| 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
Remove images from a news or agency site?
Mike Janes, Photographer
 |
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 2:34 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> OK, quick breakdown keeping names out of it...
- Company A uses Company B's equipment at events.
- Company A places their logo on Company B's equipment.
- Company A uses the equipment in advertising (not for that piece, but it's shown)
- Company B sues Company A for misrepresentation.
- Judge rules with Company B.
- Company A sends out removal notices that say a judge has ordered them to ask for removal of ALL images that show the equipment being used at the events, basically game photos, even news sites & agencies. It's a blanket ask anyone who has the images to remove the images, which is impossible, but they're trying.
The disturbing part to me is some news agencies have removed the images. It's news, it happened, how and why they agreed is beyond me, someone who believes strongly in the freedom of press.
So, just thought would throw it out there and get some thoughts and opinions. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> It is public record, why worry about leaving names out???? |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 3:06 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> Not really the issue at hand, who cares who it is and call it a hypothetical. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 3:29 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> ...... "who cares who it is" .....
The "WHO" matters greatly because it establishes just how deep the pockets are that will pay the lawyers.
WAY too many details missing to form anything but a knee-jerk reaction and opinion. |
|
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 3:42 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> .
Worst.
SAT question.
EVER.
~~~ |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 3:53 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> If Product A leaves the station at 0:35am, at a speed of 85 kilometers an hour to Junction Point B, which is 298 miles away ... and Product B leaves the opposite station, wearing like logo of Company X, at 1:27am, traveling at 64 knots, at what point will the trains converge? |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 4:06 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> I like turtles. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> They are multi-billion dollar companies with deep pockets, however, this does not actually change the issue at hand as it could be the local mom and pop shops going at it. Maybe changes how far they're willing to go, but not the actual issue of covering an event as a photojournalist and being told to remove the images because of the items in the image are involved in a lawsuit - not anything you did, not anything involving the company you shot for, something that has literally nothing to do with you except you shot images showing the infraction.
What other issues are missing besides the names that are totally irrelevant? |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 4:15 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> I did have to give Jack a funny though on that... |
|
Tom Davenport, Photographer
|
Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> Frischling - The answer to your question is Portland. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> "The answer to your question is Portland"
Oregon or Maine? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:50 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Mike,
Put the names back in. It's too confusing otherwise.
--Mark |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 5:54 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Eh Inc. vs. Bee Inc.
That help? |
|
Sherrlyn Borkgren, Photographer
|
Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> thanks Mark comp A - B made little sense or should I say cents.
Mark have something to chat about with you but can't find that email |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:33 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> "Eh Inc. vs. Bee Inc.
That help?"
Nope. Dude, seriously... why should any one take the time to respond if you can't be open, truthful and provide accurate details, Mike?
Especially after I tried to look it up here: http://tinyurl.com/2eh6ogc |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 6:41 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> "Not really the issue at hand, who cares who it is and call it a hypothetical."
As my esteemed colleague Mr. Canha said, it greatly matters who the parties involved are and their financial ability to defend or litigate.
If the situation was hypothetical to begin with you would not have written "OK, quick breakdown keeping names out of it... ". So it's not.
If anything people should learn when posting on SS is that quick breakdowns almost never work and generally lead to immense frustration for the OP. The quality of the answer is equally and directly proportional, as we have seen here in at least three cases the past two months, to the amount of info provided. 90% of the time bad decision are made due to the lack of information or lack of understanding the info at hand.
If you really, really, really want an honest answer provide additional details like a link(s) to the decision or case on the web. I and most of the other insanely sane folks here other don't want go off half-cocked without a complete understanding of the situation and all the facts.
So, what's the facts, Jack... er Mike? |
|
Tom Davenport, Photographer
|
Hayden | ID | USA | Posted: 6:55 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Colburn,
EXACTLY! |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 8:34 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Though I understand the more details the better, as far as I know the case details are not released. The case itself started awhile back but I can not find any details and did not want to be the one putting the names out there if it was not public knowledge. If I can find the details released no problem, fact is after hours of searching there doesn't seem to be any so believe it's still ongoing, so will error on the side of caution.
