge to use the photographs for news coverage purposes and for display on their official websites and in their official publications. The University of Kentucky may not distribute reproductions of the photographs to others or license others to reproduce the photographs."
This clause worries me the most. Basically what they are saying is if you sell an 8"x10" normally for $15 that they can purchase an 8"x10" for $15 and use it in their media guide, on their website, etc. AT NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. Yeah they promise not to distribute reproductions etc., but in essence they ARE reproducing the 8x10 if they are using it in other media. |
|
Wesley Hitt, Photographer
|
Fayetteville | AR | USA | Posted: 7:53 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> I have to agree with Joe. The policy refers to the schools making the decisions about who gets into games and it has nothing to do with keeping people like SI out. I shoot for a SEC school and I have a relative that is the Editor of one of our local papers so I am pretty invested. Although newspapers will not like hearing this, the conversation in the halls of the University have been: 10 years ago we needed newspapers to get our message out. Newspapers were the major source of information and the best way to keep the public informed about what we were doing. It was a 90/10 relationship on needing newspapers. Now with the internet and newspapers going to the internet, it is the opposite. 10/90. If you are going to look at the internet to find out the time for a game, you just go to our website. Why go to a paper's website, click on sports, click on college, click on the sport, click on schedule and so on. Our schedule is on the front of the website. Not only that, the University website covers all the sports. Men's and Women's. All the information about all the sports in one place. A newspaper covers what it thinks is important and what it thinks their readers want to read.
It does not matter whether I agree with this idea. But if I want to find out what time Florida is playing Alabama in basketball, I do not Google to find a local paper. I Google to find the Floriday Gator website.
In the end, the fan seems to be the one getting screwed. We want you to buy a ticket, come to our event, spend your money to support us but you cannot tell anyone about your experience except by word of mouth. I wonder how long before that is limited. No tweet, no blog, no stories, nothing. It would be better to watch it at home. The fans and readers of newspapers should be the ones demanding better coverage. Like a business, the schools are only going to feed you their point of view and what they want covered. It seems to me that this is a time for great reporting. |
|
Robert Sutton, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Tuscaloosa | AL | United States | Posted: 8:51 AM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> By limiting video shooters on the sidelines and forcing people to purchase their video for highlights after 72 hours, they are deciding what is and is not news. The next step could be to do the same with still photographers. What type of photos do you think they are going to distribute to the media then? Only what they want us to see. This policy is not about the sidelines, it is about money and controlling the image of the SEC and its member schools! |
|
Jamie Sabau, Photographer
|
Pickerington | OH | US | Posted: 10:14 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> I was being a little sarcastic when I said that the SEC was not going to allow Sports Illustrated in to shoot their games.
The language of their policy (if Matthew's post is accurate) would, by the "letter of the law," seem to exclude photographers from SI, Athlon, etc. But, I'm sure the "spirit of the law" is what Joe mentioned and is meant to help the SEC schools both clean up their sidelines a bit (you can fit more boosters on the field that way) and police the trademarks and licensing of university events. I wouldn't be surprised if the latter is the real impetus for the language.
And, I never said SI "eliminated" all of their staff photographers. I was told by someone very close to SI in a conversation last March that SI had placed all the photographers back on contract status. That MAY mean that technically they are not on staff. I only mentioned it to help convey my sarcasm in critiquing the language of the policy, which I did not do too well it seems. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:45 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> Matthew, whether the proposed rule changes go into effect or not if you read the fine print regarding your previous credentials it is rather likely that you have already been operating under a rule which prohibits you from selling the images you produce.
Typically, the images produced under such a credential agreement are for distribution only to the entity for whom the credential is granted. Thus, if you are shooting for Agency XYZ, then your images are to be distributed only to Agency XYZ.
Ironically, Agency XYZ can immediately sell the images to whoever wants to buy them which rather defeats the purpose of not allowing the photographer to distribute the images to an entity other than Agency XYZ.
As for your suggestion of a First Amendment violation, I would not count on a First Amendment argument to prevent the passage of the SEC rules. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and press but does absolutely nothing to guarantee access.
