| 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
Lets kick photographers just one more time
Pete Gawlik, Photographer
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
 |
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> Looks like the "local agency" negotiated an exclusivity contract ... probably offering the organization a kickback on earnings generated from the sale of the images to publications .... it was bound to be tried sooner or later ... just one more avenue for pro teams to collect a little more for the coffers .....
It will be interesting to see if publications will use the agency ... I'm sure it will be a tug of war between bottom line and typical game coverage ... if the publications can buy an image or two per game for less than what they would pay a staffer, stringer or freelancer .... they likely will lower their standards and accept the situation .....
I just hope it doesn't become the norm ... |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 6:22 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> The only way I can see to combat this is a collective refusal to cover their games in any way. No story, no photo, no nothing. Using one 'approved' agency makes any shots simple, PR handout photos. Using handout photos isn't journalism. Its PR. If the media outlets on the outside looking in want to continue to be able to commit journalism they need to stand up and fight this right now because there probably isn't going to be a later.
My two cents. |
|
Jack Megaw, Photographer, Assistant
|
Philadelphia | PA | America | Posted: 8:36 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> It's outrageous. The media has to turn around and refuse to cover their matches it's the only solution I can see.
I can't imagine being a local freelancer making my living from covering teams in that area to see Portsmouth relegated (likely to drop down again due to financial trouble) and Southampton get relegated and then to now also be denied access at Southampton on top of that.
They're a League 1 team at the moment (third tier of English football) so I wouldn't expect for them to receive anywhere as much coverage as a Premiership side but it doesn't make it any near less terrible.
Personally I'm praying that they get relegated again and this morning I would have said I'd like them to bounce back. (none of these worries at my Chelsea F.C fortunately)
-Jack |
|
Paul W Gillespie, Photographer
|
Annapolis | MD | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 08.06.10 |
| ->> The situation sucks but I love reading the coments under the story. This might be my favorite quote from Sir Bevois "The media do throw their teddies out of the pram even quicker than those they accuse of doing so." Not sure what it means but it is funny. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 9:13 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> In theory, photography should mirror video, screenwriting, or several other similar occupations/HOBBIES. I know people who desired to be extras in a movie or tv show, and they would've happily accepted their roles in exchange for the opportunity... yet they were paid a couple hundred to even a couple of thousand dollars for their efforts.
Interestingly enough, it would be logical to think the necessity to purchase $10-20K+ of equipment should inevitably provide higher wages then roles for extras in a B-movie. Unfortunately, I've only had a brief insight into the profession but my observation is that somewhere in the evolution of the business, hubris must've overcome logic, and photographers forewent unionization or mandated professional certification like every other profession. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 08.06.10 |
| ->> The only good thing about this is that I'm sure that the British press will show Southampton a collective "V" sign (and not the one meaning "peace"). |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 10:53 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> John, after reading your post several times I realize that it reminds me of a famous quote:
“I personally believe, that U.S. Americans, are unable to do so, because uh,
some, people out there, in our nation don’t have maps.
and uh…
I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq,
everywhere like such as… and, I believe they should uh,
our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S.
or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us.” -Miss South Carolina Lauren Caitlin Upton
;-) |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:23 PM on 08.06.10 |
->> John,
Photographers in the U.S. didn't forgo unions. As independent businesses, they are barred by federal law from engaging in collective bargaining.
That said, quite a few staff photographers belong to unions such as the Newspaper Guild and the Wire Service Guild.
--Mark |
|
Stephen Brashear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 11:22 AM on 08.07.10 |
| ->> Mark - I'm assuming that screen writers, actors, cinemaphotographers, directors etc., are independent businesses/contractors, why are they allowed to unionized, but not photographers? I have not been able to find an answer to that question. |
|
Jeroen de Jong, Photographer
|
Waalwijk | _ | Netherlands | Posted: 11:57 AM on 08.07.10 |
->> I don't have the right words for things like this.
The right thing to do is not to cover games played Southhampton, like Adam said. So not only pictures, but no game-reports in the paper.
Or you could write a game-report with a nice clean clear square beside with the text: `There would be a photograph in this box. But Southampton F.C. has deceided not to allow any photographers of non-local newsagency to their stadium. As an independent paper we want to deceide for our own what photographs to show. Instead, we now show no photographs.´ |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:02 PM on 08.07.10 |
->> Stephen,
When screen writers, actors, cinematographers, directors etc. work in the motion picture industry they become temporary full time employees of the production company. As such, the production company owns all rights to their work.
--Mark |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 08.07.10 |
->> Stephen,
Oh yes, and production still photographers too.
--Mark |
|
Steve King, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Ann Arbor | MI | USA | Posted: 8:44 PM on 08.07.10 |
->> Something similar is happening with Universities from the Big Ten, again, this year. "Protecting the brand" and "restricting access" is the "reason" given. Getty is contracted and welcome, good luck to any others.
No mention is made of wealthy donors standing on the sidelines with P&S. |
|
Stephen Brashear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 9:23 PM on 08.07.10 |
| ->> Mark - Cool thanks. I didn't realize it was that simple. I was trying to figure that out for some time. Do you know of any independent contract groups that have exemptions. I seem to remember that there were some groups trying to get freelance photographers exempt from that part of the anti-trust laws. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:09 PM on 08.07.10 |
->> "I'm assuming that screen writers, actors, cinemaphotographers, directors etc., are independent businesses/contractors, why are they allowed to unionized, but not photographers?"
Remember what they say about "assume"? The way the system works is they become employees of the production company making the film or tv show for the duration of the production and are not independent contractors. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:52 AM on 08.08.10 |
->> Stephan, There was an attempt to get a measure exempting independent contractors from anti-trust laws a couple of years ago. It was not successful.
--Mark |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Killeen | TX | United States | Posted: 9:14 AM on 08.08.10 |
| ->> I agree that, in a perfect world, a boycott of covering the team would be the way to go. Unfortunately, in the end, I fear the only ones who would be hurt by that policy would be the publications. Fans are still going to go to the games and buy the schlock they sell; television is still (as I read it) going to be allowed to cover the games. Readers aren't going to understand the larger issue. All they are going to see is "my team isn't in the newspaper. Why should I read the newspaper?" |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:14 PM on 08.08.10 |
->> Andrew,
You seem to be suggesting that photographers work under non-profitable arrangements to protect publications that nobody would want to read without their work.
--Mark |
|
Jack Megaw, Photographer, Assistant
|
Philadelphia | PA | America | Posted: 3:01 PM on 08.09.10 |
->> The Plymouth Herald have replied to Southampton F.C's banning of press photographers by hiring a cartoonist for their post match coverage instead of buying photographs from the agency with exclusive rights...not what I was expecting but it's clever.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/21664/ |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 3:23 PM on 08.09.10 |
->> "The Plymouth Herald have replied to Southampton F.C's banning of press photographers by hiring a cartoonist"
If only they'd gotten the guys from South Park to do it. |
|
Pete Gawlik, Photographer
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Indiana | IN | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 08.10.10 |
| ->> Good idea about the South Park guys, Jim. |
|
Patrick Kane, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Petersburg | VA | USA | Posted: 8:25 PM on 08.10.10 |
| ->> The cartoons are a creative solution that probably brought more attention to the issue than a mention in the story of the ban. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|