| 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 II
Jim Rinaldi, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
West Jefferson | OH | United States | Posted: 10:25 AM on 08.13.09 |
| ->> "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." per Jamie Sabau, I would concur COMPLETELY! I think we would all agree, there are too many people on the sidelines that don't have any reason to be there. The point and shooters, the the coaches uncles-brothers-nephews-cousin who wants to be there, do nothing but interfere with the work we are trying to do. Just last year, at a U of Kentucky football game, I had a conversation with one of the AD's that I know pretty well and he asked me about the issue of so many people on the sidelines and what should be done about it. My response was eliminate giving out credentials to anybody that wants one, that includes allowing the coaches to "give out" credentials to family and friends as well. I told him the SID's need to do a better job of only allowing approved media outlets to have passes, not all the Tom, Dick, and Harry's that want to come to the game and be on the sidelines. I am certainly not insinuating that this AD had anything to do with the new proposed policy. |
|
Matthew Sharpe, Photographer
|
Oxford | MS | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 08.14.09 |
->> The new policy has been distributed, but I'm lacking a link at the moment. It's changed rather significantly at first glance.
I realize removing the point and shoot people from the sidelines (and the free workers) is a big desire, but I don't think this new policy will solve that problem. When a university hands out a credential to Tom, Dick and Harry, they'll simply qualify as working for the university. Right?
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to limit the number of photographers per agency though. I could put up with a max of, say, four non-workers "working for the university" as opposed to 34. And that would only apply to regular season games, in the event a big agency wanted to staff an event with more than four (doesn't SI staff the Super Bowl or Nat'l Championship with eight or so photographers, or am I making that up?). Is there an argument against such? Just curious, not starting a movement or anything. |
|
Rainier Ehrhardt, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 11:16 PM on 08.14.09 |
->> It's getting some attention from SC legislature.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090814/NEWS/908140317
At our paper, we've always been told to read the agreement we sign when we pick up the creds. If there's anything fishy, we don't sign it and call back at the paper to let them sort it out (with lawyers I presume, it's never happened yet.) |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
 |
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 08.15.09 |
->> I am one of two official university shooters for Louisiana Tech University. Tech plays at Auburn and LSU this year.
Our photos are used by LA TECH in their publications and are for sale on their online photo site.
I received an email yesterday from both SEC schools to go back on my credential application and sign on to their new policy.
I don't fully understand where our angle fits into this policy.
When I shoot I'm focusing on (sorry ;-) ) on Tech players, coaches, fans, band members, etc.
And, yes, I'll get Auburn/LSU players, coaches, fans, band members, etc. in my photos.
I don't see where this policy can apply to SEC non-conference games, unless a blanket waiver is granted by the SEC institution to their opponent.
(And, yes, we can have fewer jock-sniffers on the sidelines.. . .) |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 4:22 AM on 08.18.09 |
->> I'm waiting for the day when they decide how many images can appear in online galleries.
The original media policy they proposed this summer prohibited news outlets from posting images of games before it was over. In cases where teams are playing late games out of their time zone, the newspaper might go to print and the online stories posted before the game is over. |
|
Robert Smith, Photographer
|
Brandon | MS | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 08.19.09 |
->> Anybody read this? Straight from the PDF found on the SEC site.
"Internet Use–Photographs
Still photographs of the Event (including Bearer Generated Photographs) may be posted on the
internet only in connection with and as part of regular print news coverage, including internet
print news coverage. Still photographs of the Event shall not otherwise be posted, placed, or
distributed on the Internet."
The way that I read this, One will not be able to update their SportsShooter Page with SEC games/events. It is entirely possible that I am missing something. |
|
Tom Morris, Photographer
|
West Monroe | LA | USA | Posted: 11:02 PM on 08.19.09 |
| ->> The SEC apparently threw everything on the wall and see what sticks. Those who squeal the most will be probably come down off the wall. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 08.20.09 |
| ->> Robert - that's exactly what I'm wondering about. The legal precedent has already been set on this, correct? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 10:56 AM on 08.20.09 |
->> Tim,
This is not a legal issue. It's a political/PR/marketing issue. The SEC has the right to set whatever rules they wish. Whether they can withstand any resulting heat is another question.
They've rolled over a little bit from the heat so far.