Succeeding in this argument would be a case of "be careful what you wish for." If it were determined that the First Amendment does guarantee access to SEC football games then everyone with a notepad, camera, or tape recorder could claim the right to access. Season ticket holders would have to watch the games on jumbotrons set up in the parking lot because every seat in the stadium would be occupied by "Working Media." Who, then, would decide who got to be in the front two or three rows on the sidelines? If "all are equal" then AP, Getty, and my next door neighbor with a pocket sized point and shoot would have the same chance at getting the best shooting locations.
The process of squeezing out the freelancers is not a new thing, though, and I would imagine that this has probably happened to most of us at one time or another. You may need to start looking for something else to shoot on Saturdays between September and December. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 10:54 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> Glad to see someone has been shooting longer than me. Not everything is about money. Sometimes it's simply about protecting rights granted by the Constitution. There may be a time to speak with the SEC office, but for now I'm enjoying the insight on this board.
Based on the "tweaking," you're quite possibly right that it gives SIDs a reason and the ability to shut non-professionals out (of course the full-time, salaried clause is changing, so that may not be it). But why do it in a way that gives them power to keep freelancers out as well? Either way, it's likely changing in the coming days.
There are still clauses in the policy that, if not altered, are still cause for concern. For instance, the inability to sell photos. What good is a copyright if I or my employer cannot sell the image to other editorial services? Again, this language will hopefully be cleaned up and/or clarified.
I agree that for basic information, such as the time for a game, most folks find the school's web site. But for a legitimate feature, for a story without a PR spin, for a somewhat less-bias opinion - we still turn to newspapers. It's not the same relationship pre-Internet, but it's still a necessary one.
I'm glad to see a healthy discussion on this issue, and I'm glad to see the policy altered in the next day or two, per Mark's post above. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> Michael:
You make some really good points.
I'm aware of the credential language. The credential is distributed by the university; this new policy is distributed by the SEC. One is not enforced; the other is new but seemingly more likely to be enforced.
I've always enjoyed the argument "How do you define 'press?'" Especially with today's technology. It's a slippery slope with First Amendment arguments. I would just like to see better compromise, but I know freelancers are on the losing end of this battle.
It probably sounds like I'm having a conniption fit over this new policy, but really I understand it's going to change at least a little. And I'm curious to see the changes and how they affect many of the photogs shooting on Saturdays in the SEC.
I'm well on my way to finding other things to do on Saturdays, sadly. But you can't blame me for wanting to protect freelancers who do real work with real equipment and real know-how.
Thanks for your input, Michael. |
|
Wes Hope, Photographer
|
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 11:14 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> "This clause worries me the most. Basically what they are saying is if you sell an 8"x10" normally for $15 that they can purchase an 8"x10" for $15 and use it in their media guide, on their website, etc. AT NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE. Yeah they promise not to distribute reproductions etc., but in essence they ARE reproducing the 8x10 if they are using it in other media."
So price your 8x10s at $5,000. :) Since you're not allowed to sell prints for profit to customers (parents, fans, etc.) according to NCAA rules (right?) then your only client will be the school SID. If they want to buy a print from me and use it however they want then they will have to pay whatever price I'm asking for it. And I think that my starting price will be $5,000 for an 8x10. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 11:38 AM on 08.11.09 |
->> I wasn't aware of this new policy until yesterday.
Our corporate lawyers are examining it.
Overall, I like the idea of fewer "tourists" on the sidelines. I remember last year's Alabama/Georgia game wherein there was a "tourist" photographer shooting video with a point and shoot. I move, drop to my knees and get in front of this person ad he was standing. He became very unhappy and yelled "Hey, I'm shooting here too" to which i quipped "With what?" and ended up moving after that play to another spot farther towards the end zone.
I have no problem with the freelancers that I know work for the wires/national mags that cover Georgia on a regular basis. I like them, i pick up game-shooting tips from them.
Its GWC and the people with a 70-200 on a monopod that take up space and lean across the line or block everyone because they're celebrating a touchdown that ends up making me shake my head.
I admire the idea of cleaning up the sidelines by the SEC but i don't think they're going about it the right way but they do need to stem the tide of the 'super-fan bloggers' who somehow get credentialed.
As for the digital rights provisions, I personally see this as a way of the SEC just trying to make more money off of work that isn't theirs.
