| 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
Censorship? I need some direction here...
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 8:18 AM on 01.18.10 |
->> I need some direction here folks. We all know that the fight to get credentialed to events can sometimes be interesting, well here is my most recent story from the land of horse racing.
We made the request for credentials to cover (an awards ceremony, I will try to be non-descript, but those who know can figure it out). Well, we were denied credentials and in the response email was told that the news outlets I have contracts to supply editorial photography to (big ones) could only get photos from the company that has their contract, then they cc'ed that company's owner in the email.
I am sure that other media will be there. It is a big event in California and there have to be some paparazzi there for the celebrity angle. If it ended there, it might be just annoying, but it goes further.
An article was written about me when I won an independent photo contest and it was written for their website. Well, this "company" while denying the credential for my agency also completely yanked that story from their website. I realize they are "supporting" their guy who they have a contract with, but when does this border on unequal access? What are the legal remedies I can seek?
Please keep in mind that my agency covered every race of the Triple Crown, the Breeders Cup and has been credentialed at every major race in the UK, France, Hong Kong, Japan and Dubai. So this isn't like we are just a freelancer trying to get access, we are pretty well established. Also, there is a ton more backstory to this that I can't put on here. But, seriously, I am anticipating future issues and would like some direction. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 8:34 AM on 01.18.10 |
| ->> Scott, who is "We"? Do you work for a news agency or are you freelancinghere? You mention and independent photo contest award, then refer to "we". I know nothing of horse racing politics, but this is a bit confusing. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 8:40 AM on 01.18.10 |
->> The "we" is my agency. I run it, but I am also shoot quite regularly. There are a bunch of contributing photographers as well. As an agency, "we" have contracts to provide editorial photography for several news outlets. So, when "we" go somewhere, we are never going as a freelancer. We are there for a purpose and the images end up in a publication or on a website.
Sorry, my biggest failing, incomplete communication. Hope that clears it up, but I am definitely a player/coach. In this instance the "we" is for the credential request, but the "me" is for the contest.
I would point you to the article where the writer mentions my agency and me and how we are evolving, but, well, it has been erased from cyberspace. |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 9:14 AM on 01.18.10 |
->> It doesn't sound to me like there is anything illegal going on. It sounds like a private enterprise doing what they feel is right for themselves.
If it were a Government agency blocking access, or giving unequal treatment then you might have a legal issue. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 9:39 AM on 01.18.10 |
->> The cached version of the interview in question still resides on Google's servers; with Scott's permission I am posting a link here:
http://www.tinyurl.com/scott-serio |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 01.18.10 |
->> Unequal access? Since when has access ever been equal?
How many times have you covered an event where the language in the credentialing process specifically states that each organization will be issued ONE photo credential and that no assistants will be credentialed, only to find several field level photographers who have someone following them around toting a bag or a lens for them?
How many times have such credential agreements stated "no children" and yet there is a photographer with his 12 year old son or nephew on the sidelines as an assistant (assistants, as you may recall, are not credentialed either much less child aged assistants)?
How many times have you covered an event and one organization (often a local paper or papers) has three or four shooters working as a team (each organization will be issued ONE photo credential)?
How many times have you covered an event and you are sandwiched between two other persons wearing photo credentials who are either using a point and shoot camera or no camera at all (credentials will be issued on a priority basis to publications with daily circulation of 100,000 or more and to others on a case by case basis)? One of these people is producing photos that will not be useful to most publications and the other is not producing photographs at all.
There is no right to equal access. If there were, every person with a camera and a website who wanted to cover an event that requires credentials would have a "right" to those credentials. The fans would have to stay home and watch the game on TV because there would be 60,000 credentialed photographers. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 12:09 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> Well, equal access is definitely parsed out. Clearly, it is divided among the most pertinent players and those with local interest. For an NCAA hoops event, you can be assured that SI, ESPN, AP, Getty, Reuters, AFP, EPA will be there. And others with that stature. The you will have the local papers and the school.
In horse racing, there are pretty much only two who cover it regularly, and we are one of the two. We covered more horse racing than anyone last year. Period. I know, for most horse racing isn't even a blip on the radar. Still, it is a sport with a solid following and we cover it.