--Mark |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 08.20.09 |
| ->> I find this situation somewhat similar to the issue here in Illinois between the state prep athletic association and the media a year ago. With amount of money at stake it will take pressure from the state legislature, like it did here in Illinois, to change the conference's policies. Like other state prep athletic association, I'm sure those from other conferences are watching closely to see how the chips fall. I personally find it interesting that the SEC puts a far greater value on the photographs created than the stories. There is no mention of them asserting rights to stories created by credentialed media. Yet OTOH, any content/account/communication made a by a fan is forbidden in exchange for the privilege to watch an SEC game. I think a good case for prior restraint could be made by any fan or media organization. What the SEC needs is a non-disclosure agreement made between any one allowed to view the game. Of course that would go over about as well as whispering the word "bomb" on a crowded international flight in regards to public relations with fans. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 12:08 PM on 08.20.09 |
->> Actually, the SEC is putting almost a total ban on video. The revised policy says that local tv stations and other outlets will not be able to gather and post video from games, only the post-game press conferences. Instead, the new SEC tv partner will provide highlights that cannot exceed 3 minutes and cannot be shown for more than a week after the event.
The SEC is trying to ban any live posting of blogs, twitter updates or game report stories too.
The New York Times is supposedly preparing to launch a First Amendment lawsuit, arguing that these policies are a restriction on news coverage and free speech.
If something embarrassing to the SEC, such as a brawl or flagrant foul, was to occur, it's unlikely that it would be included in those SEC-supplied highlights.
I forget if MLB was successful in their effort to ban posting of more than 7 photos in onlinr galleries, with a 7 day-limit on having the gallery up, but that appears to be what the SEC is trying to do.
Here's another good protest letter, signed by the leaders of the Associated Press Sports Editors, Associated Press Managing Editors and the American Society of News Editors.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_conten...
Here's a summary of the specific objections are three rules relating to photography.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/photojournalism/e3i... |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 3:38 PM on 08.21.09 |
| ->> It seems to me there won't be very many pictures of games this year if these rules hold up, I waiting to see the fallout, how does an agency sell images to SI, ESPN and other editorial outlets with rules like this? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 08.21.09 |
->> Derick,
Do you really believe that? I'd sure like to, but I can't imagine that the average reader/viewer will notice any difference.
--Mark |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 08.21.09 |
| ->> My understanding is that agencies and individual photogs can't sell images to the general public for personal use anymore. Editorial use in connection with game coverage is supposed to be fine. |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 6:19 PM on 08.21.09 |
->> The way it reads, and I think that's why AP sent a letter the rules state no archiving, so that means no galleries, no images to be distributed to websites and magazines. The AP would have no reason to send a photographer if they can not sell the image. The way the policy is currently written that's what will happen. As for other agencies if the agency can not sell editorially to other publications there is no use for them.
As for Tim's explanation the key word is in connection with game coverage, no archiving means the images can be used for that week. What happens to stock? Personal use I thought was already against the rules so I don't see any change there, I couldn't sell prints before but that's commercial use, but if I have a photo I want to sell to a magazine that's editorial. I don't know how this is going to turn out, but I think fans will notice the lack of available photos in coverage. Who will provide the photos the Universities? Because there are not going to be many good photographers shooting if you take away editorial rights of the photographer. College football will be similar to concerts that are as popular as ever but you don't see much if any photos coming from a concert event because of right's grabs, but football is something that demands coverage. Sports is news not entertainment in today's society, the WWE is entertainment college sports and professional sports are news makers. |
|
Armando Solares, Photographer
|
Englewood | FL | USA | Posted: 7:05 PM on 08.21.09 |
| ->> I think the worst crime of all in this, is that the athletes get none of the money these leagues are are protecting. Not every kid is on a scholarship. |
|
Tim Casey, Photographer
|
Gainesville | FL | USA | Posted: 1:30 AM on 08.22.09 |
->> Good points Derick. The NCAA rules state that photogs CAN sell photos to student-athletes and their families at "fair market value, but CANNOT give photos to them because it would constitute "improper benefits."
On the flip side, photogs CANNOT sell images of current student-athletes to the public. If the photog wanted, they could give the image to the fan, or wait until the student-athlete is no longer in school to sell the image.
The NCAA has allowed "reprints" of images that appeared in news publications as part editorial use, whether or not the student-athlete was in school. I've always wondered if an image that was part of an online gallery would also be eligible to be sold, but never pursued it.
I don't know how the SEC policy will attempt to rewrite the NCAA policy concerning sales of images to student-athletes and their families, or reprints to the general public.
As for photo galleries that are part of game coverage, the language in the new policy isn't very specific. A photo gallery from a game IS news coverage from that event. Stories from the event remain posted on the internet since they don't become less newsworthy over time. Photos posted with a story or within a gallery are no less newsworthy. The SEC is proposing rules that don't see to have much legal merit. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