At the end of the day, I just want to make good images and generally be left alone to do so. I'm still learning how to make good football images at the NCAA level and more and more hoops to jump through is just an added distraction. |
|
John Plassenthal, Photographer
|
Vandalia | OH | USA | Posted: 1:23 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Wes,
The NCAA recognizes that a photographer may sell prints (which by definition of law are editorial) in their rules and specifically state that schools do not need to pursue them. Commercial use (as defined by law - using an image to sell a product) is what the NCAA stays away from because you would have to compensate the players.
This doesn't mean that some SID's are not looking to keep you from doing that so that they become the sole distributor of prints to fans. Same with pro sports, by forcing you to give up your rights to get credentials, or revoke your credentials if you exercise your rights to sell prints, they are limiting the market.
David,
In the end it won't clean up the sidelines because the school can still issue credentials to their own photographers which will include the GWCs that are willing to give away their work for the sideline pass. As Karl said, for the freelancer there wasn't much $ in college sports before, my best year I made about the same as they spent on ushers for 1 game. Now they can get "good enough" for free.
Whether it is programs, media guides, marketing materials, or even local newspapers. The lowering of quality standards because it is good enough for people to buy is the biggest problem in the business to me. As has been said in many articles lately, cuts to quality lead to a reduction in readership. Good enough evenualy leads to decline. I think it will get worse before it gets better and there will be a lot more GWCs running around in the end. Freelancers will have to move to other markets or be GWCs themselves. |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
|
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 1:40 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Mr. Sharpe suggests:
"Not everything is about money. Sometimes it's simply about protecting rights granted by the Constitution."
I'm assuming he's referring to this,the relevant portion of the first sentence of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
When did Congress taken up the issue of sideline credentials at SEC football games? Did I miss that news bulletin? Until they do, can we please leave the leave the aggrieved, "my-rights-are-being-trampled-upon" constitutional hyperbole out of the equation?
This is about the SEC dictating rules about (among other things) who can and can't access their sidelines at football games. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the First Amendment, or the Constitution. |
|
John Plassenthal, Photographer
|
Vandalia | OH | USA | Posted: 2:14 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Darren,
Standard Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied copyright issues for over 30 years and have had many conversations with a number of lawyers. Some rules vary by state, but not much. If you need legal advice seek professional help.
The US Constitution speaks of copyrights in terms of "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" By law a photographer (or their employer in a WFH) owns the copyright to the images they take from the moment the shutter activates. You have the all rights to the image created to do with as you please. By US Law creating a print (what the law terms an art print) is editorial use of the image and does not require release from the subject as does a commercial use (advertising). Editorial use doesn't get into trademark issues either.
A clause in a contract asking you to give up a basic right is not enforcable. If at the end of the season you sell prints, the worst they could do is deny you credentials in the future. They mey threaten to sue, but they don't have a leg to stand on and their lawyers know it (this has been discussed several times in other threads). To me the undercurrent of don't sell a print or we will revoke your credentials hints at extortion.
Sports institutions (college and pro) are engaged in a rights grab to further their own financial and information purposes. Whether you choose to trade some of your rights for access is an individual choice. Given the number of people willing to do so, it seems like a loosing battle at this point. Whether it's the guy who just wants to see his name (and photo) in print, or a pro who wants to cover the game for his employer, you are giving away a right.
I agree with Matt, it's not about money, exclusively, but the right to sell my work and make $ is how I stay in business. As a freelancer, these rules serve as a barrier to my business. The main reason is that the sports team/school wants to monopolize the information and revenue streams. |
|
Ian Halperin, Photographer
|
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 2:18 PM on 08.11.09 |
| ->> Thanks Darren. You are 100 percent correct. From the very first post I was thinking the same thing, but was letting it go. |
|
Darren Carroll, Photographer
|
Cedar Creek (Austin) | TX | USA | Posted: 2:54 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> John,
Fair point on the copyright issue and quite frankly one I hadn't considered. I'm not a lawyer either, and I do think it's a stretch in this case, but a fair point none the less.
What I'm most concerned about is what seems to be a reflex among some to invoke the "First Amendment" (to wit, in the original post on this thread: "does this policy not appear to have First Amendment violations written all over it...") whenever an issue of access is raised when there is clearly no basis for it. Not only does invoking it when there is no cause to reflect a general misunderstanding of the First Amendment itself, but it also, in my mind, trivializes the concept of a free press guaranteed therein (hmmm...sideline access for freelancers at SEC football games...New York Times vs. Sullivan...sideline access for freelancers at SEC football games...New York Times vs. United States...hmmm...)