Also, that original post was pretty poor as I wrote it quick while doing a few other orders of business and landed a few jobs that get me out of this blizzard (um, the snow, not this thread). Worst part is I had a professor in about 3-4 of my classes that had entire books written like that and we had to come up with answers based off simple notes. I hated his classes so can see that it needs be cleared up a lot. Though did receive a few emails from members who seemed to fully understand. So anyways, let's try this again as I found/remember a similar situation that is public and known...
The Pirates signed two kids out of India a few years ago, each of them signed endorsement deals with equipment and card companies. One of their deals was with Under Armour to wear their cleats and other gear, the stuff that was not Pirates official uniform issue. After signing the deal however one of the pitchers was photographed wearing Reebok cleats even though he had a deal to wear only Under Armour. Here is a photo of him pitching in the wrong cleats...
http://www.daylife.com/photo/0gVFecj192dIy
So, as a photographer shooting that game where he's wearing the wrong cleats do you delete the images off your agency, or from your article, because he did not follow through on the contract? It has nothing to do with you, you're not affiliated with UA, Reebok, the Pirates, nothing. You're there shooting the game as a news agency, a photojournalist. However, UA wants the images removed because he's not wearing the right cleats they paid him to wear. Removing them of course affects future sales. |
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 8:44 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> I'm confused, if the case you mentioned in the first post was the same as the last one (i know its not) who won the case? Did the agency have to remove the pic? |
|
Steven Mullensky, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Port Townsend | WA. | USA | Posted: 8:46 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> I think it is a matter between UA and the pitcher. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 8:50 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> Angus - if that was the case then UA would have won. The agency is not named in the court papers, it really has nothing to do with them except they were there to document it. Odd thing is, in that actual case of the pitcher from India it seems the AP did remove the images, least I can't find them. |
|
Angus Mordant, Student/Intern
|
Sydney | NSW Australia | Australia | Posted: 9:13 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> Well I see no reason for them to have won (same therefore applying to your original post) however I am no legal expert, let alone American laws. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 9:16 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> I've dealt with this before but it wasn't as the result of a lawsuit. Athletes have existing contracts with companies so I have seen advertising and marketing collateral pulled from store displays, catalogs, and retail websites.
However, I find the pulling of images from news sites and agencies is pretty over the line. Advertising is controllable (to an extent) but journalism just covers what happens.
It really depends on who has knowledge of prior agreements. If only the players and their agents did, then I'd fault them. If the Pirates forced the players to wear the Reeboks as part of team policy, then it is their fault as the individual player contracts generally prevail.
Regardless of all that, editorial images shouldn't be targeted. This was a game, not a photo shoot. |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 9:28 PM on 12.13.10 |
| ->> D) All of the Above |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:52 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Tom:
"EXACTLY!"
I thought so! |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 10:14 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> The added info helps.
If the agency in question were Getty, then yes, it's completely believable for them to yank the image at Under Armor's request since UA is a pretty big client of theirs and they also are the sole commercial license holder for MLB imagery working in conjunction with MLB photos. For giggles, try to find any decent images of any MLB or NBA brawls/fights on Getty's site. It's just not going to happen since they bend over backwards to keep the leagues happy. They also don't really consider themselves a "news" organization per se more as they are a commercial entity, so freedom of the press essentially carries the weight of wet toilet paper with them.
AP on the other hand has a long standing reputation as being a news gathering and distribution conduit. They also have no such commercial agreement with MLB (yet), so such a request will go unfulfilled more than likely. If it were an NFL player on the other hand, I still see them honoring the request because of their different ideology.
This is really more of a breach of contract issue with the player and Under Armor. If Tiger Woods were caught wearing Calloway gear during an event Nike would have some unkind words for him but they wouldn't be able to really tell anyone not to publish/distribute the photos. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:28 PM on 12.13.10 |
->> Hey Mike,
Thanks for the clarification. What Thomas said sums up what my response would be. Only those media outlets wishing to remain in good standing with the league or client extending the request would feel motivated to comply to their request. Then the expectation of the same compliance would become expected at any time in the future. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:26 AM on 12.14.10 |
->> +1 What Thomas said.
Clark, Mrs. Canha would like to discuss getting the coffee out of her laptop's keyboard :) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|