| 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
Court rules against Gannett
Mike Brice, Photographer
 |
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 8:24 AM on 06.16.11 |
->> http://www.naa.org/Public-Policy/First-Amendment-Issues/Defamation-and-News...
This is about the issue with the Wisconsin football games.
Court rules no 1st Amendment right to cover football games. So if the court rules that an event organizer can decide who is the exclusive video provider, does the court also believe that the event organizer can decide who is the exclusive print provider.
Does this relate to all events, or does the court just believe that there is no 1st amendment right to sporting events.
Some interesting changes could happen on the media landscape if this ruling is not appealed or organizers try to apply it broadly. |
|
Jack Kurtz, Photographer
|
Phoenix | AZ | United States | Posted: 10:02 AM on 06.16.11 |
| ->> It doesn't actually rule on covering the games, the ruling is on livestreaming video from the games. It's also from 2010. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:18 AM on 06.16.11 |
| ->> Jack good catch on the date. This popped up in today's feed (not sure why) and I missed that it was last year ruling and not the ruling on the appeal. Mike picked up the the bad info from me.... |
|
Andrew Brosig, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 08.26.11 |
->> This is very interesting. Thanks for the update.
It also brings up an interesting Catch-22 for those working for papers like Gannett versus those who freelance who want to maintiain control over our images' use. This ruling puts us theoritically arguing both sides of the fence against ourselves and within ourselves.
As journalists we want free and unlimited access to do our jobs -- which is Gannett's stance too. But as image owners we also want a say on who can and cannot use our photography -- which is the WIAA's stance. In both cases it comes down to money.
Traditional broadcast rights have been around for decades and is a huge revenue stream for event organizers. There wasn't a problem with stills and newspaper coverage in the past because they weren't live. However, with today's technology live streaming by a newspaper competes with the live stream television provides which competes with the revenue stream the organizers benefit from. Broadcast rights pay big because they have an exclusivity to provide live coverage. Add another media who does essentially the same live stream without having to pay for the right to do so and the TV contract's worth plummets as does the organizer's income.
What hasn't been mentioned is whether the WIAA offered Internet streaming rights to Gannett and other media for a fee similar to broadcast rights and if the papers refused. Was that ever on the negotiation table as a compromise possibility?
And similarly, if TV's contract calls for it to have "exclusive" video rights to an event, could photographers be denied access because they are using a still camera that can also shoot video? The only way to fully enforce the non-video by others clause is to state what model still cameras are allowed to be used and which aren't. Now this may seem like a crazy notion, but think about it. It is the next natural step in protecting broadcast rights -- not just with the NFL, but for next summer's Olympics in London where OLY organizers and TV rights holders are rabid about any contract breaches. At the Olympics it is in the credentialing rules that one cannot shoot stills 8 frames a second and then do a slide show sequence that makes it look like video.
(Please don't counter with the public using cell phone cameras and how to enforce that. I'm talking about commercial use of professional imagery -- still and video -- by pro photographers. And even though the newspaper used imagery is for "editorial use" it is still commercial in nature because of the money that is generated from the hits and adverstising on the paper's website.)
In essence, the access argument isn't about coverage but is about money and how the revenue pie is divided up. Isn't it? |
|
Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
|
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 08.26.11 |
->> In Washington the WIAA works with print media and, in our case, Internet media to allow livestreaming of State Playoff games as long as we pay the broadcast right to do so.
It might also be noted that we work with our interscholastic athletic association cloesly and have built a working relationship with their media people.
Broadcast, both radio and television has, to my knowledge, never been a priviledge, but pay-to-play issue with these associations.
Print on the other hand is protected by 1st amendment rights. I've never had to pay to cover a state game as long as I represented a legitimate media outlet. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:26 PM on 08.26.11 |
->> Doug wrote: "And even though the newspaper used imagery is for "editorial use" it is still commercial in nature because of the money that is generated from the hits and adverstising (sic) on the paper's website."
Sorry, Doug, but your definition and/or perception of what is editorial and commercial use, as it relates to photography is incorrect. The use of imagery and text in a publication is no way commercial nature. The purpose of images and text is to communicate and inform the public of an event which was observed by a reporter or photographer, which the essence of editorial usage.
Commercial use of works, text or photographic or video, has clearly been established as any use which promotes, advertises, or markets a product or service. The photos and artwork use within the ads found in a publication is definitely commercial use, however, the photos and artwork used in reporting on an event or person has always legally been considered editorial. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:33 PM on 08.26.11 |
| ->> FYI: The court ruled only on the aspects of live broadcasting of the WIAA events which includes live blogging in addition to delayed and non-delayed streaming on the internet. The court did not consider still photography or normal news reporting in its decision. |
|
Doug Pizac, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | USA | Posted: 12:06 AM on 08.27.11 |
->> Clark...
I'm fully aware of the differences between editorial and commercial use of photography, need for model releases, etc. What I was talking about -- or attempting to -- was that newspapers and their owners are commercial in nature in that they are for-profit entities instead of non-profits (some of which are highly profitable).
If there isn't money to be made in covering events via advertising, web hits, subscriptions, etc., then that coverage isn't going to be very high on the assignment list. Subjects that are popular with readers, spectators, web viewers, etc. command more commercial interest than those that have fewer followers. For example, how much coverage does your local paper give to football versus fencing, or men's basketball versus volleyball? The more popular the subject, the more readers; the more readers, the better the circulation numbers; the higher the circulation, the more the paper can charge for advertising. And what is advertising? Commercialism -- not commercial versus editorial photography.
As a freelance photographer if there were two events on the same night where one could make a lot of money shooting X, or little if any money on shooting Y, which one would you choose? X of course. That's the commercialism I was alluding to.
As to having live streaming access, there would be no point in pursuing it if there wasn't a means to profit from it in some way -- in looking at it from a commercial/business standpoint.
Maybe a better word to have used instead of commercial would have been capitalism. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 12:47 AM on 08.27.11 |
->> The ruling was kind of peculiar. One of the issues they used was the live streaming of the "complete" event. They also did not rule on the copyright, for which they would have had to define the event as a "performance," which would have been difficult legally.
--Mark |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:35 AM on 08.27.11 |
->> "Maybe a better word to have used instead of commercial would have been capitalism."
Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure you knew the difference between editorial and commercial usage as it relates to photography. A lot of people in this business do not know the difference and I think your post might have confused the two categories as well convolve the point you wanted to make.
Yes, newspapers are for-profit enterprises and engaged in commerce to generate a profit for the owners/shareholders.
Back to the case analysis, yes the issue is money. Selling broadcast rights generates a lot of revenue for state high school associations to cover their operating budgets each year. If that was removed, it would pretty much threaten the entire system of prep state championships throughout the country.
If court had ruled in favor of Gannett, it could have, down the road, had far reaching effects into the broadcast rights of college athletics and may be even professional sports. The issue would be back in court, with newspapers, hungry to use technology as another way to generate income as you suggested, on one side, broadcast affiliates and the NCAA on the other side trying to protect the status quo.
In regards to broadcasting the entire game, FWIW, I side with the court's decision. However, that should not stop Gannett or any other newspaper from recording video and using 30 second clips to report on the game as news stations are traditionally allowed.
I do disagree with lumping "Live Blogging" with broadcasting. Blogging is written word, not spoken or continuous video or radio transmission and should still be considered an editorial product. I think that aspect of the decision should be challenged. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|