Perhaps I should have just said that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, and left it at that. Because it doesn't. |
|
Christopher Szagola, Photographer
|
Richboro | PA | United States | Posted: 3:21 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Not being a lawyer as well, but I don't see a First Amendment violation, but maybe an Anti-Trust issue?
Just a thought |
|
Bruce Newman, Photographer
|
oxford | ms | usa | Posted: 3:24 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> update:
www.al.com/sec/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/124997852013600.xml&coll=2 |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 4:49 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Admittedly, I forgot about the antitrust argument. Any contract in restraint of trade is deemed illegal under the Sherman Act. The SEC would have to have a good argument for not allowing a photographer with copyright from selling photos for editorial use. Like John said, the worst they can do is revoke your credentials later.
Mr. Carroll:
I won't claim to be an expert, and I'll admit that you're probably right, but my argument (merely an argument) is as follows:
I realize Congress has made no such law, you are correct on that point. The First Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly through substantive due process. Of course, it must be a state actor, as private conduct is not subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
The NCAA has never been found to be a State actor and is therefore exempt from any argument as to what they may be doing (the Jerry Tarkanian at UNLV case if you recall). If I had to take a guess, I would imagine the SEC would fall into a similar category, but I don't know the precise answer nor do I know whether any court has taken up the issue. A public university, however, is a state actor. And if a state actor denies a fundamental right (i.e. anything under the First Amendment), then the state actor must have a compelling interest in doing so.
In the end, the SEC probably wins (as usual). But the argument, as demonstrated in the Tarkanian case, particularly the dissent, is not a terrible one. The NCAA is much larger entity than the SEC. And I'm not sure of the exact role the member schools will play in the enforcement of this policy.
I'm not saying I would take the case up by any stretch of the imagination, but to some folks perhaps it's worth it.
And for all the discussion above, hopefully it's all a moot point, as Bruce and Mark point to the article stating the SEC will tweak the policy.
It's just an argument, tear it apart at will. I never claimed to be right. |
|
Kevin Martin, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:41 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Matthew, are you trying to say that being a freelance photographer is a fundamental right though ?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the issue isn't so much one of Freedom of Speech or anything to do with Anti-trust litigation, but rather that its become increasingly hard, if not near impossible to be a freelancer these days and folks who have made their livings as such aren't happy about it ?
I certainly understand where those people are coming from, but at the same time, I can't see how it would be reasonable to expect any public university, ie; "state actor" to credential any and all freelancers and allow them to sell images as they see fit. People would run rampant and universities would have little recourse. Where and how would you draw a line with what freelancers to credential and which to deny? Much less how could you deny anyone if said access is a fundamental right ? |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Jeff:
No, I'm simply saying freedom of the press is a fundamental right, as it is. And a freelancer working for a news agency would be denied a fundamental right if the university, a state actor, denied ALL freelancers or stringers the right to cover an event simply because they are freelancers or stringers, as the original policy stated (must be full-time, salaried employees).
Like I said, the argument is likely pointless now that the SEC is tweaking the policy. But the argument began before they announced the tweaking.
As far as the anti-trust issue, if the NCAA allows the sale of editorial photographs (correct me if I'm wrong, I thought they did, not sure what the status is this year on other non-commercial sales), then any contract denying such sales would be illegal. That wouldn't stop a team from revoking credentials of course. But then the revocation of credentials would in theory be denying an agency fundamental rights if they are denied without good reason.
It's an argument. It's certainly not waterproof. And it's not one I'm prepared to take beyond a message board.
Thank for your input. |
|
Tim Cowie, Photographer
|
Davidson | NC | USA | Posted: 6:30 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> You're right. They can't keep you from selling your photos as they are yours.
However, when you do, they can keep you from getting credentials ever again. |
|
Jamie Sabau, Photographer
|
Pickerington | OH | US | Posted: 7:40 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Matthew,
I think you are still confused as to what "freedom of the press" means. Freedom of the press does not mean that any member of the press should get access to any event, in this case a football game in the South. State University or not, the school/conference is not obligated to let anyone from the press in.
Now, if the football game was a front to hold a board of trustees meeting discussing how to spend public money allocated to the school, then yes, the press (freelancers and staffers) has a right to be there.