I do realize as well that the end result might just be that private businesses can arbitrarily decide for any capricious reason they want who to credential and who not.
Of course that is another thread down the road to what McLuhan called something like the homogenization of the media. You know, that horrible situation where you might only get ONE VIEWPOINT of a sport. I mean, seriously, that would never happen right? I mean, no sport would ever just say, "XYZ Company is the only one who can shoot our sports cards." Right?
You see where I am going. Just wondering if some of the more knowledgeable on here have precedents. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 12:41 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> Sorry, but this sounds more like sour grapes to me. From what you've described, it sounds like in the past YOU have been the one closest to providing ONE VIEWPOINT since, as you've stated, you work for several publications at once AND you "covered more horse racing that anyone" last year. Am I off base here?
If anything, your beef ought to be with your clients, who appear willing to accept PR handout photos from the people they are supposed to be covering rather than insisting on their own guy (even if they apparently share you with several of their competing publications).
Again, I don't pretend to understand horse racing media coverage, just trying to understand what you've put forward here. |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 1:12 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> Yes, a private business is permitted to choose whom they do business with when their choices are not influenced by race or religion.
You probably need to take some people out to lunch and carefully create better relationships without bringing this topic up. Maybe play some golf with key people. And maybe you need to work some deals with sponsors and corporate partners. That's an angle you should be able to leverage very easily. Perhaps self publishing a book would also help forge new enthusiasm for your specific type of photography. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> Private enterprise = the ability to determine who gets to cover their events; they could even limit that to a single news outlet or photographer....
If the event's occurring in a public place, you could attend, at least until such time as you were asked to leave.
A few years ago, someone was converting the former J. Seward Johnson estate in Princeton, N.J. into a private golf club. The zoning board decided to actually hold a working meeting on the grounds to assess the plans for the conversion. We received a phone call in the newsroom shortly before the meeting to let us know that the Johnson family would not authorize any photographers to be present. Reporters o.k., photographers not.
Since New Jersey had a Sunshine Law, it took a quick call to the township manager to get that edict overturned.... |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 3:45 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> I kind of figured we would land in the private arena for the awards. Public events where they issue multiple credentials would be different.
For Chuck - until we came along, the other guy was the only voice. We are the first ones to challenge the homogenization. And for our efforts, well, business moves are business moves. My clients will not accept the photos from their sole source. So that is not really an issue. As, yes, we have covered more racing than anyone. Not sure how that equates to being the only viewpoint. We actually stood up to the garbage the other guy was putting out and sought to put out a better, more diverse product. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes not, but at least we try.
At the end of the day, no magic bullet for this issue.
Thanks for the input. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 01.18.10 |
->> Scott,
Buy a ticket and shoot from the stands or position around the track. During the Illinois Press Photographer's dispute with the Illinois prep sports association, many of us shot from the stands rather than sign over the rights to the images we created for our employers or clients at state wrestling and cheerleading. If your clients aren't going to purchase photos from the 'other' source and you are the only two gamers in town, you and your crew have nothing to worry about. Yeah, you might make nice pictures on the track or closer, but you'll give your readers a different perspective if you plan out shooting positions or seats to buy to get the best angles for the awards or competition.
If you are there working mulitple publications and covering the event have the editors request a credential for you or your staff. If they refuse to give the paper/mag/website the cred, then they'll have to deal with the wrath and possible negative publicity the would receive from the 'leading' publications you essentially working for. Let the publications, especially three or four, put pressure on the administration for you. If they truly want and appreciate your work, they will be more than happy to help you in the situation. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:18 PM on 01.18.10 |
| ->> The freedom of speech includes the right not to speak. This company in taking down the article is exercising that right. Doesn't mean that I think it's the right thing to do, but I'm not seeing that it's illegal. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:05 AM on 01.19.10 |
| ->> The organization does not have to grant equal access. If they want, they can simply say that they don't allow shooters named Mark. In fact they can use any reason that they wish as long as they don't discriminate based on things like race, gender, religion, marital status, etc. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|