Constitutionally guaranteed rights are those that the government cannot violate in an effort to subvert the democratic process and/or deceive the American public. I can assure you the Framers of the Constitution were NOT at all concerned with sporting events when they wrote the US Constitution. However, they might have been if King George had tried to prevent the colonists from following Man. U. ;-) |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:40 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> Matthew, I certainly agree with you regarding freedom of the press, and it being a fundamental right, however, I guess the point I'm trying to make is how do you decide who counts as being press ?
How can something be a fundamental right yet also restricted and enforced at the same time ?
Just recently in my city there was a major concert act that came through and my weekly publication was no granted credentials as only the major daily was allowed to shoot. Did my publication have a fundamental right to be there or is that artist able to choose what press they want to allow ?
If a school or conference is allowing only full-time salaried staffers (as dumb of idea as I think that is mind) they are still allowing freedom of the press to cover the event, but simply limiting the scope of the press.
Which it certainly can be argued is something that has to be done in this day and age. Not all freelancers are created equal and I can't really agree they all have the same fundamental right to be there as theres a world of difference between someone who's had year of tear sheet experience and regular clients and someone whos never sold anything, nor actively even trying, and who's basically using a press credential simple to be there.
Now I'm not trying to make the argument that myself or any other member of the media has the right to be there over anyone else, or that its up to us to choose who can be there etc, but, I am saying that I think the schools AD or SID's and conference officials do have that right, as well as the need to prioritize whom they allow on their sidelines.
Which then brings us full circle to the initial point of if its a fundamental right, how can you deny any member of the press or media, regardless if they are a 5 million circulation publication or a one man website operation getting just a few hundred hits a week ? Fundamental rights would apply to any and all, which is itself the definition of being fundamental. But as it stands, theres an obvious hierarchy of what outlets get limited credentials over another. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 10:28 PM on 08.11.09 |
->> GREAT discussion!
I wish all of the message board topics were handled in this manner!
Thanks all! |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:51 AM on 08.12.09 |
->> There is no fundamental right to cover a private event. A private entity may exclude whoever it wants as long as it doesn't discriminate based on a protected class (gender, race, etc.)
There are no First Amendment rights in a private setting.
The only viable arguments left are moral or business-related. Good luck with both of those.
--Mark |
|
Ian Halperin, Photographer
|
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> FWIW, since we are still debating First Amendment issues:
Our college paper got sued (and the plaintiff won) over an ad we declined to run for his company. As I recall, the paper was deemed an agent of the state and it was considered censorship and a violation of his First Amendment rights. This was in Texas, about 20 years ago.
Is a college football game a private setting? I'm not sure that requiring a ticket means it's private. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:25 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Ian,
There is no serious legal argument about whether sporting events are private settings. I stand by my previous posting.
Before anybody gets nitpicky, I'm not referring to pick-up games at public parks or other venues in which the general public has free AND unfettered access.
--Mark |
|
Ian Halperin, Photographer
|
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Mark,
I think there could several "serious legal arguments" made for a sporting event to be considered a public event. I'm not saying there can't be rules involved, but the general nature of an event where tickets are sold/distributed to anyone who shows up make it a public event.
In fact, in Texas, high school football games are considered public events when it comes to laws related to school prayer. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:15 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Ian,
A "public event" can be in a private setting and be legally subject to the rules set down by its organizers.
You're confusing the discussion when you bring religion into the discussion. Separation of church and state is a different constitutional issue from freedom of expression.
Do you really think that there is a constitutionally protected right to photograph football games from the sidelines? If that were so, there would be no legal way to prevent anybody who wished from doing so.
As I said, organizers are perfectly within their rights to control access based on any criteria they wish (including completely arbitrary reasons) as long as they do not discriminate based on a protected class.
An SID can legally tell a photographer that they are not allowed on the sidelines because they are wearing cotton pants while credentialing another photographer because they are drive a four-door car.
Whether they can stand up to objections about such practices is another thing entirely. And that's what's happening in the SEC case. This is not a legal issue.
--Mark |
|
Bruce Newman, Photographer
|
oxford | ms | usa | Posted: 4:54 PM on 08.12.09 |
| ->> Also in the SEC's proposed rules is a provision that states if one gets a credential to photograph a game, the Southeastern Conference (on its own or on behalf of its 12 member institutions) shall have the right to purchase prints of any published photographs of the Event taken by the credential holder at the most favorable financial terms offered to third parties for pictures of similar events and grants the SEC and its member institutions a license at no additional charge to use the photographs for news coverage purposes and for display on their official websites and in their official publications. The SEC and its member institutions may not distribute reproductions of the photographs to others or license others to reproduce the photographs. |
|
JC Ridley, Photographer
|
Coral Springs | FL | US | Posted: 5:19 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> "The SEC and its member institutions may not distribute reproductions of the photographs to others or license others to reproduce the photographs."
This clause would be violated by the schools so fast it wouldn't be funny. I think it's a reach to expect schools to keep track of which photos can and can't be used for certain uses. Some people I deal with don't even know what IPTC is. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:19 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Bruce, at least "most favorable financial terms" indicate they are at least willing to pay something, though surely less than they are worth, for the images unlike some concert agreements that state you will willing hand over your images and all rights to them upon request for zero compensation.
Sort of like saying they are still going to screw you but at least will throw a few bucks on the dresser afterwards. |
|
Ian Halperin, Photographer
|
Plano(Dallas) | TX | USA | Posted: 5:44 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Mark,
You and I are on the side. In no way do I think we are granted any rights to cover a game by anyone other than the group running the game. I thought you were trying to say that the games were private events and that's why they could set their own rules. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 6:09 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Also, Mark, freedom of expression and freedom from religion (as you said above) are different from freedom of the press. That takes us back to the argument of defining "press," which thanks to new technology appears muddy at best (bloggers, tweating, cellphone cameras, etc.).
When a public university hosts a public event in a public stadium, it is public. But the state entity has good reason to only allow so many people to enter the stadium - there's a compelling interest for safety. But it's different for press. The protected class argument comes into play for individuals, not for press (in my opinion, unless there's a case that says otherwise). The press has a right to gather and publish news in public places. And a public-built stadium is public and the event is controlled by a state actor. Limiting the press requires a compelling interest. So the question is whether being a full-time, salaried employee is a compelling interest? Of course that probably matters little since the SEC already said it's removing that clause from the policy.
Now, is this argument going to convince any judge or jury that a school can't control the sidelines? Probably not. Obviously, safety comes back into it if the sidelines were flooded with whatever is defined as press. [On a side note, I've often wondered what would happen if journalists were required to be licensed, much like a doctor or lawyer, if that would remove citizen journalists from gaining unnecessary access. I'll stop there, as that's a whole other argument I have thought little about.] Back to the press - to say that there's absolutely no legal argument regarding the freedom of the press at a public university event, I respectfully disagree - it's no different than if a public university held an event in a public sphere and tried to keep out reporters. I also recognize that the argument is probably not victorious, but it's certainly one that could be made if a large enough group was denied access.
This argument is far from being clear-cut, perfect or simple. But if my job were on the line or a massive group of journalists jobs were on the line, it's one I'd at least want to argue.
Jamie, I'm rather certain the framers of our Constitution did not foresee many of the changes in our country. That doesn't mean freedom of the press or any other fundamental right simply does not apply because the framers didn't think about SEC sidelines. They certainly didn't think about the Internet, but freedom of speech still applies in the confines of the World Wide Web. As I argued above, freedom of the press is a fundamental right. Now how far does a journalist take that when denied access? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:47 PM on 08.12.09 |
->> Matthew, in response to your statement "As I argued above, freedom of the press is a fundamental right. Now how far does a journalist take that when denied access?"
Perhaps a different way of looking at this issue is does a freelancer count as being a member of the press ?
The "press", at least in the case of publications and agencies, it doesn't appear is going to have any issues with getting access. The major daily in any given city is certainly going to be able to send their fulltime staffers and cover the games.
Now in this particular case it remains to be seen what will happen with those who aren't full time employees but are shooting on behalf of a publication but thats not really important for the larger debate.
What about the true freelancers though, those who aren't on assignment, but still try to gain access in hopes finding clients to sell to after the fact, as has been done for decades now.
We can argue about freedoms of the press, but is a freelancer really a member of the working media if they aren't on assignment ?
Countless organizations and leagues have basically flat out stopped credentialing freelancers. Are peoples rights being violated by this or are they people not really working media and as such have no right ? |
|
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
|